Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

Debates of the formal, oral variety tend to bring out the party spirit which seems to be latent in each one of us in one degree or another. In this fact, lies one of the dangers of such confrontations among brethren. Particularly is this true when the issue involved is not within itself of such character as to demand a severance of fellowship between those holding diverse views regarding it. Prima facie evidence of the party spirit ordinarily is found in the reports which are written of such debates by the opposing parties involved. Each “side” claims “a great victory for truth” and sheds crocodile tears over the alleged “impotence and confusion” of the opposition. Then, of course, there are always those persons who, in their modest judgment, could have done so much better than either participant, and who can identify endlessly all of the mistakes that were obvious to any “logical mind” or “experienced debater.” All of which is noted for the purpose of suggesting that this report will not be of, that variety.

The debate should be allowed to stand .upon; its own merits. Each person who heard it can judge for himself as to the strength or weakness of the argumentation and make up his own mind relative to the issue involved. Numerous tape recordings were made which will be w played to many others. The debate will lie published and hundreds of others, perhaps even thousands will have the opportunity of carefully reading every word that was said; weighing judiciously all of the argument, and reaching their own conclusions away from the often prejudicial heat of oral controversy. Relative to this discussion, for a number of very good reasons, I would consider it highly improper and a reflection upon the disputants to rehash in detail in this report the arguments of the debate, or to attempt to give a personal evaluation of their merits.

The debate in question was conducted September 23, 24, 26, and 27, 1974 in the auditorium of the Pasadena, Texas High School. Although the debate itself arose as a result of articles on each side of the issue involved appearing in church bulletins, it was considered advisable that no church be identified with the arrangement and “sponsorship” of the discussion. I shall not rehearse the circumstances which led to this decision for two reasons: (1) My statements might be regarded as partisan; (2) they are already a matter of public record.

The disputants in the debate were: Cecil Willis of Marion, Indiana, elder of the Westside church in that city, well known gospel preacher, and capable editor of Truth Magazine, himself an alumnus of Florida College; and Jesse G. Jerkins of Denton, Texas, preacher for the conservative congregation of that city, also a well known preacher and writer, and a brother with a well deserved reputation for proficiency in public, oral debate. Willis also has participated with credit in several such debates. Both of these men are of high moral character, sincere and devoted Christians, considerably above the average in native intelligence and acquired ability and knowledge, and are, in my judgment, both completely representative of the positions they espoused in the debate.

The decorum of the debate was impeccable. Both disputants treated one another with courtesy and kindness and, in every way, conducted themselves with dignity and proper restraint becoming to men professing to be Christians and gentlemen. The behavior of the audience, except for one slight display of partisan fervor in the form of audible laughter and “omens,” was irreproachable. The debate demonstrated beyond question that such encounters do not have to assume the character of “dog fights” nor do they have to result in brethren “biting and devouring one another.” Each disputant pressed his points with zeal, but did not allow his arguments to descend to the level of mere personal attacks or destructive character assassination. This is not to say that the actions of particular persons which were deemed by the disputants to be relevant to the discussion of the issue involved were not thoroughly explored; but even this was done in good spirit and without rancor.

The propositions discussed in the debate had to do with the right of such organizations as Florida College to exist: and function, and to be supported and utilized by Christians. Brother Willis affirmed the right of such organizations to exist, function, and be supported by Christians on, the ground that they are business organizations selling services and/or products, hence doing a work not charged by Christ to a local congregation, and are to be justified by Scripture on the basis of generic authority. Brother Jenkins opposed such organizations on the ground that “God has authorized only one collective. to employ, support, and oversee men” in the teaching of His Word; namely, the local congregation, hence that any other collective so functioning is unscriptural. Jenkins defined a “collective” as a body of persons characterized by “agreement, common oversight, and pooled resources.”

Willis insisted that Jenkins’ definition of a “collective” involved him in many gross inconsistencies in that Jenkins endorses and utilizes many arrangements, among them publishing houses, which logically qualify under said definition as “collectives” and arbitrarily rejects others such as Florida College. Jerkins, on the other hand, denied that a parallel exists between publishing houses which employ, support and oversee men in teaching the word of God through the medium of the printed page and Florida College employing, supporting, and overseeing men in teaching the word of God through the medium of oral instruction in the classroom. The issue was joined here and the majority of the argument pro and con was in reference to the scriptural validity of these two antithetical concepts.

The debate did not arouse great enthusiasm among the Christians of the Greater Houston area. Attendance ranged from 250 to 300 people. A large number or these were preachers from all parts of the country. I judge from these facts that, as yet, the issue poses no problem relative to the peace of the churches. However, it could do so if the matter is needlessly and irresponsibly agitated from the pulpit and in the bulletins of the churches. Since the issue involves what the individual is permitted by Scripture to do, it should remain just that, an individual matter. It should not become the concern of the churches as such, nor should lines be drawn solely on the basis of the personal conviction of an individual with reference to the matter.

Brother Robert Craig of Austin, Texas served as moderator for Brother Jenkins, and Brethren Robert McDonald, Glen Burt, and others as his helpers. I served as moderator for Cecil Willis and Brethren Larry Hafley, John McCort and others as his helpers. Everything done by all participants was in a mutual spirit of good will and helpfulness. As evidence of the continued good feeling between Willis and Jenkins, Brother Jenkins graciously extended to Brother Willis the invitation to speak at Denton the Lord’s day following the debate, and Willis just as graciously accepted. May this continue to be the attitude among all who differ relative to this subject. It would be tragic, indeed, for brethren and churches to discriminate against one another on this basis. It would be equally tragic for gospel preachers to be discriminated against solely on this basis in reference to calls for meetings and such like. It is my fervent hope and prayer to God that it may not come to this.

The debate will be published. Announcements will be made from time to time in Truth Magazine relative to the progress being made and the approximate time of delivery. It would be helpful for those who plan to buy the book to send in their orders now. No money need be sent, but your advance orders would help tremendously.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 24-25
November 14, 1974

By Robert L. McDonald

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt 18:15)

Of the admonitions in the Word of God, the above quoted appears to be one of the most difficult for brethren to heed. It is not because it is so difficult to understand, for there is nothing in the text to warrant misunderstanding. The difficulty lies in one or both parties being unwilling to take the initial step for reconciliation.

Jesus said, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee. . .” The word “trespass” comes from the Greek (hamartese), defined by Thayer, “to commit sin:” According to the Analytical Greek Lexicon, this verb “is strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action . . . . It is, however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need to make a direct expression of that circumstance. It is thus of constant use in the narrative of past transactions.” The study of the word itself is to show the sin referred to is not necessarily a continuous act. It may be a single or prolonged action.

Further, “go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” “Fault” (elenxo) is defined, “to convict, reprove, rebuke.” (W. E. Vine) Evidently, the innocent person has an obligation to show the error of his brother in Christ -the two being alone! Notice other translations of this text:

“Go and reprove him in private.” (New American Standard)

“Go and while alone with him show him the wrong.” (Williams)

“When you and he are alone together. ” (Living Oracles)

Albert Barnes has commented on this verse and it is passed on for your consideration: “In the original it is ‘go and reprove him.’ Seek an explanation of his conduct, and if he has done wrong, administer a friendly and brotherly reproof. This is required to be done alone: 1st, That he may have an opportunity of explaining his conduct. In nine cases out of ten, where one supposes that he has been injured, a little friendly conversation would set the matter right and prevent difficulty. 2nd, That he may have an opportunity of acknowledging his offense or making reparation, if he has done an injury to the cause of religion. This should not be blazoned abroad. It can do no good – it does injury; it is what the enemies of religion wish. Christ is often wounded in the house of his friends; and religion, as well as an injured brother, often suffers by spreading such faults before the world.”(Commentary, Matt. 18:15)

One may ask, “Have you known of Matthew 18:15 being followed today?” The answer is in the affirmative. This writer has personally been involved in the instructions contained in this divine directive. In addition, I have known of brethren who have seen the importance of maintaining a proper relationship with their brethrenand often strained relationships have been restored when brethren sincerely follow the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even if none of us has known of such action, we would not be excused by our neglect. “Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” is directed to you and me!

What is the objective? “If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” Genuine love for one’s brother prompts the innocent to take the initiative to bring about restoration. True love and genuine concern for another’s soul has been demonstrated! No hypocrisy here! Applause by men is not coveted! This humble soul is doing what he can to bring about reconciliation, and “if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother.”

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 20-21
November 14, 1974

By Cecil Willis

(EDITORS NOTE: The following article constitutes one of the brief chapters in a new book published by Biblical Research Press of Abilene, Texas. J. D. Thomas is the Editor. and I presume the owner of Biblical Research Press. The first books were received by me on October 10, 1974. So it is a brand new publication! In his Introduction, Brother Thomas said- “. . . we have asked forty-seven men to briefly state their views on what the brotherhood lacks–what they feel could be improved upon and which would give great aid to the progress of the Cause of Christ. We chose these men from among leaders all across the spectrum of brotherhood thought-from >liberal’ to >conservative’ and from >left’ to definite ‘right.’ Each of these men is influential within his own sphere and is looked upon as a leader.”

The title of the book is WHAT LACK WE YET? It is nicely printed and case bound, with an attractive jacket, and consists of 319 pages. Brother James W. Adams and I were asked to write a chapter each in the book. Though Brother Thomas makes no attempt to classify particular men, I suspect that he would classify Brother Adams and me as the most “conservative” and Adefinite >right'” of those men chosen to write chapters. Having just received the book, I must confess that I have not read it entirely, as yet. However. I suspect that many brethren would find some interesting reading in this book. I have been informed the price is $7.95. If you want a copy, we will stock some in the Bookstore. I felt readers of TRUTH MAGAZINE might want to read what Brother Adams and I had to say in this book. Brother Adams’ article will appear in a forthcoming issue. You will also find some “way-out” stuff in it, but those who want to keep informed on what is occurring among us will most likely want to read this book.- Cecil Willis

Several years ago W. W. Otey told me that during his seventy years of gospel preaching (he lived to be nearly 95), he could not remember a single year that the Lord’s church was not passing through some kind of crisis. Even the casual observer who cannot see that we have many serious problems before us today simply has his eyes closed.

We cannot speak of just one problem; we have many problems. One might begin by listing those whose modernistic views would have us to “refocus” God, the Bible, and the church. There are those who hold existentialistic views of sin, revelation, and the church. There are false teachers who pander theistic evolution, Antinomianism, “Anti-legalism,” Pentecostalism, Institutionalism, and even denominationalism. All of these are to be found within the church. There are also those who are teaching perverted doctrines on grace and fellowship. Some are materialistic, others are apathetic, and some are just downright worldly. Indeed, we have a gamut of problems.

It helps very little to enumerate the problems unless one has something to propose as a remedy. It should be evident that with so many different ramifications of error, there must be something basically wrong somewhere. Some brethren think it has been so many times stated that only a simpleton yet would believe it. Call it “trite,” “naive,” or what you will, but I must confess that I still believe our basic trouble is nonetheless a difference in outlook and attitude toward the Scripture.

More than ten years ago, Gary Freeman (well-known religious satirist who writes in Mission magazine) was living in Cleveland, Ohio, while I was living nearby in Akron. Gary once wrote an article in which he scathingly reproached some whom he called “Antis” as brethren who do nothing, but who merely object to what other brethren are doing. In an article in reply, I called attention to the fact that the church where Gary preached published in their financial statement the expenditure of the astounding sum of $25 per month for “mission work.” Their contribution then was about $1,000.00 per week. The “do-nothing” church for which I then preached was Brown Street in Akron, Ohio. Our contribution was about $700.00 per week, but we were spending $1500.00 to $2,000.00 per month in the support of gospel preachers. Evidently it became embarrassingly apparent to Brother Freeman as to which church was doing nothing, and which one was doing the criticizing.

Soon after this exchange of articles, I was conducting a meeting at nearby Berea, Ohio. Gary came to hear me preach, and afterward initiated a discussion regarding our doctrinal disagreements. As we attempted to discuss the areas wherein we disagree (such as the congregational support of human institutions, and the pooling of brotherhood resources to be spent as directed by the elders of a sponsoring church), Gary finally became rather exasperated with me, and said something like, “Brother, we have two entirely different perspectives!” I think he was exactly right, and “these two entirely different perspectives” result in the various areas of specific disagreements.

No-Patternism

There are some of us who still believe the Bible constitutes a divinely given blueprint, and that we must not digress from the divinely given “pattern.” (Read Heb. 8:5; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jno. 9; 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Eph. 1:22,23.) There are others who ridicule the idea of a divinely given blueprint, and who would throw out completely and reject summarily the very concept of restoring apostolic preaching and practice in this 20th century. Such persons therefore are not upset by digression from the apostolic order of worship, or by a perversion of congregational organization and autonomy by one church becoming the agent for others, or by churches functioning through human institutions.

David Edwin Harrell, Jr., in his 1973 book The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, speaks of these two perspectives as being “diverging attitudes” (p. 16), and showed how these divergent attitudes resulted in brethren moving “slowly apart” (p. 32). The famous Disciples of Christ historian, Dr. A. T. Degroot, candidly stated that the “pattern concept” was that which led to division. In a 1940 book, The Grounds of Divisions Among the Disciples of Christ, Degroot stated in his Christ, Degroot stated in his Introduction:

“It is the purpose of the present work to trace the genesis and exodus of the divisions which have come to pass in the Restoration movement…. Having made our investigations in advance of the writing of this Introduction, we are ready o set forth our thesis, namely: that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive” (p. 8).

The premise, as stated by Degroot and as repeated by many other historians, led brethren down ever more divergent paths. One was steadfastly holding to a first century pattern; the other group could not care less for a restoration of the New Testament church in the 20th century. As I heard one very liberal preacher put it: “Our trouble is, we are trying to preach a horse and buggy religion, but we are in the jet age!” Every brother who has contributed one little bit toward obliterating the “follow the pattern” attitude must share in the blame of the whole sordid mess about us today. The brother who 25 years ago was out preaching his gospel of “God told us to do it, but did not tell us how in order to try to justify something which he could not find taught in Scripture must accept his share of blame for the prevalent ultra-liberalism, which some of these preachers today pretend to abhor. The younger generation have just carried what he taught them a little further than he was willing to carry it. Consequently, they are consistent but wrong; he is both inconsistent and wrong.

The Silence of Scripture

Many of our differences could be compressed into Adifferent perspectives” about the nature of God’s silence. The liberals have maintained that things not specifically condemned are matters of liberty. Those with a Biblical perspective have maintained that those things not authorized (either by generic or specific authority) are hereby prohibited. Louis Cochran, also a Disciples of Christ historian, accurately portrayed this divergence of perspectives when he said:

“Did the silence of the Scripture bind them to abstain, or loose them to perform? One group of men held that where there is no prohibition there was no transgression. Another group saw things differently. Where there was no clear command to act there was no justification for action, and any step in that direction was a violation of God’s word.” Captives of the Word, pp. 159, 160).

A.W. Fortune, yet another Disciples of Christ historian, also correctly pin-pointed the basic disagreement between liberals and conservatives a century ago. It as correctly represents our basic disagreements today as it did a hundred years ago.

“There were two different interpretations of the church which inevitably came into conflict. There were those who believed the church should move on with the world and adapt the spirit of the New Testament to conditions that were ever changing. They held that, when not forbidden by the New Testament, they were free to adapt their program to changing needs. On the other hand, there were those who believed the pattern of the church was fixed for all time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was sufficient ground for rejecting them. The men on both sides were equally honest, but they had a different approach to these issues that were raised@ (The Disciples in Kentucky, ( pp. 364-365).

Go back and read again all the “no-pattern” and “no prohibition” arguments brethren have advanced the last 25 or 35 years, and it will help wonderfully to understand why brethren are in such a quagmire today.

Apostolic Examples and Necessary Inferences

Much theological manipulation has been parlayed before the brethren for more than a quarter of a century to try to avert the necessity of abiding by apostolic procedure in benevolent work, and to avoid sending “wages” directly (i.e., not through a sponsoring church) unto gospel preachers. We have seen these brethren cut out the heart of the argument made for years that we must give command, example, or necessary inference for all we preach or practice.

Older liberal brethren only have wanted to avoid following certain apostolic examples that pertained to benevolence and evangelism. But the “now generation,” which has been fed throughout their lives upon the diet of the denial of apostolic examples and necessary inferences, are ready to discard the entire concept of following apostolic examples, in spite of Paul’s explicit order that we follow his example (Phil. 4:9), and many now totally reject as essential any inferential truths.

As recently as in the latest Firm Foundation to arrive at my home (December 18, 1973 issue), we find a brother advocating complete rejection of examples and necessary inferences. The Firm Foundation writer (Michael Hall of Columbus, Ohio) said:

“This writer suggests (until a better and more Biblical answer is suggested) that. . . >matters of faith’ are those areas wherein there is a direct, explicit command that’s binding upon all people at all times! And thus, >matters of opinion’ are all those areas which are deducted from inferences and examples and those areas of private judgment of men concerning Bible subjects and themes. . . . >Matters of faith’ are distinguished from >matters of opinion’ in that the former are direct, expressly stated commands and the latter aren’t!” It would be interesting to hear this brother tell us why one should partake of the Lord’s Supper only upon the first day of the week, and why one should not use mechanical instruments of music in worship. Our Firm Foundation writer just shot himself out of the saddle, whether he recognizes that he did so, or not.

Conclusion

The urgent need today is to recognize the New Testament as the divinely given pattern for work and worship, to recognize the prohibitory nature of God’s silence, and to require apostolic authority (command, or example, or necessary inference) for all we teach and practice. When we determine to do these three things, we will be on the way toward eradicating the sickening mess which digression has brought into the churches.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:51, p. 3-5
October 31, 1974

By Austin Mobley

We have heard and read all kinds of attempts to justify mechanical instruments of music in worship. They range all the way from misrepresentations (“you don’t believe in music”); prejudice and self-will (“I know the Bible says sing, but I like the organ”); emotional appeals (“The organ music is so beautiful”); popularity (“everybody uses it”), to appeals for their use from the Old Testament. But recently I was introduced to a brand new one.

In response to our article in the local newspaper regarding the use of instruments of music in worship unto God, a respondent of the Seventh Church Of The Transmission listed these as justification for their use:

1. I Sam. 16:23: “And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.”

2. I Sam. 10:5: “. . . Thou shalt meet a company, of prophets coming down from the high places with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy.”

3. “In spiritual inspiration they can pack a wallop.”

Our critic was shown that Christians today are not subject to the law of Moses because Christ “. . . took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14), and those today who seek to be justified by the law are “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). We also pointed out that under Moses’ law the Jews were required to offer animal sacrifices (2 Chron. 29:28-29instrumental music and animal sacrifices both used in worship); keep the Sabbath day holy (Ex. 20:8-Christians forbidden to keep the Sabbath, Col. 2:16); male circumcision; and that those who lived under the law were obligated to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3; Jas. 2:10) or suffer the penalty of being stoned to death (Lev. 24:13-23). We further suggested that even though instruments of music may ‘pack a wallop” in worship, authority for their use is not given in the New Testament, hence God does not approve (Rev. 22:18-19).

Our friend responded with much rhetoric but did not scripturally answer these arguments. We conclude that his thinking is in the wrong gear and that the Church of the Transmission needs overhauling! Instruments of music in worship may ‘pack a wallop, “but they are without authority from Christ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:51, p. 2
October 31, 1974