Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

(Author’s Note: We herewith submit for publication the text of an address on an assigned topic delivered by invitation to the Second Annual Indianapolis Unity Forum, April 30, 1971. Since Brother Willis has complained of the author’s “excessive research” (Truth Magazine, November 7, 1974), we will share with him and the readers of Truth Magazine the results of some `prior research” while we attempt to prepare something more current!

The passing of time has allowed for a “cooling-off” and presented ample opportunity for evaluation-not a bad procedure for those who write for public consumption. Articles written deliberately and then set aside for a reasonable period for later re-evaluation are often superior to those dashed off in a state of youthful impetuosity that sometimes afflicts writers. An idea, seemingly brilliant in the “inspiration” of the late-night or early morning hours, often appears only mediocre in the cold light of the following day. On the other hand, some writers do their best work by just sitting down and letting their thoughts flow through the typewriter, so to speak. To each his own! This particular article has been revised at minor points and altered stylistically in places for greater fluidity of reading; but it is submitted substantially as delivered.

Others who spoke at the Indianapolis Forum included John Clark of Louisville, Jimmy Tuten of Akron, Keith Watkins of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, George Earle Owen of the Disciples of Christ, and Earl West and David Bobo of Indianapolis (Bobo’s speeches were later published in MISSION, November, 1971, and February, 1972). Many others from the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ were present both as participants and members of the audience.)

“What Does the Restoration Movement Communicate to The World?”

Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the invitation to address this assembly. I am grateful for the opportunity. I lack appreciation for the type of attitude which would pessimistically dismiss, out of hand, efforts such as this as totally worthless. At the same time, I have a profound and abiding contempt for those who will use gatherings such as this to enhance their own personal standing or to advance and promote a “unity faction;” or who would erroneously (or even intentionally) make them appear to be that which they are not; or who would falsely attribute to all participants certain attitudes and opinions to which they do not, in fact, adhere. Certainly, however, sincere efforts to communicate with others can and should be welcomed by all those who profess to follow Christ.

On the other hand, while I may appreciate the lofty sentiments which generate forums such as this one, for me to be obscure or less than completely candid would not only defeat the purpose of this program but would be intellectually dishonest. Accordingly, I want to say some things plainly, perhaps bluntly, and yet attempt to do so without personal animosity; as someone has elsewhere said, “to maintain charity of heart without sacrificing clarity of conviction.” At the same time, I do not intend to imitate those who seem to take devilish delight in put-on politeness. Much of what follows will not serve the cause of “unity” which apparently exists in the minds of some present. Many of the following concepts have been articulated well before; they certainly are not original with me. Yet I feel that they represent a viewpoint whose veracity can be substantiated both logically and scripturally.

In dealing with the assigned topic, “What does the Restoration Movement communicate to the world?”, I recognize that I am not the only person ever to have dealt with the question. Accordingly, I want to present not only some of my own answers to the question, but I want as well to deal with some of the most prevalent answers suggested by others.

I. Our first answer might be that, in reality, the “Restoration Movement” has communicated nothing (or at least very little) to the world. This may be a rather odd place to begin, but it seems to me to be a rather sobering thought. Some may pride themselves in rhetorically labeling the “Restoration Movement” as “the stoutest Protestant Reformation since the time of Martin Luther”(1) or “the largest and most influential brotherhood of Christian believers indigenous to American soil . . . (numbering) over six and a half million communicants,”(2) but these statistics pale in comparison to the millions who have never been taught to “speak as the oracles of God.”

Recently I was discussing some aspects of the history of the Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ in Indiana with a well-known Disciples historian. He made a comment something to the effect that “our plea just doesn’t seem to attract many people any more.”(3) Of course, my rejoinder to that is simply that “the plea” hasn’t been plead effectively (we will have more to say concerning this issue in the ensuing remarks). Even if one accepts, as I do, the continuing validity of the scriptural injunction “to speak as the oracles of God” (or, if you prefer, Thomas Campbell’s paraphrase of it), we are forced to admit our miserable failure to communicate the message. Even were the entire six and one-half million members somehow miraculously to unify on a basis acceptable to all, we would still face this monumental task. A recent book by the Anglican, John R. W. Stott, Our Guilty Silence, highlights the problem. He identifies “the biggest problem” in any kind of evangelistic program: “trying to open the mouths of the people in the pews.”(4) I am reminded of a statement by one of the speakers on last year’s Forum to the effect that “organizational and institutional Christianity will never win the world for Christ.”(5) Now, if by that you mean that the people are no longer going to seek us out for the answers to the problems of existence, and that we must therefore encourage each Christian to do his share of engaging in the spread of the gospel, then I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, this is one of our fundamental problems. Anyone who has ever attempted to motivate others (or himself) to get out and teach people-to develop the principle of “each one teach one”-knows just how basic and vital this issue is! And especially for a group which claims to have a scripturally authentic solution for the problems of a dying and destitute world, our failure is simply inexcusable!

But, as I have hinted above, I believe that our historian’s comment focuses the issue very clearly, as I shall endeavor to show. Of course, this may be unfortunate for some who, in the words of the eminent J. Gresham Machen, would rather that discussions of this nature be kept “in a condition of low visibility!”(6) Is the issue, or the problem, really that the Restoration plea is outdated and irrelevant for what some have rhetorically labeled “an ecumenical world;” or does the problem, in fact, lie elsewhere-in our own failure to clearly communicate and consistently apply it? This brings us to our second answer.

II. Some would contend that the “Restoration Movement” has communicated only the failure and worthlessness of the Restoration plea.

There has never been a lack of abundant criticism of the “Campbellites” by “outsiders;” however, a murmur of self-criticism among “the Disciples” has culminated in the rising crescendo of the last decade as numerous individuals within the movement have jumped rather erratically from one end of the theological checkerboard to the other. To borrow the words of a recent article, we have been bombarded with “dire warnings . . . in various forms. There have been complaints from the dissatisfied . . . suggestions from the concerned . .(and) ultimatums from the desperate.”(7) The words of one recent analyst relative to the so-called “institutional church” certainly have particular applications to “the heirs of the Restoration Movement” as well:

“For a dozen years and more a host of dedicated (churchgoers-,SW) have had to contend with a crescendo of criticism of the form and purpose of the . . church. . . I leave it to the reader to decide now much of that writing is truth, how much cliche, and how much an exercise in masochism. However these elements may be apportioned, such criticism has provoked ritualistic incantations: ‘We are a church; we have a structure; we pay bills; we have members who have never read Rauschenbusch; we are bad; we are obsolete; we must disband and meet in Roy’s living room.’ . . . (T)he clamor sounds like a stuck auto horn in a locked garage. Catatonic bafflement finally sets in . (We) become dispirited and cautious, saying . . ., ‘If we are that lousy, let’s sleep in, beginning next Sunday.'”(8)

While there may be, as our analyst suggests, a grain of truth in these criticisms (of what conceivable system of thought can it be said that it contains absolutely no truth?), there can be no doubt to any who have listened repetitiously to the same trite and inane critical tirades that a significant percentage of them are, if not “an exercise in masochism,” certainly cliche-ridden (isn’t it funny how the ones who deride others for the usage of cliches are themselves the most adept at inventing their own?). That they reflect the prevailing theological complexion few would question. I share with you these comments by the Lutheran scholar, John Warwick Montgomery:

“. . . (We) of the late twentieth century contribute to the falsifying of the church’s proper function through our subjectivism . . . (Our time-SW) is possibly the most subjective period in all of church history. Today everybody talks in psychological terms. We enjoy nothing better than to probe our inner life and its real or imagined frustrations. We wallow in our misery. We go to psychologists, we go to psychiatrists, we go to counsellors. This predilection has been called “navelwatching” by some people; that is, we enjoy nothing better than to sit down narcissistically and look at our own psychic navels. This delightful activity allows us to become completely involved in ourselves. We enjoy our problems. Someone has called our epoch “the Age of Analysis” . . . and it is that, for we want to solve all our problems by subjective concentration upon them.”(9)

Now, I am not suggesting that all our problems are due to spiritual hypochondria. However, as a recent writer has demonstrated, there are “some (who) shout, with apparent glee, about all the things which divide professed believers.”(10) Certainly, no one should object to periodic examination as well as any necessary “corrective surgery.” But let us recognize the essential and monumental difference between one who pulls the bandage off a wound in order to administer the healing ointment, and the one who does so in order that he might display the wound for all to see!

But with these thoughts on introspection properly affixed in our minds, let us examine the charge itself. Is it true that the splintering and division of the “Restoration Movement” is inherent in a faulty plea?? Is it true that, as Dr. A. T. DeGroot concluded, “the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive(11)? 11 Is it true (as one of the speakers on last year’s forum affirmed) that because “the path to Christian unity by restoration is strewn with divided churches and internal divisions within the Restoration groups” we must therefore conclude that “the path of Restoration leads to disunity rather than unity”?(12)

At this point, I want to borrow a figure from Dr. DeGroot’s privately published manuscript, The Grounds of Division Among the Disciples of Christ. He affirms that “when several carpenters went to work on the basis of several pages of blueprints, they ended up building a three-room apartment instead of a single auditorium. This is precisely what happened as the so-called blue prints have been consulted as a pattern for the church.”(13) I want us to ask ourselves today if this can be attributed only to faulty blueprints, or if we might not more realistically piace the blame on illiterate or misguided carpenters? In so doing, I choose to deny Dr. DeGroot’s affirmation that “actual church division has resulted from the application of the basic assumption of the movement”(14) and instead insist that it has, in fact, occurred because of a failure to apply those assumptions. This is not to reflect necessarily upon the character, the honesty, or the mental capacity of our spiritual forebearers; it is rather to admit humanity (and ours as well, as we often commit like errors). We certainly can all point to incidences where we “say, and do not;” that is, where we may be sincerely mentally committed to a certain principle, but fail consistently to apply it. And we are not without noble human company when we do so. We are in companionship even with the apostle Peter, who could affirm that “this promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself.”(15) and likewise could conclude that “God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him;”(16) and yet needed to be rebuked by another apostle “because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.”(17) A more recent example is the esteemed A. Campbell, who could preach that the gospel was for all and yet paradoxically state that, “Much as I may sympathize with a black man, I love a white man more;”(18) or, who could fulminate concerning the “autonomy” and “independence” of each local congregation, yet serve as first president of the American Christian Missionary Society!

(If I may digress here for a moment in the discussion of inconsistencies, more needs to be said about Brother Campbell. Please consider the following extraction of a lecture delivered at the first annual “Preachers’ Workshop” at Abilene Christian College).

“Alexander Campbell argued at great length in the columns of the MILLENNIAL HARBINGER as follows: (1) A congregation is a cooperation of Christians; (2) cooperation demands organization, hence God provided for the local congregation with its elders, deacons, and members; (3) each congregation is related to the whole church of God as an individual is related to the local congregation of which he is part; (4) the preaching of the gospel to the whole world, the disciplining of unruly, transient members, general benevolence, and the publication of books, papers, tracts, and song books are matters that cannot be accomplished by a single congregation functioning independently; hence, (5) the universal recognition of the need for cooperation of churches and the consequent necessity to form and implement a general organization among the churches through which they can cooperate in the accomplishment of these matters.

“Having reached this conclusion, brother Campbell deduced from it the scripturalness of the “Missionary Society” by a sixth consideration; namely, since God revealed no specific organization for such purposes, Christians and churches have thellberty to devise such organizations for these purposes as may best be suited to their needs in any given period of time . . .

“. . . I insist that, if we grant brother Campbell’s premises, his conclusions are irresistible. I neither grant his premises nor accept his conclusions. Should I accept brother Campbell’s premises, I should be forced to accept his conclusions . . .

” . . . I have taken the liberty of putting brother Campbell’s arguments in my own words for the sake of brevity, but those desiring to read them in his own words may find them in the MILLENNIAL HARBINGER 1831, p. 235; 1836, p. 333; 1840, pp. 188, 189; 1842, p. 523; 1847, p. 160; 1850, pp. 73, 617; 1857, pp. 303-307; and elsewhere . . . . “(19)

I believe that this is a good example of what we are discussing: consistency and inconsistency in application of the “Restoration Principle.” Another comment made during a meeting of members of churches of Christ estranged over the issues involving cooperation of churches, is illuminating:

“We are in agreement that God authorizes saints to act collectively; and we seem to agree that this gives saints in a local church some organizational structure. Now, if God authorizes churches to act collectively, let us cease to write and preach that ‘the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation.'”(20)

If I may interrupt the speaker momentarily, I believe that abundant examples of calling a local church “independent” or “autonomous” but violating that claim by acting as if they are not can be found even outside the “Restoration Movement.” Consider only the first two to be found in Frank S. Mead’s Handbook of Denominations in the United States:

.. “Advent Christian Church: ‘Congregational in government, each local church is completely independent. The churches are grouped in five districts and five annual conferences; over them is a national general conference, which meets biennially.'”(21)

“Assemblies of God, General Council: ‘Local churches are left quite independent in polity and the conduct of local affairs . . . Work is divided into forty districts in the United States, most of which follow state lines, each with a district Presbytery, which examines, licenses, and ordains pastors.'”(22)

I cite these merely as examples of the same type of inconsistency which seems to plague those of us within the “Restoration Movement.” Literally thousands of other examples could be proffered as evidence, but these will suffice. Let me conclude my “digression” (pardon the pun!) by returning to the previously quoted speaker (and heed him carefully, please!):

“We are in agreement that God authorizes saints to act collectively; and we seem to agree that this gives saints in a local church some organizational structure. Now, if God authorizes churches to act collectively, let us cease to write and preach that ‘the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation.” Let us either produce some specific form of inter-church organization authorized in the scriptures; or, with Campbell, admit that the specific form of such organization is not given, and that we are therefore at liberty to `devise ways and means’ for the `whole kingdom’ to cooperate. Let us cease to argue about opinions and expediencies, and get on with the job of restructuring the churchhood for that is exactly what collective action of churches demands and produces. But if the local church is the extent of divinely authorized organization among God’s people, then let us cease this double-talk about “independent” and “autonomous” churches acting collectively . . . (23) (Caps mine for emphasis-sw).”

Let me add that, if we cannot find in the Scriptures the authorization to determine our stance toward such issues as church “structure” and “cooperation,” or if the Scriptures are invalid as a source to which appeal can be made to determine such matters, then let us cease our flap and act accordingly! Let us recognize the import of Ronald E. Osborn’s statement that once a Biblically-based set of criteria for action are abandoned, then “Disciples who have repudiated restorationism have no adequate basis for justifying their congregationalism, weekly communion, immersionbaptism . . . or other distinctive practices. They have even less guidance for formulating new procedures, except what may be uncritically absorbed from the culture” (emphasis mine-SW).(24)

But let me return to my main point. The fact that a principle may be abused or inconsistently applied does not negate the validity of the principle-it is merely a sad commentary on the frailty of humanity! Further, the fact that division may have resulted (under certain conditions) is not necessarily the result of a deficient message. Certainly the churches of New Testament days (Corinth, Thessalonica, Laodicea) were divided and imperfect-but it was not due to a deficiency of the gospel as preached by Paul, Apollos, and Cephas; it was rather a reflection of the decay which often occurs when the divine ideal is corrupted by sinful mortality.

(In connection with this concept, the “cute” sophistry of those who derisively ask, “Which New Testament church do you want to restore-Corinth or Thessalonica?” should be dealt with. I share with you the words of a recent writer).

“When we discuss the church in the New Testament, it is good to be aware that even there one may speak of the church in two ways. He might speak of the `New Testament church’ as it is described ideally and regulated in the New Testament scriptures. Or, he might use the same term to mean the church as it existed in the days of the New Testament. The Apostles, too, faced both the ideal and the real.

“No one should object to finding a number of faults in the church of the first century . . . It was just such imperfection which called for the inspired writing of the epistles.”(25)

(To Be Concluded Next Week)

Endnotes

1. Cochran, Louis and Bess White, Captives of the Word: A Narrative History of the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), the Christian Churches (Independent), and the Churches of Christ (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), p. ix.

2. Ibid., pp. ix-x.

3. Shaw, Henry K., private statement to me, November, 1970.

4. Quoted in Stott, John R. W., Our Guilty Silence: The Church, The Gospel, and the World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 9.

5. Lane, Richard, “Definitions and Cliches’ ” 1:30 P.M. Session of 1st Annual Christian Unity Forum, ISTA Building, Indianapolis, Thursday, April 23, 1970.

6. Quoted in Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923 (1968)), p. 1.

7. Fudge; Edward, “Give the Church a Chance;” Mission, 2:12 (June, 1969), p. 363.

8. Waggoner, Walter, “Thoughts For Protestants to Be Static By,” Christian Century, (February 19, 1969), p. 249.

9. Montgomery, John Warwick, Damned Through the Church (Minneapolis: The Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1970), p. 72.

10. Jenkins, Ferrell, “Dwelling Together in Unity,” in Thoughts on Unity, ed. Stanley Paregien (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1971? n.d.), p. 162.

11. DeGroot, Alfred Thomas, The Grounds of Divisions Among’the Disciples of Christ (Chicago: Privately Printed, 1940), p. 220.

12. Owen, George Earle, “An Ecumenical Church For an Ecumenical World,” 8:30 P.M. Session of 1st Annual Christian Unity Forum, ISTA Building, Indianapolis, Thursday, April 23, 1970, p. 7, printed copy of lecture.

13. DeGroot, op. cit., p. 219.

14. Ibid.

15. Acts 2:39 (New American Standard Bible-New Testament).

16. Acts 10:34-35 (NASB-NT).

17. Galatians 2:11-12 (NASB-NT).

18. Campbell, Alexander, “Our Position to American Slavery-No. V;” Millenial Harbinger, 3rd Series, II (May, 1845), p. 234. (Quoted in David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest For a Christian America: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ (Vol. I: “The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866;” Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), p. 97.

19. Adams, James W., “The Church and Organizations,” a Lecture delivered to the “Preacher’s Workshop;” Abilene Christian College, Abilene, Texas, January 11-13, 1971, as reprinted in Truth Magazine, XV:13 (February 4, 1971), pp. 3-9 (195-201)-quotations from pp. 4-5 or 196-197.

20. Turner, Robert F., “Cooperation of Churches,” The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, Fla.: The Cogdill Foundation, n.d.-1969), p. 259.

21. Mead; Frank S., Handbook of Denominations in the United States (New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951), p. 18.

22. Ibid., p. 23. I am indebted to Robert F. Turner for this idea.

23. Turner, op. cit., pp. 259-260.

24. Osborn, Ronald E., “Formula in Flux: Reformation for the Disciples of Christ?”, The Christian Century, (September 25, 1963), p. 1164.

25. Fudge, op. cit., p. 13 (365).

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 297-300
March 20, 1975

By Victorio R. Tibayan

The Filipino Christian’s growth in the knowledge of the doctrine of Christ which is directed towards maturity in the `;faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” is the immediate need of the day. This is implicitly founded on the fact of, (1) The religious confusion bordering on or outright unbelief of the Bible; brought about by the powerful Roman Catholic influence and aggravated afterwards by the modernistic tendencies of the Denominations and Sects, and is explicit in, (2) The mandate of the Son of God.

For about 400 years the Philippines was a colony of Spain . . . once a proud and mighty votary of Roman Catholicism. It is said that she conquered the Filipino people with the “cross” held by her left hand and a sword held by the right hand. The friars who went with the “Invincible Spanish Armada” subjugated the minds of the freedom-loving peoples of this land. Paganism as contrasted to Roman Catholic Christianity was destroyed in the main. And in place of heathen rituals and beliefs; Roman Catholic dogmas, human traditions and superstitions came to be the Filipinos’ religious way of life. The Bible was never introduced and the reading of it was prohibited whenever discovered in the hands of the natives. In the process, the marks of Catholicism seeped throughout all the facets of life of the vanquished people. Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Priests vested in themselves authority which even the Old Testament did not give to the Levitical Priesthood. Papal edicts eroded even the cherished customs of the Filipino people and pervaded their very constitution. As a “crowning achievement” to their infamous colonization, the Philippines is now dubbed as “The only Christian nation in the Far East.” This is a farce. It only means that the majority of the Filipino people are subjects of the Roman Catholic religion and that it is not so with the other nations of the Far East. Furthermore, . the idea is opposed to Biblical teachings as regards the name Christian which is applied only to individuals who have obeyed the gospel. (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.) The religious tyranny of Catholicism aroused the dormant desire of the oppressed to be free. Moreover, this melancholy experience left a deep scar in the hearts of the people as to be from henceforth vigilant against any kind of suppression. Naturally, the very long period of Catholic dominance in the Philippines left also, a great impact in the religious convictions of the Filipinos. But ironically, there was sown a realization among a few of the people that there must be a true religion acceptable to God . . . and they are yearning for this!

At the turn of the 19th century, Protestant Denominations of divers hues and forms appeared on the scene. Quite a number of people embraced the new breed of religionists with hope. Seemingly, these groups are bereft of religious leaders athirst for power. They introduced the Bible and worked for its dissemination. So-called believers were given the impression of total dependence on the Scriptures and not by the authority of man. But considering that Catholic influence kept the people in darkness, the brilliant light of the word of God, sad to say, temporarily blinded the eyes of the reliant victims of Denominational errors. For a period they were prevented from exhaustively examining the Book. And, though sincere in their desire to be right with God, these people “. . . erred not knowing the Scriptures.” As a matter of fact, the Denominations are standing on the naked authority of man and use the Bible only as a scaffolding through which to erect their various human doctrines. Consequently, the sand-based doctrinal structures of the Denominations and Sects with their conflicting tenets brought confusion and utter indifference in the religious realm. Only those who were begotten of the Father kept the “beacon of desire” to seek fully the truth, glowing in brightness. The Protestant leaders, in their desire to .safeguard their cause, are now launching a massive and militant religious invasion of the Philippines. Yet being outgrowths of Catholicism, a majority of them teamed up with the Romanists in the name of Ecumenism. Under the circumstances, the need of the day is for faithful Christians to so arm themselves to the hilt with the word of God . . . to be so grounded in the faith, growing more and more in Jesus Christ.

Such edification is clearly emphasized. most especially in the New Testament. Without this; conversion is rendered worthless. Apostasy follows. All .previous sacrifices that went with the work of enlisting people to the service of the Lord comes to naught. Saints ought to be trained unto perfection! In the inspired account concerning the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, it is said that he, “. . . went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Acts 15:14). And to the Ephesians he wrote, `And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints . . .” (Eph. 4:11,12). The Lord, in what is commonly called “The Great Commission” gave substance to the work of perfecting or edifying the body of believers. He said, “. . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 20). Edifying is progressive. Peter admonishes the newborn babes to, “. . . long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2). By this verse alone, it is clear that a child of God must not remain undeveloped. Otherwise, he will be stunted as to Christian growth. In this connection, Paul expressed a supplemental advice in the form of a rebuke. “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and .evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).

Filipino gospel preachers understand this need (to confirm the saints) and are willing to render their all for the sake of Jesus. Practically speaking, they are most suited for the purpose; being identified with the people and knowledgeable in the understanding of the indigenous problems which confront the brethren. Nevertheless, one important element lacking for a successful and Scriptural accomplishment of this responsibility unto the glory of the Father is a relative sufficiency in the knowledge of the doctrine of Christ. Written materials are such a source of knowledge. For sure, a number of them have access to an abundant literary helps for this kind of work. However, these written aids and references cannot usurp the different kind of advantage which can be had through the personal teachings by faithful preachers who have already attained such stature as to be of great service to other preachers. This is supplemental to the written works and is necessary. Such men of ability have had the benefit of being recipients of a rich heritage from the history of their nation’s religious conflicts; of having sat at the feet of mature Christians and of having access to a far greater number of voluminous religious reading matters.

Possession of these things coupled with an understanding of the unique Filipino problems in the light of their different culture are valid considerations in determining whom to invite here to equip the Filipinos in the work of building up the faith of the saints. The excellencies of brethren Cecil Willis and Connie W. Adams- measure up to our considered expectations in connection with the need for edifying the saints here. We have arrived at this consensus a long time ago and which led us to invite them insistently. Having consented to .come for this purpose, we are assured that they will be able to teach the faithful preachers of the gospel here the more excellent way, and “. . . who shall be able to teach others also.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 295-296
March 20, 1975

By Jack Gibbert

An Open Letter To “Truth Magazine” & “Gospel Guardian “

February, 7, 1974

Dear Brethren,

(Editor’s Note: The following letter from Brother Jack Gibbert is more than one year old. Keep in mind as you read the letter that the GOSPEL GUARDIAN now has a new Editor and new owners, and should be appraised by its present contents, and not by what its former Editor or Associate Editors said, or did not say. We urge you to give the new GOSPEL GUARDIAN a fair hearing. But this letter mentions the infamous FAITH MAGAZINE, and judging by some proposals “Ms. Murray’s” legal counsel has made (if we will drop our suit against her, which we most gladly will do when she identifies the perpetrators of that dastardly deed), we may soon be able to reveal to you the names of those unmanly and slanderous composers and cartoonists of that cowardly piece of sleuce and lies which evidently was mailed to the address of nearly every faithful church in America. We all would like to give credit (??) to those anonymous “heroes,” and then we intend to forget about FAITH MAGAZINE. But everyone who had anything to do with that ignominious pamphlet probably never will live long enough to gain any appreciable respect in the eyes of brethren or other journalists,-Christians or non-Christians. As lasting as the infamy of that sneak attack upon Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 shall be the infamy of that catastrophic literary sneak attack called FAITH MAGAZINE. It’s creators likely will find it to be a millstone about their neck, and a serious blight upon their character so long as honorable and decent men live who witnessed the lowest and foulest literary blow of this century. When the names of those responsible for FAITH MAGAZINE become known to us, we will identify them for you. If these men were not such sneaking cowards, they would step forth and accept full responsibility for their mischief, but more than a year has past and not a single one of those literary assassins has had the courage, or repentance, to confess his sin and his crime. “Ms. Murray” is getting nervous and has indicated she is ready to give us the names of those associated with FAITH MAGAZINE within 20 days. You will be kept informed.-Cecil Willis)

The congregation meeting in Virginia Beach, Virginia is advertised in both Truth Magazine and the Guardian. For this reason and out of personal indebtedness to the “Guardian” I write the following.

We, as well as all congregations who advertise in Truth Magazine have been the recipients of a piece of pure trash called “Faith” magazine. Permit me some observations.

First, it is obvious the writers did not expect to change the beliefs of those who advertise in Truth Magazine. They knew they had no hope of getting any of us to stop advertising therein. What, then was the purpose of such a costly slick stab in the back? To divide, my brethren . . . to divide! The writers obviously have no love for the truth, the brethren or for the church; at least not that church we designate as “sound” and “faithful.” This paper is a machination designed to cause subscribers and advertisers of both papers to take sides, build walls and to divide faithful brethren. If they can divide us, maybe they can get us to side with their, “We Be Brethren” attitude.

Second, whoever, “Ms. Paula Murray” (named in the masthead of ‘Faith’) is, it’s evident she is not a faithful Christian. If “Ms.” Murray is in fact, “Mrs.” Murray, then as a faithful Christian woman she would want to do her husband honor by letting it be known she wears his name. If, on the other hand she is “Miss” Murray, she would not care to have her good Christian name identified with a movement designed to strip women of their God given role . . . that is of course, if she were a faithful Christian. Who then is, “Ms.” Murray? I suspect she is a “front” for some “man” (and I use the term advisedly) who needs the skirt of a “Ms.” to hide behind. The “Ms.” of this world have become so much like the “Mr.” of old, and the modern “Mr.” so much like the old fashioned “Miss” that it does not surprise me to find a modern “Mr.” hiding behind the skirts of a modern “Ms.” Now if the real “man” behind the “Ms.” will stand up please, we will address ourselves to him rather than his alter ego, Ms. Murray.

Brethren, we are not going to let it work. This congregation will continue to advertise in both papers . . . at least for the present. I will say however, like Brother Devore that while I will continue to take the “Guardian” I can not ask others to do so at this time.

That last sentence hurt me for a number of reasons. (1) My first subscription to a gospel paper was for the Guardian. (2) My first articles were printed in the Guardian. (3) When we began the faithful work in Myrtle Beach, S.C. it was the Guardian that helped us get off the ground. (4) The Guardian ran a full page article on Myrtle Beach and my work there. (5) When I got behind on my reading I let all my subscriptions run out except for the Guardian. Brethren, if there’s any emotional or personal reason to side with the “Guardian, ” I believe I have it.

About three years ago, while at the Florida lectures, I picked up some samples of Truth Magazine. When I got home and read them I realized that this was the kind of material that first attracted me to the Guardian but which was no longer appearing in its pages. The Guardian had become . . . well, “ho-hum.” Truly, I could never be led off by any error in it, I could not stay interested in an article long enough to finish it, let alone consider it.

At the lectures this year it was pointed out what a Gospel Preacher is. He is not the fellow who just says that baptism is an immersion; even the Catholic Bible has that taught in the foot notes. He does not even just say that the Lord’s church sang songs in worship; Clarke the Methodist commentator said that much. Nor does he just teach that the Lord’s church is made up of autonomous congregations; our liberal brethren do that. No, a Gospel preacher is the fellow who draws a circle around those things and declares that things outside of the circle, i.e., sprinkling, mechanical instruments and sponsoring churches, are wrong and will lead you straight to Hell. This, brethren, is what the Guardian has failed to do much of in the past three years . . . draw circles and name those things that are outside of it. It is my hope, and I am sure the hope of many others, that the Guardian will once again take up the chalk, go to the board and draw a circle.

BROTHERLY,

Jack Gibbert

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 294-295
March 20, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Last week we began our discussion of faith and pointed out that faith was nothing more than mental assent or intellectual persuasion to any given fact or promise which is outside the realm of the five senses, which faith is such that it must be based upon evidences presented. Since this faith which we have must be founded upon evidences presented, it is our purpose now to discuss the evidences supporting our faith in God.

The Christian finds himself obligated to give reasons for his faith as we read in 1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord, being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” The hope that the Christian has of entering into eternal life is dependent upon the existence of such a Being as God that has the power to grant those things for which we hope. This passage, then places the responsibility upon every Christian to give the reasons for his faith in the existence of such a personality as God.

Man’s mind is so constructed that he cannot accept as a fact any idea for which there is no evidence. It might be that I will not investigate the evidence myself, but will place confidence in the idea because of the examination of the evidence by others in whom I have confidence. That evidence might either be correct or incorrect, yet it must be sufficient to persuade one’s mind or else he can have no faith in that idea. It is our purpose in our study to examine the evidence for God’s existence ever seeking for its honest conclusion.

The statesman, Jefferson said: “It is hard to believe in God, but much harder not to.” By this he meant that the evidence amassed for God’s existence was so overwhelming that one could do nothing but acquiesce and believe when confronted by such a mass of persuasive evidence as can be given for God’s existence.

Knowledge of Self

The first evidence which we want to consider for God’s existence is the knowledge of ourselves. One says: “How is it that I can argue to the existence of God from a knowledge of myself?” Let us just reflect for a few minutes about some things that each of us knows about himself. It is certain that no one of us understands everything that we should like to know about ourselves, but there are some things that man so universally knows of himself that they are beyond dispute.

Augustine, years ago, in disputing with the skeptics of his day, used an argument, which through Descartes, has come to be a famous one, concerning the thinking of the soul. His argument was, “I think, therefore I am.” From this argument, and from common sense, we know that we exist. From our existence and experience we know other things about ourselves. We choose to refer to all our knowledge concerning ourselves simply as the “knowledge of self.” Every person realizes that he has some limitations. There are some questions that he should like to answer, but because of human limitations he cannot. In every realm of human endeavor there are some limitations beyond which man cannot go. Therefore we can say that man has the idea that he is limited, finite, imperfect, evil and dependent. But the question arises, “In comparison to Whom does man measure as imperfect, finite, limited, evil and dependent?” There must be some Being to whom man is comparing himself when he says that he has these limitations. There must be some Being somewhere who knows no such limitations. Man cannot conceive the finite, except as he is compared to the infinite. Man cannot be reckoned imperfect except when compared to Him who is perfect. We cannot say we are dependent, except as we place ourselves along side Him who is independent. In every inadequacy, imperfection, limitation, and dependency of man, whether he is conscious of it or not, he is referring to Him who is not so limited, and that Being who is not bound by human limitations, the Christian calls God.

“We know God as that Being over against Whom we are perpetually set, upon Whom we completely depend, and to Whom we are finally responsible” (Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 160). The thought is expressed by John Calvin: “Thus a sense of our ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, depravity, and corruption, leads us to perceive and acknowledge that in the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom, solid strength, perfect goodness, and unspotted righteousness; and so, by our imperfections, we are excited to a consideration of the perfections of God” (Carnell, op. cit., p. 160). So from consideration of our limitations one cannot but argue to that transcendent Being, to Whom we compare as finite, Who is perfect in all His ways (Ps. 18:30), which Being the Christian by revelation in God’s word has chosen to call Jehovah God.

Moral Law

The second argument to which we call your attention as being a part of the cumulative evidence that is presented in support of the Christian’s faith in God is the existence of moral law. “Man is a moral being. He is a creature not only of appetites and passions, but he is also a creature with standards of right and wrong, of justice and duty, which make him a moral creature” (Hamilton, Floyd, The Basis of the Christian Faith, p. 51). The most immoral of men feel a sense of duty to moral law. The worst drunkard is ready to admit that he ought not to do as he does. All of us admit that we should not kill one another. Now why is it that we ought to do some things and ought not to do others? What is it that classifies some things as being right and yet others as being wrong? One of the things that amazed the philosopher Kant was that in every man there was a sense of recognition of responsibility to moral law.

Since the existence of moral law is in man, and all of us think of some things as being right and others wrong, the timely question might be asked, “Just what makes a thing wrong?” Why does one feel he is doing wrong when he goes out and gets drunk and spends all of his time and money in riotous living? Just because he is taken from his family and might be even unfaithful to his responsibilities to them, why does he reckon himself guilty? Why is it wrong? There can nothing be said to be wrong with his action except that it does not conform with God’s law. It is wrong simply because it is antagonistic to the infinite holiness of God, which is; the standard of all morality. Even the atheist who doe&:not believe in God recognizes moral law, and yet can give no reason for his recognition of it. There are things that are wrong to an atheist but there is not one living that can tell you why they are wrong.

In America there is an atheistic association called the 4 A’s. The four A’s stand for the Association for the Advancement of Atheism in America. In 1947 the Secretary of this association was asked by a Christian in public discussion what would be wrong with one man or group of men lynching another man, or shooting him, and he could only reply it would be inconvenient or unpleasant (Bales-Teller Debate, p. 45). In other words, there can be no moral law except as given by God. The immoralities committed are but perversions of God’s moral law. Many of our so-called moral acts and practices are perversions also of God’s moral law, but which we think are moral within themselves. We have noticed that there is a universal recognition of some standard of moral law. The existence of this law implies the existence of a Law-giver, for no law could exist until someone had given it, but moral law does exist, and therefore there must likewise be the existence of the great Law-giver, and God only can be this Law Giver. For as we have seen, a thing is right as it corresponds with God’s holiness and his laws of Holiness, and a thing is wrong as it fails to correspond with God’s laws and standards of holiness. Therefore the existence of moral law implies the existence of a Law-giver which the Christian refers to as God.

Design In Creation

The third argument for the existence of God to which we invite investigation at this time is that of design in the universe. The universe is so constructed that it connotes design and if it does demonstrate design, then there must be a Designer. That the universe is a Cosmos instead of a Chaos it seems there should be no rational dispute. But lest there should be, let us just note some of the features of nature that show us there must have been purpose and plan behind the construction of the universe.

Do the heavenly bodies just accidentally happen to act as they do, or is there design behind it all? Certainly they must have been planned! The exactness of the operation of the heavenly bodies, by which the astronomers can look into the heavens and tell exactly to the second when there will be eclipses of one planet by another, even thousands of years before they happen, demonstrates that they did not just happen to be as they are accidentally. With David we proclaim, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1, 2). Or with Moses we might say, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

It is said that Benjamin Franklin, while on a mission to Paris, France, at a time when French skepticism reigned supreme at least in that land, made a replica of the universe. Upon seeing the wonderful piece of work, an atheist friend asked, “Who made it?” Franklin replied, “No one did, it just happened” (Hardeman, “If Not God then What?” p. 2). Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for a minature or a reproduction of the real accidently to have just sprung into being than for the universe itself?

We all are a part of the content of the universe, and so we see design in our bodies. Take for example, the body of an hour old infant. The blood flows through its body just the same as it does through our own bodies. It has been said that the blood system in our bodies is more complicated than the water system of a giant city like New York. Think about all of the water pipes in your own home, then of all of them in the city, and then think of all of them in New York City. Your body, and the body of an hour old infant, has within it a blood system even more detailed and complex. Did all of this just happen or did someone plan it? One might just as well say that our bodies just happened to be as they are and were not planned, purposed, or designed. The universe does denote design everywhere we look. Design necessitates a designer, and this Designer can only be Jehovah God.

Existence of Life

The fourth and final argument which we shall now submit as supporting the Christian’s faith in God is the existence of life. That life exists at present certainly no one would deny, but either life has always existed or it had a beginning. If one should say that life has always existed, not only would he contradict all of the biological sciences, but he would also find himself affirming the same thing which he ridicules the Christian for affirming, namely the eternity of life. The Christian affirms the eternity of God. The evidences of geology demonstrate that life has not always existed and thus it must have had a beginning. Where did life begin? Did it begin with matter or God?

The atheist and evolutionist affirm that matter is eternal and that somehow millions of years ago by a chance reaction in the environment, something occurred by which a movement was set up within this matter that eventually resulted in life. In other words, life came from matter. The atheist is very hesitant to affirm that life began with matter, or what is commonly called “spontaneous generation,” but. actually this is what he inevitably is forced logically to believe, for it has either always existed or else at some time life came from the non-living. Since life could not always have existed, according to atheistic data, then it had to have a beginning, which beginning had either to come of mind or matter. If it began of matter, then life would be a product of chance. This would mean that the living came from the non-living, the moral from the nonmoral, the spiritual from the dead mass of insensate matter.

Isn’t it more reasonable to believe that God who has all power created us and the universe, than to believe that we came from that which has no life itself, namely matter? Man has never yet been able to create or reproduce life. Only God can do that. This shows that life had to have its beginning in something higher than man, which could only be in the supernatural realm, God himself being the Creator. Is it not much more reasonable to say with David: “Know ye Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we are his” (Ps 100:3).

Supporting the Christian’s faith in God is evidence, which as yet has not been met with counter-evidence. Four of these evidences we have listed in this article: (1) Knowledge of Self; (2) Moral Law; (3) Design in the Universe; (4) Life itself. So as Jefferson said, “It is hard to believe in God, But harder not to.” Yes, there is everything to demand that we have faith in God-the book of nature, the book of reason or common sense, and above all these the book of God which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 291-293
March 20, 1975