Truth Magazine

By Rufus R. Clifford

If you were to ask a Christian for a copy of the “creed” or “book of rules” of the church of Christ, he could only offer you a copy of the New Testament. The only written creed the church that Christ built has ever had is the New Testament. It was given by the inspiration of God and is sufficient to furnish the man of God unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). It meets the needs of the whole world (Mk. 16:15). This is the only message we are authorized to use in the conversion of sinners (1 Cor. 9:16; Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus taught that the word of God is enduring and that by it we shall be judged (Lk. 21:33; John 12:48). The authority of Christ as expressed in the New Testament is the only safe guide for the church. It is sinful for the church to submit to any other authority. The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16). James says it is able to save (Jas. 1:21). Paul writes that it did save the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1, 2). The curse of God rests upon the man who preaches another gospel or dares to add to or subtract from it (Gal. 1:8,9; Rev. 22:18,19).

In spite of the plain Bible teaching given above, we find good, religious people subscribing to human creeds. Even those who subscribe to man-made creeds will not claim for them any saving power. They are but the products of human opinion and stand as barriers to the unity of religious people. Man-made creeds are based upon two wicked assumptions: (1) The New Testament is not sufficient to meet the needs and govern the people of God. (2) This supposed insufficiency can be remedied by weak, fallible, erring men. Without such assumptions there is no excuse for the making of human creeds.

Human creeds are objectionable for a number of reasons. (1) They are not inspired of God. (2) They do not meet the needs of the whole world. (3) They are not perfect. (4) They must be revised every few years. (5) We shall not be judged by them. (6) They set aside and make void the Word of God. (7) They teach many things contrary to the New Testament. (8) They keep people divided in religion. They should, therefore, be laid aside forever or, better still, be burned and forgotten. As long as a single one of them is in force anywhere, division will exist. They are subversive to divine authority and to the peace, unity, and fellowship that should characterize those who desire to please God and go to heaven. As simple Christians we take the authority of Christ as expressed in the New Testament as our only rule of faith and practice. It is the one creed that needs no revision. We invite all people to meet with us on the New Testament in order that we may be united in work and worship.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, p. 438
May 22, 1975

By Ron Halbrook and Harry E. Ozment

This issue of Truth Magazine carries articles by men in the Nashville area. Before moving to Nashville, the present writer knew of only one or two churches in this area holding to the old paths-though, in reality, there were many more. Our faith cannot stand in numbers, but we can rejoice to know of the good work being done by those of. like precious faith. Elijah must have been both surprised and encouraged to learn that there were 7,000 times as many as he thought who had not bowed to Baal. A native preacher in a foreign land had been told that only a handful of churches in America opposed centralization and-institutionalism. He was surprised and encouraged to see the number of church ads in just one issue of a journal published by faithful brethren! We hope, this issue of Truth Magazine will enlighten and encourage. We would like to be enlightened and encouraged by seeing such special issues prepared by men in other areas: Along with the history and progress of the work in Nashville, the timely articles presented by Nashville brethren should be of benefit.

Elsewhere in this issue, Steve Wolfgang deals with the history of gospel preaching in Nashville up until about 1940. During the premillennial controversy of the 1930’s, some brethren showed a spirit of laxness and compromise in the Nashville area. Also, there seemed to be a growing indifference in the mid-1940’s. Another portent of future trouble was the effort of men like Robert Alexander of Abilene Christian College (Abilene, Texas) and A. C. Pullias of David Lipscomb College (Nashville) to get colleges into church budgets. In the first half of the Twentieth Century, brethren generally defended the right of colleges which taught Bible (along with secular courses) to exist as individual enterprises and adjuncts to the home. Church donations to such institutions were considered unscriptural. (We do not mean that whatever was the “traditional” position determines what is actually scriptural.) It is also true that some brethren felt such donations were only inexpedient (see N. B. Hardeman, Gospel Advocate, May 29, 1947, p. 371), or else were both scriptural and expedient. Several brethren thought there was a “difference between making a donation to something and supporting that something as a regular responsibility of a church” (G. C. Brewer, Firm Foundation, June 10, 1947, p. 3). Brethren like N. B. Hardeman apparently had this ,supposed distinction in mind when they said they were opposed to the “policy” of putting the college in the church budget. (Robert E. Henson worked and traveled with N. B. Hardeman of Freed-Hardeman College for many years; Henson told me he saw Hardeman discuss the school with brethren after services in many small country churches and accept a contribution either from the individuals or the church treasury. Yet neither Hardeman nor the college advocated the “policy” of the college in church budgets. Similarly, the acting. head of the Bible Department of Harding College told me in 1966 that Harding would accept church donations but had no “policy” of soliciting them. But C. R. Nichol said he promptly returned any donations sent from churches when he was in college work. (See Firm Foundation, May 20, 1947, p. 1.) Finally, some brethren felt the colleges had no right to’ exist under any circumstances; this has been called the Sommerite view, though Daniel Sommer did not hold it himself in the latter part of his life. Sommer’s extreme view was probably a reaction to some extreme things said by brethren appealing for funds for colleges, as can be seen in A Written Discussion on the Bible School Between Daniel Sommer and J. N. Armstrong (1908).

G. C. Brewer’s public appeal for funds to support Abilene Christian College during its 1938 lectures, included a call for church donations. W. W..Otey was in the audience and repeatedly challenged the scripturalness of such action through journals like Firm Foundation. Otey had controversy with Hardeman also. The Bible Banner hit this issue very hard in the 1940’s, trying to get men like Hardeman and some other Nashville figures to clarify and defend their position in favor of church donations. The Gospel Advocate had spokesmen who opposed any church donations to colleges in men like Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (1931 editor) and F. B. Srygley (long-time writer). But when B. C. Goodpasture became editor in 1939 (a position he still holds in 1975), the stage was set for removing such opposition from the pages of the Advocate. Of course, H. Leo Boles and other Advocate writers had supported the view that churches could donate to colleges through the years (“Colleges and Church Autonomy,” Gospel Advocate, Feb. 25, 1937, p. 6). When the Gospel Guardian of May 1949 appeared, publisher Roy E. Cogdill, editor Fanning Yater Tant, and co-editor Foy E. Wallace, Jr. were united in opposition to such donations. To the writings of these men were shortly added those of Cled Wallace, R. L. Whiteside, and others. In the past, Cled had written “Sword Swipes” in the Advocate, Whiteside had served as “Query Editor,” and Cogdill had written “Texas News and Notes.”

Those who were outspoken in favor of church donations to colleges were also convinced that churches could support benevolent institutions such as orphan homes. But the latter was not the center of controversy in the 1940’s around Nashville or anywhere else; for instance, in a lengthy article on the college issue, G. C. Brewer said only this on the orphan home, “And he (W. W. Otey) must surely tell us about Orphan Homes” (Firm Foundation, June 10, 1947, pp. 1-3). In the 1950’s, certain men who favored church support of colleges began to press more and more the argument that if churches could not support colleges, they could not support orphan homes. Many brethren were told in the 1950’s that the whole issue amounted to this: men like Robert Jackson of Nashville simply did not believe in helping poor little orphans.

In the late 1940’s, Willard Collins and A. C. Pullias directed expansion programs for David Lipscomb College. They raised money from church treasuries or from individuals-either way they could get it. Some Nashville churches like Old Hickory did not give from the treasury, but the members would agree to give so much as individuals and would even raise money doorto-door. Pullias told Rufus Clifford that though “we” were not strong enough to really fight premillennialism, “we ‘are” strong enough to fight in favor of church support for colleges. In the ,early 1950’s, Pullias preached strongly in favor of church support of orphan homes in an effort to get the treasuries opened to colleges as well. As the 1950’s wore on, there was less use of any preachers in Nashville who opposed the college in the church budget. An open breach was appearing.

Open forums were held at the David Lipscomb College lectures in 1954; Robert Jackson and C. E. W. Dorris attended and asked some questions. A panel.,of elders on how to select a local preacher said an “anti” should not be hired. Jackson asked them to identify an “anti.” Jack Boyd, an elder from Ashland City, said if the local elders were challenged and the preacher disagreed with them, that was “anti-ism.” Then he added, “We heard that you were ‘anti’ and now we know you are.” Public marking would continue in the 1950’s; Robert Jackson stood firm throughout these years, supplying strength and encouragement to many in and around Nashville. About 1956, the recreation craze started and ‘Widened the breach. Rufus Clifford had gone to Lawrenceburg in 1951, but moved back to Nashville in 1960. As his stand became more known, he too was marked. He had many meetings cancelled in the period between 1959-62. The lines were tightly drawn during this period. Harris Dark preached at Franklin Rd. and other places in Nashville; his influence was a major factor in helping brethren understand the issues in the 1950’s. During the heat of the battles in the 1950’s, only a few churches in Nashville stood against digression: Franklin Road, Riverside Dr., Joseph Ave., Eastland Ave., and Millersville. Several of the 100 churches in Nashville and Davidson County took no distinctive stand of any kind; but, in the latter 1950’s some churches like Duke St. were known to be standing firm and new works like Due West and Perry Heights were started as the result of outright division (Due West out of Madison and Perry Heights out of Donelson). A liberal group now meets at the old Joseph Ave. building.

Some of the reasons which have been suggested for the strength of liberalism in Nashville (and other areas) are: (1) Gaining control of elderships. Through the influence of the Gospel Advocate and David Lipscomb College, enough elders were reached to gradually cut off men among the churches who opposed institutionalism. Ultimately, -the elders, ,college, and paper stood together as somewhat of an interlocking unit. (2) The influence of well-known preachers who came out in support of liberalism one by one. Men like George DeHoff, John D. Cox, Paul Matthews, and Leon Burns were considered stalwarts; the position these men took was followed with little question in too many cases. (3) The college training of preachers to accept the idea of church donations to colleges. Ira Douthit told Rufus Clifford in about 1950 that through the influence of preachers the colleges trained, the college brethren would take control of the churches, hold sway over them, and get the college in the budget. Douthit indicated the process would take about 25 years. Clifford said in January of 1975, “It has come in these 25 years!”

As of January 1975, including old and new works, the following established churches are standing against institutionalism, centralization, and social-gospel practices in the Nashville area (Davidson County and area): (1) Franklin Road, (2) Riverside Dr., (3) Eastland, (4) Perry Heights, (5) Brentwood, (6) Hillview, (7) Broadmoor, (8) Kemper Heights, (9) Millersville, (10) Glencliff, (11) Lakeview in Hendersonville, (12) Tulip Grove in Hermitage, and (13) Duke St. Other good works could be added by reaching a little further beyond the Davidson County lines, such as East Cheatham, two Franklin churches, Dickson, and, in Gallatin, the Long Hollow Pike church. Our purpose is pot to present an exhaustive account nor a “complete and official” list of churches, brethren, or anything else. Our aim is to give a sketch of the background and some idea of the work being done in the Nashville area.

Nashville-area brethren who have articles in this issue of Truth Magazine include Howard See of the Eastland church. Harris Dark, Dorris Billingsley, and others helped start Eastland in 1948. A debate with Pentecostals was recently held there. The Eastland church sends support to gospel preachers in various areas in addition to supporting a young man (Steve Woodruff) who is working part-time alongside brother See. The article on early church history in Nashville is by Steve Wolfgang who works with West Main in Franklin. West Main was begun in 1950 by members from the old Fourth Ave. church where such men as E. A. Elam, Hall L. Calhoun, James E. Scobey, and F. W. Smith (an editor of Gospel Advocate ) had labored. In spite of a “swarming” in 1973 which began the Royal Heights work, West End has maintained about 140 in attendance and $400.00 contribution per week. David Lanius, who has an article on the perennial problem of neglecting the assembly, labors with the Millersville church. This work began in 1953; Billy Harrell preached to a group of 50 at the first service. The work in Millersville, is stable, self-supporting, and active through a radio program among other things, with an average attendance of 115 at the Sunday morning service.

Billy Ashworth, Wolfgang’s father-in-law, has written on “Negotiation or Confrontation.” He preaches at Oak Ave. in Dickson. Robert Jackson had been the first preacher with the Academy St. church which began in 1952. When the building burned in 1967, the church moved to the Oak Ave. location in a new building. Sunday morning attendance is 270; several men are being aided including Steve Bobbit who is being wholly supported in his effort to establish the work at nearby Waverly. Brother Ashworth is recovering from a recent heart attack. Baptists, brethren, and bus ministries receive attention in the article by Dan King of the Long Hollow Pike church in Gallatin. When that work began in a converted dwelling in 1967, it was known as the Bales St. church. The name changed when they moved into the new building in 1972. From the original attendance and contribution of 33 and $61.00, they have grown to 70 and $290.00 respectively. Ron Halbrook works with the Broadmoor church (formerly Ewing Lane). This congregation began in 1962 and moved into a new building in 1971. The program of work has steadily increased at Broadmoor; for instance, the entire membership is taking a Bible correspondence course with a view to enrolling friends and neighbors shortly. Sunday morning attendance is 130-140.

Ronald Mosby writes on how we know God’s mind. In the latter part of 1974, he began preaching with the Brentwood church which was formed by a “swarm” from Franklin Road. Brentwood first met in 1973, using the basement of a Methodist building; a large horse barn was purchased and renovated to make an excellent meetinghouse. The work is already self-supporting, having 90 members and over $700.00 weekly contribution. Rufus Clifford, well-known gospel preacher in middle Tennessee, writes on a much needed topic, “The Creed That Needs No Revision.” In 1973, brother Clifford went with a group from West Main in Franklin to establish another sound work to be known as Royal Heights. Besides a daily radio program, Royal Heights has been supporting a large number of men. The attendance averages 240. Harry Ozment, who aided in preparing this article, labors with what began as the West Side church in 1966, became Lakewood in ’67, and is now known as Tulip Grove (since 1974 when they moved into a new building). Attendance has grown from 15 in 1966 to over 100 presently. In Nashville, as elsewhere, much of the good work being done is known only to God. Much is being done, but much more remains to be done.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 435-437
May 22, 1975

 

By Daniel H. King 

During the last couple of years many of the brethren have become elated at a new device for drawing large crowds into their meeting houses-the bus ministry. Really though, there is not anything especially new about the device since the Baptists and other denominational folk have been using the system for years. ‘It is what has made possible the “Tabernacle-style” church houses that have begun to dot the landscape in many of our cities. Many brethren have argued, “Well, the Baptists are getting good results out of it, so it must work.” As a consequence, denominational programs and gimmicks are examined, sectarian “How-to-do-it” manuals are read, and finally the system is fitted bodily into a congregation’s program. After all, “it works, doesn’t it!” Pretty soon children are being given candy, refreshments, and prizes for boarding the buses and attending regularly. Suddenly the Grand Old Gospel that brethren once recognized to be the drawing power to salvation (Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:14) goes flying out a bus window. “Why, it doesn’t matter what you use to get them there, just so they get to hear Christ preached to them.” One problem that goes unnoticed is that what it takes to get that kind of person to come the first time is what it will take to keep them coming. And, if the church of Christ is just offering a piece of gum to come to church and the Baptists offer a stick of gum and a balloon, it is certain that we will lose out on those that sell themselves to the highest bidder. I wonder what scriptural precedent is being followed when carnal rewards are being offered for spiritual service? Whatever happened to the old biblical axiom that those who seek to receive earthly compensation as their payment for spiritual service rendered have been “payed in full”? “Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). This type of practice actually encourages the attitude that Jesus condemned.

I was recently surprised to see that some of the Baptists are even beginning to object to this kind of absurd trafficking in human souls. I was surprised because Baptists have been using every kind of gimmick and contrivance imaginable for years. Everybody from Karate experts to movie stars has been invited to speak and perform during and after their worship services to draw crowds to their meeting houses. Forrest L. Keener, pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church of Lawton, Oklahoma, last year launched a verbal attack upon such methods used in “Bus Ministry Promotion.” In July and August, 1973 issues of Faith Magazine, a Bob Jones University publication, Keener attacked the abusive techniques under the title, “A Critical Analysis of Modern `Give-Away’ Bus Promotion?” His study of these time-honored practices led him to brand them as a “hypocritical exploitation” of children, and to conclude that “these tactics never actually increase the number of converts.” Furthermore, Keener pointed out that a lowering of standards must follow or the results will not be lingering. He said, “And meanwhile sound doctrine occupies second place or no place at all.” Then he added, “The common denominator that I seem to see in all fervent users of cheap tactics is that they rate doctrine after results, and sometime belittle doctrine altogether.”

This frank assault upon an almost universally accepted practice among Baptist Churches was bound to draw fire. In the August 3, 1973, issue of The Sword of the Lord, the editor of the paper, Dr. John R. Rice, expressed his shock and surprise at Keener’s remarks. A long treatise followed in which Rice made quite a play upon Baptist tradition and perverted a number of scriptures endeavoring to put some Biblical props under a totally unscriptural practice. His miserable display would almost certainly convince any honest person that such tactics completely lack scriptural authority. I must confess, though, that Rice did do a little better job on the subject than I have heard any of the brethren do lately. At least he tried to justify it by the Bible. Many of the brethren have given this up altogether. That is the very reason that the like of the bus ministry is being practiced by Churches of Christ. When will some brethren realize that you cannot trick people into becoming Christians? There are no short-cut methods or sure-fire gimmicks that will replace the plain and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is still the power of God to salvation .(Rom. 1:16) and the only thing that can draw men to Christ (2 Thess. 2:14). It will probably take the brethren a while to realize the fruitfulness of their folly, but the realization is sure to come, just as it is coming to some of the Baptists. Real conviction just cannot be bought. Even the Baptists are beginning to see that.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, p. 434
May 22, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

In Acts 22:16, Ananias asked Saul this important question that is equally important to many people today: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The very question itself carries with it a sense of urgency which, unfortunately, many do not recognize. But, there were several reasons for it to impress Saul-and we hope you too.

The Deity of Christ

Jesus had manifested His deity on many occasions among the Jews, but being blinded by their traditions (they were seeking an earthly, political kingdom), they refused to accept the evidence so abundantly presented (see John 11:48, Acts 4:16). Although Saul was a “young man” (Acts 7:58) at the stoning of Stephen, most scholars believe he was about 26 and familiar with Jesus and His teachings as well. Yet Saul, too, had rejected the evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and had. bitterly fought the early church. Events on the road to Damascus were to open his eyes and convince him of the awesome truth that Jesus was indeed the Son of God.

Some argue that since Saul addressed Jesus as “Lord” (Acts 9:5), he was already saved on the Damascus road, but a closer reading reveals such is not so. In fact, not only was Saul still in his sins when approached by Ananias, but was not yet even aware of whom he was talking to when he asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” (Acts 9:5). Actually, “Lord” is a title of respect used for someone greater (See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, also Matt. 21:30 “sir,” 1 Pet. 3:6). Saul here recognized someone greater than himself was behind the events he saw, but did not know who that person was until Jesus identified Himself, “I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5).

If this be Jesus, Saul realized, then He had been resurrected from the dead! If this be Jesus, the apostles had been right all along! If this be Jesus, then He also had to be the Son of God as He claimed! Suddenly the realization of this great truth was brought home to Saul. His forefathers had been wrong. He had been wrong. Jesus was what He claimed to be.

Many claim to believe Jesus is the Son of God, but have never rendered obedience to His will (John 14:15, 1 John 2:4, Lk. 6:46). They acknowledge Him as the only mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), but refuse to obey Him (Heb. 5:89). Saul realized the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 12:48-“the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” Now, realizing who Jesus was, he wanted to obey Him. Don’t you? “Why tarriest thou?”

His Sins

Since Ananias instructed Saul to “wash away thy sins,” we know Saul still had his sins. Despite his praying and fasting for three days, the appearance of the Lord, and his sincerity, he was still in his sins. Sin is a horrible thing that separates one from God (Isa. 59:12) and all of us are guilty of sin (Rom. 3:23). Yet, to Saul, this was a horrifying realization. He had spent his life in fighting Christ and the church (Acts 9:4, 22:4-5, 26:10-11, etc.) and was now painfully aware of the tragic mistake he had made-of the many innocent people he had caused to be killed. The nature of it was such that he came to regard himself as the “chief” of sinners (1 Tim. 1:12-15). Finally, Ananias came with the precious gospel of salvation (Rom. 1:16, Jas. 1:21), the means by which he could be made free from sin (John 8:32, Rom. 6:16-17) and have the blood of Christ wash away his sins (Eph. 1:7). No doubt Ananias saw the tremendous burden of guilt which Saul felt and thus eagerly offered the “rest” found in the yoke of Christ (Matt. 11:29-30).

Are you depressed with the nature of your life? Is your life pleasing to Jesus (2 Cor. 5:10)? Would you like a chance to begin anew, become a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17)-be free of the guilt of your sinful way of life? Regardless of how black your past may have been, the blood of Christ can wash it white as snow (Isa. 1:18). In fact, the worse the sin, the more we need the redeeming love of Christ (Heb. 4:15-16). But one thing is clear: we all need His cleansing blood to get rid of our sins (Rev. 1:5). Knowing this, “Why tarriest thou?”

The Consequences of Sin

Saul could hardly think of his sins without being equally well aware of the consequences of his sins. He was well aware of the resurrection (Acts 24:15), that Christ Himself was to be our Judge (Acts 17:31), and that the wages of sin were death (Rom. 6:23, 2 Thess. 1:7-9). He knew ignorance was no excuse, even if he had been honest and sincere (Acts 23:1, 26:9, Ezek. 3:18-20). Now he was burdened even more with the realization he had been so wrong-so close to being lost for eternity! No wonder Ananias urged his prompt obedience to the will of Christ.

If you have not yet been washed in the blood of Christ, you too need to think seriously about the eternal destiny of your soul. You too are yet in your sins, and your tragic condition is described in Eph. 2:11-12. Are you ready to face your Lord? What could possibly be more important than your soul? Do you really want to be lost for eternity in Hell (Matt. 25:41)? If not, “Why tarriest thou?”

The Time Already Lost

Nearly half of Saul’s life had already been wasted-wasted in defending that which was abolished (Col. 2:14) and fighting against the very Son of God Himself. But Saul was fortunate because God had a mission for him now, and thus he had the chance to be saved. God does not desire that any perish (2 Pet. 3:9). James warns us that our life is but a “vapor” (Jas. 4:14), and Peter adds we have already spent sufficient time pursuing the way of the flesh (1 Pet. 4:3-any time so wasted is more than sufficient). Yet, many ignore warning after warning, invitation after invitation, as though they could pick any time they wish. This could be your last admonition! Would you be ready? Time is so important “Why tarriest thou?”

Others To Be Helped

And then there were others. Saul had three days to reflect-to think of all he had influenced, to think of those doing as he had done, to think of the thousands still lost, to think of those who might not get the chance he was getting. It must have run through his mind hundreds of times (Rom. 10:13). There were so many who did not know – Jews and Gentiles alike! There was so much to be done — and so little time left. No, Saul could not afford to tarry any longer. God wanted him to spread the joy of salvation to others, beginning with his own example of obedience.

Have you thought about the lost — your own soul and others? Can they afford to wait with their souls too? The souls of your own family, perhaps, still outside of Christ? Friends? Relatives? Do you really feel you can face them in eternity–Lost–and knowing you could have helped if only you had acted sooner? “Why tarriest thou?”

Conclusion

Saul did not quibble about “I don’t see why” or “why can’t I be saved by faith only.” He knew and understood the will of God. There was no need for further delay. He wanted to obey the Lord. He arose and was baptized (Acts 9:14), and began telling others the good news. What about you? If this is God’s will, the way He has selected for the blood of Christ to wash away our sins, why not render obedience before it is too late? “Why tarriest thou?” A note of urgency-the time is so short, the stakes so high, the way so simple! Have you rendered obedience? “Why tarriest thou?”

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 429-430
May 15, 1975