Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

A Letter Dated January 25, 1974

San Marcos, Texas 78666

“Dear Mrs.

“The university furnished a list of students who mentioned that their religious preference was Church of Christ. Your name was on the list. That is the justification we have for writing you a letter.

AAs you probably know, there are two congregations of the Church of Christ in San Marcos. If you are a regular attendant at the University Church on Guadalupe, and are happy in the fellowship of the fine members of that congregation. we congratulate you. If, on the other hand you rarely attend, or have serious doubts about the views expressed by the brethren at University, please do not automatically become a religious dropout. ‘Copping out’ is not the answer.

“We suggest, for example, that you give some thought to the views of the Holland Street Church. Often we have been asked what we stand for, or what is the difference between our approach to religion and that of most Churches of Christ. Recently we have given a great deal of thought to this question and have tentatively reduced our answer to writing.

“One problem with answering such a question is that many questions about religious faith cannot be definitively answered, You have observed in some of your university classes that most education is like that also. In fact it is doubtful if you will know all the answers even when you graduate, Our approach to religion is some-what similar. We don’t know all the answers, but are trying to keep open minds and ‘grow in knowledge and wisdom.’

“But as we mentioned, we have put in writing some of our tentative answers. Since we think you might be interested, we propose to send you a series of letters, enclosing in each a short statement of our approach to a particular aspect of religion. You might want to file each away as you receive it, so that at the end you would have a fair knowledge of our viewpoint. If it interests you we would of course invite you to meet with us Sunday mornings at 10:30 and share with, us in the searching for answers.

Sincerely,

John Ballard

Victor Bowers

Russell Cooper

Elders, Holland Street Church of Christ

This letter is rather subtle in a number of aspects. It gently suggests that there is some difference between what the Holland Street Church stands for and what the University Church stands for. If so, why? Does one of them not accept the teaching of the Bible on some point or has one of them departed from the faith? If both accepted the Bible as the standard of faith and teaching as well as practice, would they not be agreed? Is there more than one faith (Eph. 4:5)? If these brethren differ in what they believe and teach, they need to get together and see if they cannot resolve the difference or both of them cannot be the Church of our Lord.

The implication that there is room for serious doubts about what the University Church teaches is definitely implied. Have the Holland Street brethren pointed out to their brethren in the Lord, University Church, what these doubts are about and made any effort to straighten them out in their false teaching? If not, do they not feel a Christian obligation to make an effort in that direction?

This writer would suggest that there is serious room to doubt the attitude of the Holland Street Church toward the Word God and we base this charge upon what their letter said. They very definitely admit that there is a “difference between our approach to religion and that of most Churches of Christ.” They propose to state in severai letters to the students to whom they wrote this letter just what that difference is.

They warn in advance that many religious questions cannot be “definitively” answered. This means that there are many religious questions, according to these Elders, that cannot be explicitly and positively answered. This sounds not like the answer of those humbly admitting they do not know revealed truth, but rather like those who have the attitude that truth is “relative” and cannot be determinate or limiting. This is the broad view of revealed truth. There are many things unrevealed, of course, but in this realm they could seek until eternity and would never know the answers. It sounds though that they are implying that even with reference to many revealed matters, truth cannot be positively determined and that therefore each individual is to reach his own conclusion based upon and guided by his own “approach to religion.” When you hear people talking about “our approach to religion” it speaks of everything else but simple faith in those things to be “most surely believed” as they are revealed in the Word of God.

We cannot print the whole article that accompanied this letter but we must give you some quotations from it that highlight their “approach to religion.”

“We believe that God inspired the writing, preservation, and collection of the Holy Scriptures. We are not disturbed when scholars conclude that the formulation of this remarkable book was far more complicated than our small minds had previously supposed. Nor does it unsettle our faith when scientists find evidence that the creation of the physical universe was more complex than previously thought. The God we worship is so great that he could inspire the production of a book or create a universe in any way whatever.”

The above paragraph is the best preparation possible for a modification of the meaning of revelation and inspiration of the scriptures and a rejection of the simplicity of the Bible account of creation in favor of theistic evolution. We strongly suspect that this group of elders, and those whom they guide spiritually with their “approach to religion,” are guilty of both attitudes.

Here is another remarkable statement: “The Church existed and prospered for two hundred years before the New Testament as presently known was accumulated; therefore, Christians may very well be pleasing to God without understanding of or complete agreement on the exact meaning of every verse of Scripture.”

“As presently known” is a loop hole they have left for themselves. Do they mean by this with reference to the truth it reveals or in its arrangement? If the church could exist for two hundred years without the truths of the New Testament ‘ then it can exist now without the New Testament and this is just about the conclusion that must be drawn from all the article and letter say.

Now listen to this statement: “The Holy Scriptures are not, in our judgment a book of rules. Attempts to substitute a ‘law of Jesus’ for a ‘Law of Moses’ have been sources of division rather than unity. They have furthermore, served to narrowly restrict the flow of God’s grace through the Church. The love of God for human beings is no more expressed through a manual of rules than could hunger be assuaged by stones.”

We are hearing this from many different sources; denominationalism has always preached it. Calvinism is built around the idea. Ketcherside would have nothing to talk about if it were not for this idea. Many of the liberal brethren and a larger number of those who claim to be conservative than we would like to think, are advocating this idea through every medium they have. They seem to think there is some necessary conflict between law and grace. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Paul states, “being not without law to God, but under law to Christ” (I Cor. 9:21). There is no greater fallacy in religion today than the idea that we have no law to govern us today because we are under Grace. Grace has provided “the law of faith,” in divine revelation – “the gospel of the grace of God.”

But here is the “cap to the climax”: “We doubt that such passages as Acts 20:7 (AOn the first day of the week when we were assembled to break bread . . .@ ) and I Corinthians 16:2 (AOn the first day of the week, let everyone lay by in store as he has been prospered…@) should be any more used for legalistic formulations than I Thessalonians 5:26 (ASalute all your brethren with a holy kiss@) or John 13:5 (AYe ought also to wash one another’s feet@). In fact, we question the whole method, often used, of looking upon the Bible as a compilation of Acommands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.@ We look upon the Bible as a source of principles rather than a rule book, and upon the Gospel as good news about Jesus rather than a series of commands to be obeyed.”

Read it over again, brethren and weep! These men are purported elders of a purported Church of Christ! They are writing to young people who are being sent to one of the state universities in Texas and they are writing invitations to young people who are Christians, from Christian homes. telling them that if they want to worship as they please and live like the devil wants them to live, and yet call themselves members of the “Church of Christ” – “Come with us – for we do not believe the Bible is a divine law – it is more like a history book – full of principles but with no laws that have to be obeyed.” What a damnable doctrine to propagate concerning the “Scriptures breathed of God.” These people are not faithful to the Lord. They cannot be with such an. attitude. Their hearts are full of “spiritual adultery” and they are playing the harlot after the world.

There is no reason any longer to believe that because a congregation calls itself “Church of Christ” that it necessarily recognizes any duty of allegiance to Christ or necessity of submission to Him. Many of them are propagating infidelity and have thrown the Bible out of the window. Someone needs to paint out the sign “Church of Christ” and in its stead inscribe “The Synagogue of Satan.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 7-8
July 11, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

A problem that young people from Christian families meet in school concerns dancing. Dancing is so universally accepted by society as being wholesome entertainment, that a young person who does not dance is off beat. Especially one who refuses because of conviction. I want to keep this article short, so I shall get immediately into the reasons why it is wrong for Christians to engage in the modern dance.

(1) Dancing is not the harmless, wholesome entertainment it appears to be at first glance. When a mother is interested in her daughter’s popularity more than in her soul, she thinks of the dance as a well chaperoned little group of well behaved neighborhood youngsters enjoying an evening together in somebody’s home. She doesn’t think of the noisy crowd of half drunken revelers that frequent the “Breeze Inn and Stagger Out” night club. But people who learn to dance, love to dance, and not many stop with the neighborhood party and the high-school prom. It is like drinking. There is not a wino on skid row that didn’t take his first drink just for kicks or to be with the crowd, and probably in some nice neighbor’s living room. A survey in a home for wayward girls revealed that most of them started their journey down the path of shame from the dance hall. And whether the dance is in the night club or the home of a respected citizen, the embrace, the step and the closeness of the bodies are all the same.

2. Dancing brings the opposite sexes into a familiar embrace that, in normal people, produce lasciviousness. The things that make petting both sinful and dangerous are also true of dancing. The Bible says, “The works of the flesh are . . . adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft … drunkenness, murder and such like. Of which I have told you before and tell you even now, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” (Gal. 5:19-23) The Bible puts lasciviousness in the class with adultery and murder. Why? Because both are sin, and both will cause one to miss heaven.

It is sometimes hard for young ladies to understand, I think, the significance of lasciviousness, because the embrace of a dance does not stir in them the baser emotions that it stirs in a man. But whether she feels the same fleshly desire herself or not, she is partly responsible for his feeling and thoughts, and therefore a partaker of his sin.

3. If for no other reason, the Christian should refrain from attending the dance for the sake of his influence. You would not look for a spiritually minded person on a dance floor. “A praying knee and a dancing foot do not grow on the same limb.” The story is told that a man was stricken with a heart attack and died while on the dance floor. The Lord came to claim him because he was a Christian. But the devil was also there, and he said, “he might be yours, but he died on my territory, so I am here to claim him.” If you think this is absurd, answer me this question: If you should be stricken while on the dance floor, would you say, “Lord I am ready. Take me home.” Or would you ask the Lord to forgive you for your sins? Honor bright? In either case, I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for your chances. If you want to die right, you must live right. A worldly person, not a member of the church, or any church, once asked me why I preach against dancing. I said, “I will let you answer. If you saw me on the dance floor next Saturday night, knowing that I am a preacher of the gospel, what would you think of me?” She answered without hesitation, “I wouldn’t think you were much of a preacher.” Well, if it isn’t wrong, it isn’t wrong for the preacher. The Bible says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (I Thess. 5:22).

Don’t be afraid to be different, young people. Every worthwhile achievement was accomplished by someone who was not afraid to be different and to fly in the face of public opinion.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 6
July 11, 1974

By Cecil Willis

On the preceding page, there is an article written by Brother Tom Oglesby of Bedford, Ohio in which he responds to an article which I wrote. Before reading this article, read Brother Oglesby’s article, and then if you still have it available, read again what I said in my April 11 editorial.

Frankly, it was against my better judgment to print Brother Oglesby’s reply, and I wrote to him about the matter. Tom Oglesby, from all I have ever known or heard about him, is a faithful and fearless preacher of the gospel. I was afraid that some would think that his article would indicate some sympathy for the error which we have been exposing recently on what has been labeled the “grace fellowship heresy.” But Brother Oglesby wanted his reply printed anyway, and thus his wish in the matter has been honored. In the letter which Brother Oglesby wrote requesting that his article be printed, he said: “As of now, the only reluctance in having the article printed would be that Bill Wallace would pick it up, print it in the Guardian, and, in the eyes of some brethren, I would become his defender, or worse yet, Ed Fudge’s defender. I am not and do not intend to become such! That, I suppose, is an occupational hazard in writing for publication.” This, Brother Oglesby, precisely was the reason why I would rather not have published your reply, but at your insistence now have done so.

Brother Oglesby needs no recommendation from me. Though he is yet one whom some brethren would call one of our “young preachers,” everywhere that I have known of his work, he did a mature man’s job at it. I do not, nor did I in my April 11 article, doubt for one moment Brother Oglesby’s soundness in the faith.

He states he is not sure which of my “descriptive verbiage” was applicable to him, and which was not. Well, if he would have considered the three issues I discussed in the article, that would have been some help to him as to which terms might have been applicable to him. I do not know Brother Oglesby’s age exactly, but I would judge him to be about 30 years old; so he is no novice. However, the major portions of the early battles over premillennialism and institutionalism had been fought either before he was born, or while he was yet but a very small child. So Brother Tom, you can eliminate all the “descriptive verbiage” that I used in describing the fence-straddlers during the early days of the premillennial and institutional fights. That cuts out quite a few of my descriptive terms as being applicable to you, doesn’t it?

The truth of the matter is, Brother Oglesby, not a single one of my opprobrious adjectives which you quote were intended for you! Now that should soothe your feelings somewhat. You might now even withdraw your “bordered on pomposity” charge against me! That “pomposity” charge, which incidently, I have seen in only one other source, made me feet a little “like the fellow who was called a ‘loquacious homo sapien,’ ” and who therefore was “not sure if I have been insulted or not!” Let me just say, Brother Tom, that I am not insulted by your “bordered on pomposity” charge. After editing a paper for a few years, I am a little harder to insult than I used to be. I get called all kinds of things. Just last week I got two letters addressed to “Cecil Willis, D. A. ” There were seven pages, single-spaced, so I turned to the end to see who was addressing me. As usual for such letters, the writer did not sign the letters. I assumed that he was depicting me in the role of the “District Attorney,” since I had been writing some articles critical of some teaching being done, until a friend of mine came in, and I handed the letters to him. He took the time to read them. Rather than meaning I was the “District Attorney,” my kind respondent informed me near the end of one of his letters that the “D. A.” stood for “Devil’s Advocate. ” Now I never would have known what I was being called, if someone else had not taken the time to read those anonymous letters. I do not waste much time reading unsigned letters. So, your Apomposity” charge did not upset me, though I think the charge is completely groundless.

Brother Oglesby thinks my article was uncalled for. That is his prerogative. I just happen to think his little jibe in his bulletin, which I quoted in my April 11 editorial, was likewise uncalled for. Futhermore, he charges that I have made a “blanket condemnation” of men who did not jump into this or previous controversies before they had studied the issues. Quite the contrary, Brother Oglesby. I said, “If these brethren see no doctrinal error involved, then their silence is understandable.” Brother Oglesby refers to brethren who have “burned the midnight oil for many months” before deciding wherein is the truth. I have never reproached such a brother. In fact, there is one faithful preacher who previously was aligned with the institutional element that I frequently have used as an illustration of a man diligently searching for the truth. This man at that time earned his living as a welder. But I have often said, “I believe if you were to visit Brother-‘s house at midnight for five consecutive nights, I feel confident that you would find him sitting at the kitchen table studying the Bible and materials related to the controverted issues at least three of those five nights.” I have only the highest respect for such men, Brother Tom, and I do not condemn them by either specific or “blanket condemnation.” I commend them, one and all, highly!

But the brethren whom I did have in mind do not fit into this category. They are the brethren who either refuse to study the issues for fear of what they might learn, or who fear to speak out publicly what they believe in their heart. My “descriptive verbiage ” was aimed only at such men. And interestingly, I have not received a single letter of criticism of that article from any man who was old enough to know that such situations did in fact exist.

The charge had been made that we were fostering a controversy to gain subscriptions from the Gospel Guardian (I am now even a paying subscriber to that paper), or to increase our bookstore business. Spelled any way you want to spell it, Brother Oglesby, I deny that charge in my most “descriptive terminology,” and deeply resent it being made.

Brother Oglesby has said that he would be willing to write on both grace and fellowship in Truth Magazine. It has never entered my mind that he would write anything except the truth on either subject. In my letter to him, I invited him to write on both subjects for publication in Truth Magazine. But whether he elects to accept my invitation or not, does not in any way affect what I believe about his convictions and his actions. I believe he both believes and teaches the truth on both grace and fellowship.

I told Brother Oglesby in my letter that “I was talking about a few, but well-known and experienced preachers, who straddled the fence until the battle-lines had been well drawn, and in some instances, until the smoke of battle had cleared away.” If Brother Oglesby does not know of any such brethren, then he is a little-naive. On the other hand, if he does know of some such brethren among us now (or in the premillennial and institutional controversies), what does he expect me to give them? A garland of roses and recommend they be given by a grateful brotherhood a “medal of honor”? Or would he likewise use some of my “descriptive verbiage” on such fence-straddling brethren?

It seems that no matter how many times I say it, some brethren are determined not to believe it. Truth Magazine, and those of us who are connected with it or write for it, is not seeking to form a Truth Magazine-party in the Lord’s church. We are only seeking to do what every faithful gospel preacher should be doing, and that is to teach the truth, and to expose error and errorists. And I wish brethren would quit trying to indict our motives, and cease to make their charge that we are trying to line up everybody with Truth Magazine.

I am glad for Brother Oglesby to be heard, and once again, I want to state that I did not apply a single one of what he termed my “descriptive verbiage” to Brother Tom Oglesby. He always, so far as is known to me, has been in the thick of battle and has fought some heroic battles for a man of his age.

But there are some brethren among us who know right now what the truth is on this grace-fellowship heresy (they already have burned the midnight oil), but who have remained and, in some instances, still remain as silent as a tomb regarding these matters, while these errors are permitted to have free-course among God’s people, and while this false doctrine wreaks its course of havoc across the country. I wish it were true that error unopposed would silently disappear. But the teaching of Scripture, as well as what little I have learned by experience, indicates that such does not happen. This grace-fellowship heresy is here to stay. These loose brethren have the right tune for the time. They are preaching exactly what many brethren would like to hear, and it is inevitable that they will gain a popular following. Silent appeasement is not going to stop this infiltration of error. Every single servant of God ought to be in the thick of this fray, until this error and its influence have been stamped out from among us. Forget about Truth Magazine, Torch, Gospel Guardian, Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, and any other paper published by brethren, but do not forget to teach the truth and to oppose error on every front.

It happens to be my opinion that Tom Oglesby will do his share of the teaching of the truth, but it also just happens to be my opinion that some brethren who already know the truth on this insidious error which is permeating the Body of Christ are being criminally negligent in their silence, regardless of their reason for keeping silent. None of us desires to see churches rent asunder, but more than that, none of us desires to see error permitted to run rampant through the church, and some of us are determined to use every righteous means at our disposal to stop it. And I do not intend to sound like a discouraged-Elijah when I make that statement. God still has His seven thousand who will not bow their knees to the grace-fellowship Baal. But watchmen upon the towers and walls of spiritual Israel had better not close their eyes to existing or approaching error. If they should fail to do their duty, their divine Master will require it of them.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 3-6
July 11, 1974

By Tom Oglesby

In a recent issue (April 11, 1974 of Truth Magazine), Cecil Willis quoted and severely criticized a short article which he credits to “an Ohio brother.” Since I am the author of the article, I think it appropriate that some response by made from my hand.

When a fellow has been “written up,” his first impulse might be emotionally to treat the matter as a personal insult. That is especially so if he feels he has been treated unfairly and if the criticizing journal and writer are ones for which he has great respect. I will have to admit that when I first read Brother Willis’ editorial, I was somewhat personally indignant. But that feeling has passed and now I want to make some thoughtful and reasoned comments about this editorial as a whole.

Brother Willis has always been a good writer, but he truly waxed eloquent in his descriptive verbiage of those who are apparently delinquent in their responsibilities as viewed by him. Note some of the descriptive terminology: “. . latecomers. . cowards . . . do not want to committed. . . waving the white flag … crying crocodile tears … down-right yellow … waited until everyone lined up before … (deciding) … which side I am going to be on … gain an ignoble record … ride the fence bury your head in the sand Brother Willis is usually very clear in his writing, but in this instance, I am not quite sure which of these adjectives and terms apply to me and which apply only to other brethren who have been deficient gospel defenders in past controversies. Like the fellow who was called a “loquacious homo sapien,” I am not sure if I have been insulted or not!

Let me give you some of the background for the article which I wrote. (It probably would be good if you would turn back to the April I I issue and re-read it). Several, months ago I began corresponding with a fellow about a possible debate on instrumental music. When no agreement about an oral debate appeared feasible, I suggested a written debate with the Gospel Guardian carrying the debate for the benefit of non-instrumental brethren and another journal carrying it for those who use the instrument. This correspondence began before the first exchanges were being made between Truth Magazine and Gospel Guardian. After the exchanges began, the fellow with whom I had been corresponding questioned whether or not I would be comfortable writing in the Gospel Guardian and about the same time the incident occurred to which reference was made in my short article. It was in this context that I wrote the article quoted by Brother Willis.

Since Brother Willis did not “review” my article but simply used it as a starter for his own, I wonder what part of it he considered to be in error. Cecil, you inferred that something was wrong with the article, but you really did not tell us what it was. Exactly what statement did you disagree with? When a man is called on the carpet, he appreciates knowing what he has done wrong!

Brother Willis writes: “. . someone might get the impression that some of us connected With Truth Magazine have asked this brother to line up with Truth Magazine.” I realize that. 1 can sometimes be dense and that I am not the brightest among the preaching brethren, but I just can not see where a fellow would get such an impression regarding Truth Magazine anymore than he would regarding Gospel Guardian. Cecil, did you get the impression that the Guardian has tried to line me up on their side? Aw shucks, Cecil, aren’t you getting a little sensitive? The only impression I tried to give is that when a fellow lines up on the side of the Lord, preaches truth and condemns error, he is fulfilling his responsibility to God!

Actually, there are a few things in Brother Willis’s article that bother me a lot more than his misuse of my article. I am afraid the blanket condemnation of men who did not immediately jump into past controversies did a great disservice to a number of brethren whose honesty and sincerity would not allow them to jump into a controversy just because this preacher or that preacher was already waging the battle. Many of these men burned the midnight oil for many months so that they could determine by their own study the truth on those matters. To reproach them as cowards and to question their spiritual courage is irresponsible and unfair. No doubt there were some who held back in spite of convictions until the battle had ebbed, but I am not about to accept that as being typical of most conservative preachers.

Cecil, your article gendered several questions in my mind that I would like you to give your attention to. First of all, do you question my position on grace and fellowship? If you do, I will be glad to straighten that out with a series of articles on either or both subjects. But you do not really need that. All you have to do is check with the brethren with whom I work. I believe they know where I stand just as anyone who has heard me speak on the subjects would know. In the past year, I have before witnesses marked and branded as a troublemaker the only person recently associated with the Bedford church who has been tainted with Ketchersideism. The Bedford church in unison has with my approval and encouragement publicly marked this man. Is this the way a man straddles the fence?

Secondly, do you mean by the tenor of your article that any man who has not jumped into print one way or another on the status of Edward Fudge or the Gospel Guardian has gone soft? Have we suddenly become spiritual patsies because our names have not yet appeared in print consigning these men to the conservative scrapheap? Have we all heard both sides to the extent that we can say we have given both a fair hearing? I may be slower than most, Cecil, but please give me time to study these matters (i. e. the soundness of the men involved; not the issues of grace and fellowship themselves) without being too anxious to question my motives. God knows that I am not stalling or straddling the fence but I simply will not be forced into a position on a man’s soundness without fully satisfying myself that I have reached the truth. I am sure some of you quicker thinking brethren are frustrated at the snail’s pace at which some of us reason, but we must come to our own judgment on the matter!

I am confident that I have lined up with the truth on the matter of fellowship and grace. I just imagine that I am also lined up with Cecil Willis when it comes to those two subjects and a great many others. But the time just has not come when another man is going to make my decisions for me, nor determine the amount of time or information I am going to need to make a decision. Should that day come, I think I would just move over with the liberals or the sectarians where the financial plums are bigger and convictions are not a drag on one’s behavior.

Cecil, may I speak frankly to you as friend to friend and brother to brother? I know the personal risk I run in being so critical of you because many brethren, myself included, greatly respect your work and efforts for the truth. But your article of April 11 bordered on pomposity and gave the appearance of one who sounded the charge, and then became indignant because all did not follow immediately. As stated in my previous article, I will “. . go on doing my local work as best I can, attacking error and false doctrine wherever I see it and hope that most of my brethren will do the same.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 2-3
July 11, 1974