Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mr. Bob L. Ross is a Baptist preacher. He has offered a $100 reward for one verse of scripture that commands any church to wear a particular ‘name’ Signed: Bob L. Ross. “

In a letter ,to me Mr. Ross said, “I am enclosing another pamphlet which has gone unchallenged by the Campbellites. No one has ever attempted to collect the $100; on the contrary many Campbellites have admitted that the ‘name’ is nowhere found in the Bible. They have to resort to ‘logic’ in any attempt to prove they ‘wear’ a (or the) ‘Bible name.’ But even the ‘logic’ is not logical.”

In reply, I said, “I am not a Campbellite, and I have never met one who claimed to be a Campbellite, but if I ever do meet one, I will forward your offer to him.

“Your ‘offer’ on the name is an old ruse that may prejudice shallow thinking people, but it does not deceive anyone who will carefully consider your ‘offer.’ There are several designations of the people of God in the Bible. I do not believe there is ‘a particular’ ‘name’ for churches to wear. I believe there are several scriptural designations, but there is no particular or exclusive name known to me.

“Respectfully, however, I will make a counter proposal. Please cite any reference to a ‘Baptist Church’ or ‘Baptist Churches’ in any literature, either sacred or secular, written before 1600 A.D. If you know any Baptists who would like to ‘cash in on this offer,’ have them get in touch with me. Remember, now, they must not resort to ‘logic.’ That is too much like those pesky Campbellites. Besides, Baptists usually do right well without any Scripture or logic for their name.”

No one contends that there is a particular, exclusive name a church is to wear. Christians only say that we should speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). In the New Testament, we read of “the church,” “the churches of God,” “the churches of Christ,” and kindred expressions. With these Scripture references, we are content, and, I might add, complete (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

The following chart has been used in debate several times with both Baptists and Pentecostals. I have never yet met the man who even batted his eyes or swallowed like he thought he could ever begin to answer it.

The Singular of “churches of God” (1 Thess. 2:14) is “church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2)

So:

The singular of “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) is “church of Christ”

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

The conclusion is irresistible and inescapable. May we not reason with the singular and plural as the Holy Spirit did? But let no one misunderstand. The scriptural names are not creeds or criteria that alone determine soundness in doctrine or purity in practice. Christians simply urge that these scriptural terms are but one feature, but one phase and facet of the system of religion revealed in the New Testament. When one cannot find his particular group or church mentioned in the Bible, let alone “named,” then he must resort to prejudice and subterfuge.

Now, will someone supply, either in sacred, secular or Satanic literature, a reference to a “Baptist Church” or “Baptist Churches,” written before 1600? The same goes for the Lutherans before 1500; the Methodists before 1650; and the United Pentecostal Church before 1900. Any takers?

Truth Magazine XIX: 18, p. 274
March 13, 1975

By Robert Wayne La Coste

Having recently adopted a baby boy, I have had some occasion to think rather soberly on the relationship between the adoptive child and the respective parents. I see in it all a remarkable parallel between that of the spiritual adoption of us who are Gentiles.

Long ago God told Abraham, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:18). The significance of this statement could be misleading to some, for some men actually feel that unless you are of the actual Jewish race, this passage has no real meaning to you. They plant emphasis on the words, “Thy seed” when in reality and of a truth, they ought to place the emphasis on the words, “all nations.”

The apostle Paul later describes the significance of the statement God made to Abraham when he wrote, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29). The simple point Paul is making is this: You do not have to be the literal seed of Abraham in order to enjoy the promise and be an heir, but you must of necessity be Christ’s! If you are Christ’s, then you are the sons of God.

In the next chapter of the same letter, Paul mentions the divine adoption procedure and says, “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law (the Jew) that we (both Jew and Gentile) might receive the adoption of sons.” (Gal. 4:4-5)

Realizing how, riot by being the literal linage, but by being Christ’s, we by the process of spiritual adoption, are the sons of God, we should rejoice! We are heirs and have just as much right to be called his sons and daughters as did physical Israel long ago. It is a sad commentary to adoptive parents when many proclaim, “they are not really mine, they are adopted,” or some who would have reared adopted children have said, “I just couldn’t love them like my own.” Thanks be to God, he does not view his adopted children as some parents do theirs.

While it is true my little boy is not my “actual seed,” he will yet wear my name, be blessed with what I possess, and his children will also wear and bear the name and any blessing that might be derived from such. Adoptive Parents! Do not forget, we too are adopted, and yet we are just as much the children of God as any other person who obeys the gospel of Christ and lives according to the same!

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 269-270
March 6, 1975

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Disorderly conduct in the classroom occurs at almost every age level. It presents itself more frequently in some age groups, but the problem exists at all levels. Although it may express itself in different ways, discipline is a problem no matter which way you look at it. One disruptive student can create enough confusion to destroy the effectiveness of an entire lesson. There is a contagiousness associated with disorderly conduct. Poor discipline in the classroom is discouraging and very demoralizing to the rest of the students.

Disorderly conduct cannot be ignored. However, the teacher should be very careful about using discipline.(1) If you apply pressure in some age groups, the problem compounds itself. The result is frustration for the teacher. This is not to say that discipline should not be used. It simply means that discipline will become a full-time job, if that is all that is done to curb the situation. For example, it has been suggested that sometimes it is best to ignore the disorderly conduct by making an effort to interest the ones engaging in the confusion by involving them in the discussion to a greater extent.(2) Sometimes, however, to continue to ignore the problem, especially with younger ages, only makes the problem worse. The best way to deal with classroom problem cases is to try to understand what was responsible for creating the confusion in the first place. To understand this and take constructive measure to avoid the creation of such confusion, is to solve the problem of discipline. This, of course, is stated more idealistically than actual experience reveals. But it should be given careful consideration.

Causes of Disorder

There are many causes for disorderly conduct in the classroom. There are a number of factors which enter in to create conditions of stress which necessitate classroom discipline. Let us consider a few of these factors.(3)

(1) Let problems often arise as a result of the wrong attitude on the part of the teacher. Where there is nervousness and fretfulness, for example, there is often adverse reaction on the part of the class. Most teachers have experienced times when tensions appeared to get the upper hand and disciplinary problems resulted. Those who teach can improve the order of their classes if they try to maintain a pleasant attitude in class. When a teacher has to maintain order by firmness, it is always good to return again to the pleasant and out-going disposition. Enthusiastic interest and sympathetic understanding on the part of the teacher pave the way for good order in any classroom.

(2) Consider the method of study. It is often true that us begin with the teacher. Disciplinary disorderly conduct is the result of the wrong method of study. Sometimes lesson material is too elementary. At other times it is too advanced. The material must correspond with the age and developmental level of the student if good order is to be maintained. Any material and method of instruction used must be in keeping with the age and needs of those being taught. It is a known fact that there are very few disciplinary problems which arise in those areas which deal with the needs of students. Whatever method of teaching is being utilized by the teacher should be carefully adapted to the material being taught. Every effort should be made to present the material interestingly, regardless of the method being employed.

(3) What about the classroom situation? It is a known fact% that some problems of a disciplinary nature arise because of the room situation in which a class is being conducted. We have come a long way in providing proper classroom environment. However, many classroom situations take place in poorly equipped areas. We must do everything possible to have the right environment for the class. .The learning process can be better carried on in an atmosphere which is suggestive of learning. An interesting learning situation is absolutely mandatory. When students are subjected to disorganized, unpainted, cold, barren, storeroom-type classrooms, you can expect problems. Under these conditions it is no wonder that disciplinary problems arise.

(4) Next, consider the student himself. We will look at his home background first. Disorder in the classroom often results from a student’s home life. Some may have psychological problems of which the teacher is unaware. But the major problem is disrespect for authority-any authority: Because they have not learned to respect the authority of the home, students show disrespect for the authority of the teacher. These students simply have not been taught! This means that as teachers we have to do more than impart knowledge. We have to try to bring about a change in conduct in the one being taught. This involves proper direction and the seeking after the ultimate welfare of the one being taught. If the problem is disrespect for authority, try to understand why such an attitude exists, and try to teach basic principles of respect for authority. Be kind, but be firm.

Under this heading we must also consider the “attention getter.” Sometimes disorderly conduct is nothing more than a student’s way of attracting attention. This is sometimes the case even among adult groups. Have you ever been picked to pieces in an adult class? Have you ever had an adult student make wisecracks to you and about you all through the class period? Those who have had such experiences tell us that it is an exasperating experience. Be patient, my friend. Such was being done only to attract attention. This calls for compassionate understanding on your part. Just remember that some children who are the center of attention in the home find it extremely difficult not to seek such prestige in the classroom. An understanding teacher can wisely direct the class so as to give attention to those who crave it. At the same time, they will conduct an orderly class discussion.

Conclusion

All who are teaching need to do some reflective, constructive thinking in relation to these reasons for, disciplinary problems in the classroom. We should make positive efforts to eliminate these causes for misconduct. This will insure more effectiveness in the teaching effort. The challenges of today are far too vital for teachers to fail in their important work.

Endnotes

1. Sam Binkley, Jr. and Martin Broadwell, Success At Bible Teaching (Athens: 1973), p. 85.

2. Charles Stovall, “What Causes Disciplinary Problems?” Firm Foundation (July 18, 1967), p. 457.

3. For the most part, the following material comes from the article referred to in the last endnote.

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 268-269
March 6, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

A fundamental tenet of those who advocate “unity in diversity” (actually, a unity of belief based on conforming views of several issues which are uniformly considered paramount by these individuals) is the repudiation of the so-called “Restoration Principle.”(1) This is by no means a novel idea or new position in the “Restoration Movement;” those well informed in its history recognize it as a familiar way-station in the pilgrimage from the “old paths” to a belated religious “relevance”.(2)

A favorite ploy of those who attempt such a repudiation is to ask, baitingly and often sarcastically, “Which New Testament church are you trying to restore? Corinth with its immorality and factiousness or lukewarm Laodicea?”(3) This approach has given others sufficient grounds upon which to question their intellectual honesty.(4) Others seem to labor under the delusion that the “New Testament church” is not an ideal, or at least that the ideal is incapable of being restored in any recognizable fashion.(5) In view of the commonplace occurrence of such articles, it is indeed refreshing to read from the pen of a man who, while not consistently applying the principle in all particulars, at least recognized its validity and was willing to defend it unambiguously and without the equivocation which characterizes many today.

The article, which is reproduced below, first appeared under the caption at the head of this introduction in the Christian-Evangelist of July 4, 1929, sub-headed “Hard to Explain.” As I think on these things was the regular weekly column of Frederick D. Kershner, former editor of that journal.

Kershner was an intriguing and perplexing figure in Restoration history. Born in Maryland nearly a century ago (August 28, 1875). he was educated at the feet of J. W. McGarvey in Transylvania (or Kentucky University), from which he graduated in 1899.(6) He then attended Princeton University, from which institution he received his M. A. in 1900. Intending to complete his Ph.D at Harvard University, Kershner instead interrupted his formal academic career with an extensive trip to Europe, and then returned to the United States to accept a succession of teaching positions. In 1908, at the age of 33, he accepted the presidency of Milligan College; three years later he was named to the same position at Texas Christian University. He served there until 1915, when he became Editor of the ChristianEvangelist, a by then “moderate” Disciples paper long associated with James H. Garrison. In 1917, in an attempt to conciliate a feud between it and the Christian Standard, Kershner resigned and took a place as Book Editor of the Standard. In 1920 he accepted a professorship at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa; in 1924 he became Dean of the new College of Religion of Butler University in Indianapolis, where he remained until his death in 1953. He served as the president of the International Convention of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Denver in 1938.

During the late 1920’s and 1930’s, Kershner was a prime mover in arranging Butler’s annual Mid-Summer Institutes, the precursors of the Witty-Murch “Unity Meetings” of the late 1930’s and 1940’s. The forums included a diversity of speakers, ranging from the psychologist Arthur Holmes to linguist A. T. Robertson and including a variety of “Restoration” speakers from Daniel Sommer and Ira C. Moore to P. H. Welshimer and John B. Cowden.

Widely read, a man of catholic interests ranging from parapsychology to medieval art, from ancient Christian historiography to Reformation theology, and including, of course, Restoration thought (each of the afore mentioned topics being the subject of at least one of his more than a dozen books), Kershner was neither an ignoramus nor a “country bumpkin.” Yet, despite his learning, he was able to see in the plea to “speak where the Bible speaks” the powerful message of God’s scheme for man’s redemption. One can only wish that some of our present-day pseudo-sophisticates might partake, if not of Kershner’s spiritual cognition of a valid principle, at least of the intellectual humility of the truly educated! Following is Kershner’s article.

“Hard To Explain”

“Ever so often one of our advanced thinkers’ pours out a deluge of sarcastic references to the crassness and absurdity of advocating the restoration of the New Testament Church. He points with high glee to the delinquencies of the Corinthian and other congregations and tells us that `restoration’ means the reproduction of the exact conditions which prevailed in these primitive communities. Of course, all this amounts to nothing more than setting up a man of straw for the express purpose of demolishing it. Nobody in his senses, so far as we know, ever advocated the restoration of the Corinthian church, or the church of Antioch, or any other congregation of the New Testament period. The plea for the restoration of the New Testament Church means, and always has meant, the restoration ‘ in our thinking of the New Testament ideal or form of the Church of Jesus Christ. When Paul and Peter and the other New Testament evangelists founded churches, they did not do so at random. They had some definite conception of the structure and nature of the Church. All that the restoration plea advocates is that we shall strive, as far as we can, to recover their conception of what the Church should be. Doubtless some of our radical thinkers believe that they can improve upon the ideal of the Church which the Apostles possessed. The majority of us will have some hesitancy upon this point until these latter-day prophets make their pretentious good by actual demonstration.

“It is hard to understand why men who claim to be intelligent should deliberately misrepresent the restoration plea. There can be no objection to their arguing against the position in question, if they correctly state what that position is. To do otherwise is both unfair and illogical. Arguments of this kind always create a prejudice in the minds of thoughtful people against a cause which apparently needs misstatements and misrepresentations in order to support its conclusions.”

Endnotes

1. This is a descriptive term for the idea that we can duplicate the “ancient order” of the church in our own times. For examples of recent articles which repudiate this concept, see William H. Davis, “Is the Restoration Movement on the Wrong Track (I & II)?” Mission, VII: 3 & 4 (September & October, 1973); Don Haymes, “The Restoration Illusion,” Integrity, V:5 (October, 1973); and R. Lanny Hunter, “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” Mission, VII:12 (June, 1974).

2. See, for example, Cecil Willis’ excellent series, “‘The Taproot of Digression (I-IV),” Truth Magazine, XVI: 31-34 (June 8-29, 1972); and, more recently, Mike Willis, “Is the Restoration Principle Valid?” Truth Magazine, XVIII: 37 (July 25, 1974).

3. For an example of this type of expression, see W. Carl Ketcherside, “The Body of Christ,” Mission Messenger, XXXIV:10 (October, 1972). I have heard Carl Ketcherside and others of his persuasion make this statement repeatedly at numerous unity forums around the country.

4. Mike Willis, cited above, and F. D. Kershner’s article reproduced below.

5. For examples of this type of thought, see Elmer Prout, “Corinth-A New Testament Church;” Firm Foundation, XCI:50 (December 10, 1974); and Edward Fudge, “What Makes a Church of God?” Gospel Guardian, XXIIIA2 (May 2, 1972-reproduced from his bulletin at Kirkwood, Missouri, March 3, 1972), and “Emphasis: Christ,” Firm Foundation, LXXIV:45 (November 7, 1967). In fairness to Brother Fudge, it should be pointed out that while these articles cited do indeed cast doubt on the possibility of recovering a fixed or normative pattern for the church, he has, in his. usual ambiguous and ambivalent style, recognized (elsewhere) that an ideal does at least exist. See “Give the Church a Chance,” Mission, 11:12 (June, 1969).

6. All information on Kershner is the result of the author’s research into Kershner’s relationship with Daniel Sommer for a biography of Sommer. For a good survey of Kershner’s career, see David C. Rogers, “Frederick D. Kershner: Educator, Editor, and Ecumenist” (unpublished B. D. thesis, Butler University, 1952).

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 267-268
March 6, 1975