Truth Magazine

By Warren E. Berkle

A bewildered mother wrote to Ann Landers for advice in raising her children. The essence of her inquiry was this: How can a person tell right from wrong? The answer appeared in Ann Landers’ syndicated column as follows:

Dear Mother: A few years ago I heard a sermon by the beloved pastor of the People’s Church of Chicago, Dr. Preston Bradley. He discussed this very subject and quoted Harry Emerson Fosdick’s six-point test for deciding what is right and what is wrong. I asked Dr. Bradley if he would send me his distilled version and he did so at once. Here it is:

One: Does the course of action you plan to follow seem sensible and honorable to you? Never mind what anyone else has to say. If it does, it is probably right.

Two: Does it pass the test of sportsmanship? In other words, if everyone followed this same course of action, would the results be beneficial for all?

Three: Where will your plan of action lead? How will it affect others? What will it do to you?

Four: Will you think well of yourself when you look back at what you have done?

Five: Try to separate yourself from the problem. Pretend for a moment that it is the problem of the person you most admire. Ask yourself, “How would THAT person handle it?”

Six: Hold up the final decision to the glaring light of publicity. Would you want your family and friends to know what you have done? The decisions we make in the hope that no one will find out are usually wrong.

Dr. Fosdick’s “Six-Point Plan” as described by Dr. Preston Bradley is, in my opinion, as fine a guide for decision making as I have ever heard. I hope your children will find answers they are seeking. They’re all right there (Taken from The Southwest Times Record, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Sept. 17, 1974).

Our aim in this article is to review and evaluate the kind of thinking here represented. Our first observation concerns the kind of preaching Ann Landers heard at The People’s Church in Chicago (our remarks will show ,he fitness of “People’s Church instead of “Christ’s church!).

Bradley – Typical Modern Preacher!

The “beloved pastor” of the People’s Church of Chicago is a typical modern preacher! To an audience of starved souls who need moral guidance, Bradley quotes-not Christ or Paul-but Fosdick! And it’s a sad commentary on our times that Bradley would be quite welcome in most pulpits across the land.

We are fully convinced that such preaching as this is not gospel preaching. And, since the gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16), these modern preachers are no! addressing themselves to the spiritual needs of man. They may be pleasing their audiences and “seeking the favor of men,” but they are not gospel preachers!

Let us hear from the Bible on this matter. Paul wrote: . . . If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:9-12). That settles it!

But Bradley would have to say: “For I make known to Von, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that IT IS AFTER MAN. For neither did I receive it from God’s word, but it came to me FROM HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK!”

Fosdick’s “Gospel”

The “gospel” according to Fosdick is nothing but sheer humanism! Humanism is a school of though based on the crumbling premise of man’s essential goodness and perfectability. The whole emphasis of humanism is on man’s viewpoint and human ability to arrive at sound moral decisions with no aid from above. “This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (Jas. 3:15).

While our limits will not permit us to enter upon an extensive examination of Fosdick’s six-point plan, a few observations are in order:

1. Arriving at a sound method of distinguishing heiween right and m,rong is infinitely beyond the capacity of sinful men! If we consult the opinions of men in an effort to measure moral worth, we will be lost in a sea of contradiction and weakness. Jeremiah reminds us that, “the way of man is not in himself; it is no, in man that walketh to direct his steps” (10:23). Man needs moral guidance, but “in himself” cannot accuralely respond to that basic need. God can, and does !hrough His Son, Jesus Christ (Matt. 17:1-5; 28:18-20; Heb. 1:14; Col. 2:8; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:11). Harry Emerson Fosdick, Preston Bradley and Ann Landers are noi qualified to propose any kind of moral plan, but CHRIST IS! Follow Him.

2. Human plans of “righleousness” are self-serving. A basic question we need to answer is whether the moral standards we promote are actually encouraging and sirengthening our own selfish appetites and impulses (notice the prominence of “you” in Fosdick’s plan)! The ,ru!li is, men who have sinned will be inclined to think in terms of self. For this reason, Christ calls upon sinners to deny self (Matt. 16:24-26). Could we practice self-denial while following the Fosdick plan? And, does Fosdick really know what is best for man? That brings us to our next point. . . .

3. Fosdicks plan exciudes God! Under point one he observes, “Never mind what anyone else has to say.” He might well have said, “Never mind what God has to say,” because that is exactly what he did! But God has a plan. The gospel of Christ is God’s plan for making men right through obedient faith (Rom. 1:16,17) – and right men and women (Christians) will be able to make right moral decisions. This is so because, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them vou may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desire” (2 Pet. 1:3,4 in New International Version). God has given us “everything we need,” so who needs Fosdick’s plan?

4. He fails to exalt the example of Christ. In fact, he assigns no importance to the example of Christ by excluding such from his discussion of how to arrive at “hat is right! Point five says: “Pretend for a moment that it is the problem of the person you most admire. Ask yourself, ‘How would THAT person handle it’?” But, fortunately, we do not need to rely upon the examples of imperfect men (remember, Fosdick is a humanist!). Christ “is the only man who ever perfectly discerned every problem and every issue of life. He ‘was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”? (Heb. 4:15). The devil and all his friends, the combined forces of the opposition, hounded him, tested him, tried him, tempted him, persecuted him and crucified him, but he was able to take everything they could hand out, answering every question and handling every matter and every circumstance with perfection. To the extent we follow the principles Christ laid down, we shall be wise discerners” (Quoted from The Christian’s Everyday Problems, by Leroy Brownlow, page 24).

Other observations could be mentioned, but these are deemed sufficient to demonstrate the godless humanism characteristic of modernists such as Harry Emerson Fosdick. How unwise to place our confidence in such men! Our faith “should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). “Therefore, my Christian brothers, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the Messenger and High Priest whom we profess to follow” (Heb. 3:1, Williams’ Translation).

Conclusion

Beneath all the verbal nonsense and technicalities, there are only two moral alternatives to which we can pledge loyalty: ONE IS HUMAN, THE OTHER DIVINE! Either we will respect the standards set by our Creator in determining what is right and wrong, or we will formulate our own. Which will it be? Dear Ann Landers, or Dear God?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 733-734
November 18, 1976

By Voyd N.Ballard

In every generation there have been some of God’s people that have rejected Him and determined in their hearts to have their own way, regardless of what God says. This was true of God’s people in the days of the prophet Elijah, and it is equally true today.

These perverters of truth never want their false doctrines and practices exposed, and while pretending to “love” everything arid everybody, they cry long and loud against any and all that have the courage to expose them and their teachings. They cry, “Let us alone,” “You are causing trouble in the church,” “You are trying to censor everyone else and build up a clique of your own.” Others who claim to stand for the truth just stand on the sidelines and say, “We believe in preaching the truth and exposing error, but we don’t like the way you are doing it.” Of the two, the latter is the most deceptive; he is the one most likely to lead brethren into error, for by his constant criticizing of those who are exposing false teachers he leads many brethren to think the exposers of error are just “trouble makers” and if they would just “leave these things alone they will soon die out and not bother us anymore.” Proof of this can be seen in institutional churches all over the land today. Many of these churches could have been saved from the clutches of institutionalism if those who claimed to be sound preachers had taken a stand and preached the truth on the work of the church, and exposed the errors of institutionalism fifteen or twenty years ago. But they did not do it. They didn’t want to “rock the boat.” They said, “These issues are not bothering us here.” They criticized brethren that were preaching against these big promotional projects and said, “they are just causing a lot of trouble over nothing.” As a result of this attitude hundreds of churches went into institutionalism that probably could have been saved had these fellows taught them the truth before they became so steeped in these errors. Some eighteen or twenty years ago when I was preaching in Ventura, California, and was being partially supported by the church meeting at 1345 Mountain View Avenue in San Bernardino, California (no reflection on this congregation) Thomas Allen Robertson who was the preacher in San Bernardino (arid whom I am sure the elders there thought was sound in the faith on the issues) wrote me that I should “just preach the truth in Ventura and ignore the institutional brethren.” I think I know now what he really meant was, “Don’t expose institutionalism.” This statement is based on the fact that he is now preaching for a liberal church in Porterville, and is a panel member of a question and answer program on a television station which they advertise as “sponsored by the church in Tulare, California and under the supervision of the Tulare elders.” This program is actually a small “Herald of Truth,” and nobody knows it better than Thomas Allen Robertson. They claim they will answer live and over the air “any Bible related question,” but when I phoned in the following question: “Where is the passage of scripture that authorizes the arrangement you have in soliciting money from all the churches to be sent to the Tulare elders to spend in sponsoring and supervising your T.V. program?” They held me on the phone until after the program went off the air, and then one of their panel members came on and said he would talk to me privately. He informed me that they tried to “screen” the questions and keep such questions as mine from being broadcast! When 1 told him I would still like to have the scripture he said it was Matt. 28:18,20. I then asked him if this passage would also authorize the Missionary Society of the Christian church and he said, “You are just trying to make trouble and I don’t want to argue about it.”

Those who have steadfastly demanded a “Thus saith the Lord” for all teaching and practice have always been branded as “trouble makers” by false teachers. Old Ahab wanted to follow Baal, so he thought the best way to fool the people was to ask Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17). Just make the people think that the man who has the courage to expose false doctrine is the “trouble maker.” That is the same old song we are hearing again today. Do not expose these fellows in the church today that are running around all over the country advocating “grace only” “faith only” “fellowship everything and everybody” and the Lord only knows what else. You will cause trouble, you are judging them, etc., etc.

Just remember this, brethren: The man who stands for the truth is not the “trouble maker.” Truth never causes division. Trouble and division come because men reject the truth, and insist on injecting teachings and practices which the Lord has not authorized. “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (1 Kings 18:18).

Any man who attempts to silence the mouth and pen of those who are “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17) by pleading for sympathy for these false teachers had just as well be teaching error along with them. Regardless of all the twisting and perverting now being done, the Holy Spirit still says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9,10,11).

So far as I know, no one in the church ever so much as suspected that this passage had reference to the divinity of Christ only until Ketcherside and his cohorts conjured up the idea in an attempt to justify fellowshiping everyone who claims to believe Christ is the Son of God, regardless of what they teach or practice.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 732
November 18, 1976

By William V Beasley

Me thinks I can hear one say, “Preacher, have you taken leave of your senses? Don’t you know that Jesus is the Savior?” Yes, I know Jesus is my Savior and I also know what my Savior taught about baptism and salvation. It was Jesus who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . .” (Mark 16:16). Jesus, the savior, saves those who obey Him: “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

But, dear friend, this is not the reason I said, “baptism saves.” I said it because. God said: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. . .” (1 Pet. 3:21). Much of the religious world has changed “now” to “not”. If you do not believe baptism is essential to salvation, your argument is not with me, but with God-I merely quoted from His book.

If Jesus saves the obedient, those who are baptized, what is your condition if you have not been baptized? Or if you have been baptized for the wrong reason (thinking you were already saved)?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 731
November 18, 1976

By Wallace H. Little

Harold Trimble, who returned from a preaching visit to the Philippine Islands earlier this year, remarked that one who goes there will receive all kinds of appeals for help, and each one will tear at your heart. He is so right!

Basically, their appeals for assistance break down into two major categories. These are: support in preaching the gospel, and benevolence. This latter is subdivided into two different areas: individual, where the person himself or his family is in need, and a more broad appeal, as, when a bad typhoon hits that nation causing wide-spread damage and suffering, which our brethren, along with the spiritual Gentiles must endure.

I receive several urgent appeals each week, seeking financial assistance, from brethren who are preaching, or want to preach the gospel of Christ there. My experience tells me most of these men are honest and sincere, motivated by the desire to save their fellow citizens in that nation. Their appeals tug at my heart, and especially so since I know the money is simply not available today among U.S. saints to satisfy these urgent requests. In the Philippines, there are more than 350 men preaching, either full-time or as they have opportunity, who also oppose the institutional apostasy. Of these, more than 100 currently are supported by brethren in the U.S. Support in preaching is more critical in their economy than in our own. In my case, I provided my own support for the first eleven years I preached. I did not have all the time I wanted for activities such as studying, preparing lessons, writing, visiting brethren in the congregation, and so on, but the point is, I was able to do it. Paul J. Casebolt, of Paden City, West Virginia, still does so, and those who know him and his work would hardly argue he is not effective. And there are others. Now in our country, we can do this, basically, for two reasons: first, most secular work is on an eight-hour day, five-day week; and second, our economy provides the cash flow we need to take care of our living requirements, and often more than that, without the necessity of supplementing it with gardens and raising our own animals for food. The Philippine economy provides neither. Most of the jobs available to brethren there are far more demanding of time than ours. Additionally, even with a secular job, most brethren need to supplement their income by raising a great deal of their own food. The net effect is to so reduce the time a man has for preaching that his effectiveness is severely impaired.

This limited amount of income from secular work, incidentally, is the basic reason why most churches there are presently incapable of supporting their own preachers. Even if all Filipino saints contributed Scripturally, however, and the preachers received an income roughly equal to that of the members, they would still have to do as the members do, and get out and raise most of their food. Consequently, the work would suffer considerably because of the reduced time they could spend doing it. Additionally, many of the preachers there, from their income, provide the congregation with a place of worship. Sometimes it is their own home, when they are able to locate and rent one large enough for this. At other times, it is a separate place. And because transportation is, by their standards, so expensive, places of worship must be within walking distance of where brethren live. This accounts for several smaller churches in towns when in the U.S., all would combine into one. Yet more, many, if not most of the preachers preach for several churches, increasing their expenses, particularly for transportation. This is necessary, for if they do not do so, the other churches would not be edified.

There is some inequity in support provided. First, there have been several men found to be plainly dishonest. Largely, these have been identified and their support has been cut off. This does not mean such will not happen again, but it is less likely. Beyond dishonesty, some few men are over-supported in terms of their needs (they usually use the money in other ways to spread the gospel) while a great number are grossly under-supported. And there are several hundred deserving men, capable men, men eager to preach God’s gospel who are totally without support. The work in the nation suffers from all these circumstances. There has been some criticism of these inequities, both from Filipino brethren themselves and from Americans. But I know of no way to cure them short of an unscriptural centralized organization through which all recommendations for support would be approved and all monies dispensed to the preachers there. I have as much objection to that as I have to the Philippine Bible College (PBC) and its practices along this line over the years.

There is also a good deal of naivety on the part of Filipino preachers concerning both the income American brethren have, and our desire to help spread the gospel overseas. First, it is assumed we are rich; the fact we are Americans, to them, is the absolute proof this is true. With some, no amount of explanation changes their mind. The result is they simply do not understand when they can live on $100.00 per month, and an American saint earns $1000.00 monthly, why the American cannot just take the $900.00 above his 11 needs” and use it to support nine Filipino preachers. This misunderstanding is not universal . . . but it is sufficiently wide-spread that many believe it, and consequently question the sincerity of our claims to be genuinely interested in spreading the gospel “in all the world”. Second, even many of the Filipino preachers who know such is not representative, make the mistake of assuming all American brethren are as eager as they are to spread the gospel in the Philippines among their people. This produces considerable frustration when they seek support, and wait, and wait, and wait for long months and years and are still without support. The fact is, there are many U.S. saints who are strongly opposed to taking the gospel overseas “until we have converted the people in our town”. (Do we possibly say this to protect “our own” bank account?) And there are many more who, while not necessarily opposed to helping overseas work, have never given it serious consideration, and unless jolted out of their complacency, will not do so. One very disturbing thing is, there are a number of congregations, plural (and I am hearing of others from time to time, increasing the number), which have thousands of dollars stashed away, doing nothing but collecting 6% interest (Scripture, please?) and with no plans for using this money in the service of the Lord. What poor stewardship! What a waste in a world of spiritual need and a super-abundance of opportunities to share in the fulfilling of this!

Now let us consider the benevolent appeals. Several times in the past decade, the Philippine Islands have been hit by devestating typhoons resulting in unbelievable destruction and hardship among all there, including brethren. There have been two bad typhoons this year, for which relief was necessary, although not on as large a scale as in earlier years. When they are hit with wide-spread flooding,. much of the food supply for the coming months is wiped out; the crop is destroyed and a new one must be planted, and until it is harvested, times will be hard indeed. Consecutive typhoons in the same season are especially hurtful, for the second crop is often damaged or destroyed, too. A surplus of food which we enjoy in the U.S. is non existent there. Crop failure, for whatever the cause, is a disaster.

I have no accurate count of the total benevolent assistance which has been sent there over the years, but I do know it has been considerable, likely far more than I am aware of. Certainally no one is obliged to keep me informed as to the benevolence being practiced by them in the Philippines. Nearly all I know of sent has been faithfully handled and Scripturally distributed and used to satisfy the need. Even allowing for two instances of known dishonesty, the overwhelming bulk of all that has been sent to these needs has gotten directly into the hands of the needy rapidly and without having a portion skimmed off “for administration”. Our liberal brethren for years claimed some sort of central oversight is necessary to prevent dishonesty and insure the assistance gets to the need. These instances in the Philippines and one in Nigeria have proven by a demonstration (for those who needed it) that God’s way is far superior to mans!

It would be pleasant to hope such benevolent appeals will diminish, and brethren there, and the government as well, will be able to provide for these needs as they arise. But such thinking is wishful and impractical. For the same reason most preachers will continue to need outside support for a long time, the brethren in crisis situations will need benevolence.

The other facet of benevolence, that of individual need, requires some explanation. $300.00 PER YEAR is about what many of the Filipino brethren earn. That sum will not support them, and especially if they have to purchase their food. Food prices, even for staple items, are grossly high, considering the income levels. This means our brethren must grow much of their own food, both vegetables and meat. And it also means there is precious little surplus from one season to the next, so they are tied very closely to the current crop. Hence whatever damages their crop, even partially, imposes a great economic hardship on them. Also, because they must live so closely tied to their food production, they are almost totally unprepared for emergencies, such as a sudden medical problem. Over the years many brethren have written asking, nay, pleading to help them with their medical or some other emergency expense which was totally beyond their means. I would have needed the resources of Ft. Knox to respond to more than a pitifully few.

I have tried to paint a picture so American saints may have a better understanding of what the situation is actually like in the Philippines. Folks tend to judge by their own standards and experiences. Such is inadequate as a yardstick for the Philippines. There is no common denominator in economic matters.

I urge churches and individuals to reassess their thinking on these things and rearrange their priorities. How much right do churches here have to put money into a bank account to earn interest when there are millions of souls there dying out of the Lord and men there capable and willing to preach, if they were only enabled to do so? We can examine this same principle from an individual standpoint also. Some Scriptures we might consider in this are: Mt. 28:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jas. 2:14-18; Mk. 12:28-31; Mt. 6:33. There are others, but these will do as a starter.

I pray this explanation has cleared up some misconceptions concerning our brethren in the Philippine Islands, and the work of Christ in that nation.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 730-731
November 18, 1976