Truth Magazine

By James W Adams

The human brain is a marvelous and curious instrument. Why is it that some things, apparently long forgotten, suddenly pop up from memory’s storehouse? Almost twenty-five years ago, when our now deceased brother, Cled E. Wallace, was being subjected to some particularly virulent personal attacks by brethren whose “idols” Brother Cled had challenged, he said to me with reference to some of those attacks from men highly self-advertised as eminently pious, “Jim, I’ve always been afraid of a good man.” Of course, Brother Cled did not mean a good man in the true sense of that expression, but he meant a man who made a point of exposing his humility, piety, and goodness (?) like the gaudy, neon-lighted facade of a cheap ill-kept motel to the weary traveler in the camouflaging shadows of the dead of night. I too have learned from sad experience that such “goodness” (?) is only skin deep. Scratch the surface and the pent-up poison will come gushing out.

A Re-appraisal

More than a year ago, I began a series of articles in Truth Magazine reviewing W. Carl Ketcherside and his “unity” movement. In August, while in a meeting in San Antonio, Texas, I developed a hernia requiring surgery at the earliest possible time. I underwent surgery in October. The surgery was completely successful but it brought a halt in my review. As soon as I was well enough to travel, I fulfilled commitments in Florida and Kentucky. Returning from them, I was plunged into a building project in which my study was enlarged. This took about four weeks during which time my study was in complete chaos. Two rather lengthy manuscripts (actually three) were prepared next, the Florida College Lectures attended, and then more meetings (four of them). So, I am only just now getting back to my series. I am sorry, but I do not know how I could have done otherwise.

During this time, I have been reading, listening, and thinking. The interim has given me the opportunity to read again all that I have previously written in this series, study carefully the responses and reactions of those whom we have criticized, hear William Wallace on two occasions in what amounted to a defense of Edward Fudge, listen to the advice and comments of numerous brethren (some friendly; some not so friendly), read a number of volumes relating to material to be dealt with in future articles, and re-think and re-evaluate the entire situation which obtains. Last, but by no means least, I have spent much time in meditation and prayer as well as Bible study seeking diligently the wisdom and knowledge which is from above, and without which all is vain.

When I began this review a year ago, it was not because I entertained in my mind the idea that I could help or in any way change Brother W. Carl Ketcherside. In fact, I am reasonably certain it amuses him immensely that I should suppose he needs to change. My purpose was to rescue, if possible, a considerable number of gospel preachers (particularly young men just beginning) from active acceptance of and involvement in Brother Carl’s concepts and activities. From the beginning, I was not even very optimistic about accomplishing this with reference to some of these young men who were and are deeply steeped in Ketchersidean propaganda. My principal hope was to save young men and other Christians (not preachers) who were not yet involved in this error but who were or might be attracted by the artful deception of such men as W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett.

Looking at the matter a year and some twenty articles later, I find myself not unduly discouraged with the results. Allowing for a reasonable degree of human prejudice on my part. I yet feel that what I set out to do has already, in a great measure, been accomplished. Conservative brethren have been shocked out of a state of naive complacency relative to Brother Ketcherside’s ability to affect conservatives adversely. Considerable light has been cast upon and heat applied to issues, men, and influences which have been nurturing Ketchersidean concepts among conservative brethren. Many young men preparing to preach who had been partially committed to Ketcherside’s views have seen their errors and have backed away from them. Others not yet involved are now acutely aware of the gravity of the situation and are studying the issues involved and exercising proper discretion about vocalizing prematurely concerning them.

It was never my intention, the intention of Brother Willis, nor the aim of Truth Magazine to apply any sort of “political pressure” to any person, congregation, paper, or college with the aim of “lining them up” relative to anything which did not constitute a sincere conviction of truth, attained by personal study and embraced as a sincere act of personal commitment. Any charge to this effect is, therefore, a blatant, wilful, and malicious falsehood. It is without evidence to sustain it, hence can originate only in a distorted imagination and a malignant disposition, regardless of declarations of dedication to being “loving and loveable.” Only one of Brother Cled’s “good men” could possibly be guilty of such an accusation. It was and is our aim to state clearly and unequivocally our convictions concerning Ketchersideism among conservatives and to oppose without personal malice, yet with all the ability of which we are capable, every vestige of Ketchersidean influence and teaching which we discover. We stand unalterably opposed to every man who fosters or abets such, and we seek to awaken all in positions of influence and power to the responsibility of active, effective opposition there unto whether they be elders, Bible class teachers, deacons, preachers, editors, writers, or college administrators and teachers. For this stand, we make no apologies.

When we began this effort to root out Ketchersidean subversion, we fully expected to be castigated, our motives to be falsely judged, and our persons and characters vilified and maligned. The “good men” with whom we deal have lived up to our expectations in this regard. Our only surprise has been in the individuals who have identified themselves with this class. In making these statements, I do not complain nor do I seek sympathy by maudlin appeals to emotionalism. If I do not have the faith and fortitude to meet both issues and men involved in these matters (whatever their tactics), I should abdicate the field of controversy. I have never asked any quarter from teachers of error or their sympathizers, nor do I propose to offer any. However, I stand ready to offer the “right hand of fellowship” to any person, young or old, who desires to take a firm stand for truth regardless of past mistakes. I will do this without prejudice regardless of anything he may have thought, said, or done against me personally, and I will use whatever influence I may possess to undo any damage which may have been done to his usefulness among brethren by reason of his previous commitment to error. I do not consider myself an enemy of these brethren, as Paul would say, “because I tell them the truth.” I believe that for which I am contending is right. I believe the situation with which we deal is real, not contrived by us to satisfy either ambitious (lust for power) or mercenary (lust for business) motives. I believe that which we oppose to be destructive of the best interests of the cause of truth. Until I am convinced otherwise, I shall continue to press the battle, and you will not find me “taking the pulse of the brethren” to determine my course, nor will you find me deterred by the unfavorable reaction of some of them.

A Look at Some Reactions to Our Efforts

Deal with principles, not men. I doubt not that some of the super-charged reactions could have been avoided had we dealt only with principles. Such an approach to the eradication of error, however, is neither practical nor effective. No battle for truth in the face of impending or developing apostasy can be won by an objective study of principles alone. He who thinks it can is either naive, ignorant, inexperienced in controversy, afraid, or all four. It is the age-old problem of winning the argument and losing the people. Our battle is not an academic dialogue but a struggle for the hearts and the lives of men-living, immortal souls. Christ and His apostles hesitated not to identify men with issues, hence to do so is neither unloving, carnal, un-Christlike, unspiritual, nor unnecessarily divisive. To register anger and disgust with and militant opposition to pernicious error, its devotees, and its sympathizers have justifying precedents in the conduct of Old Testament prophets, Christ, and His apostles. No informed Bible student should think of denying this, but if there is some respectable man among our conservative critics who has the ambition to try it, I shall be more than glad to oblige him with a head-on confrontation on this point either on the polemic platform or in the religious press.

Polysyllabic adjectives and undignified terminology. My adjectives seem to trouble some of our neophyte scholars. This seems strange considering the fact that they are at least in English whether they be polysyllabic or otherwise, which is more than can be said for their learned Greek criticisms and Latin solecisms. It seems proper to observe that what I write seems to be pretty universally read and understood, otherwise our precocious neophytes would not be so disturbed about what I have had to say.

Relative to my “dignity,” I find it hard to please the good brethren. For years I have been hearing, via the good old brotherhood grapevine, from my detractors (some professing to by my friends) how “cold, unapproachable, and unfriendly” I am. Now, they are greatly concerned about my “dignity,” or loss of it. One never quite makes it, does he?

The above is not intended for friends, tried and true, who have chided me about the questionable dignity of my remark that some of our neophyte scholars “give me a pain which I cannot locate, and which might be too embarrassing to identify if I could.” For the genuine interest of friends, I am grateful, and by the criticisms of my detractors, I am amused. Relative to the question of whether such a remark falls beneath the level of acceptable dignity in religious journalism, I beg to dissent both from friend and foe. Perhaps it is so, but on the other hand, perhaps it is not!

If such a statement is beneath the level of proper dignity in the religious arena, my Lord and His inspired apostles were guilty of the same sort of undignified (?) allusions. Jesus spoke of a “generation of vipers, ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing, whited sepulchers full of corruption and dead men’s bones, hypocrites, children of the devil, salt having lost its savor, hence unfit for the dunghill.” Incidentally, the King James Version does not err in translating the Greek, koprian, by “dunghill.” Check your lexicon. Jesus also remarked that the church at Laodicea made him want to vomit, “spue them out of his mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Having had considerable experience with nausea, I would say that the Laodiceans Agave Christ a pain which he did locate.”

Writing to the churches of Galatia, Paul (erudite and cultured) expressed the wish that the Judaizers which troubled them might “emasculate” themselves, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Gal. 5:12). Note the following comment on this statement by H.A.W. Meyer, often referred to by scholars as “the prince of New Testament exegetes.” Meyer says, “The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents . . . now wrings from his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish of holy indignation: Would that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves! that they who attach so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create commotion among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated!” (The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Critical Commentary, pp. 300, 301).

Then, of course, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews said. “Then are ye bastards and not sons” (Heb. 12:8). Need I say more. I can, of course, as this is but a sample. Just as super-refinement becomes coarse vulgarity, so squeamish effeminacy in the use of terminology, under the guise of refinement and spirituality, can so take the edge off the “sword of the Spirit” as to blunt its effectiveness in combat with error. Such reminds me of a blushing Simon Milquetoast who considers it coarse to discuss a woman’s legs in public, hence excites prurient interest by vulgarly referring to her “limbs.” He who becomes more dignified than the Lord is just too dignified!

(To he continued.)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 6B7
May 30, 1974

By Cecil Willis

It is very interesting to get the Firm Foundation, of which Brother Reuel Lemmons is the Editor. The exciting thing about the Firm Foundation is that one never knows just what might be on page 2, the editorial page. Brother Jimmy Lovell of California has given Brother Lemmons the dubious “honor” of having the unusual ability to be equally strong on both sides of an issue. Brother W. L. Totty has said that Brother Lemmons has been on “both sides” of nearly every issue before us. The most exciting thing about Brother Lemmon’s editorials is that he may switch sides on a subject between publication of issues of the weekly paper which he edits.

This unique phenomenon that we call “Reuel Lemmons” is not judged to be enigmatic only by those of us who oppose the church support of human institutions, and who oppose sponsoring churches. Even the brethren who agree with Lemmons often “joke” about his ability to switch horses from one week till the next, and seemingly he himself is oblivious to any disparity between what he writes when he is “strong”on one side of an issue, and what he writes when he is “strong ” on the other .ride of the same issue the very next week.

In January, 1973 I was invited to speak on “Congregational Cooperation” at the preacher-forum at Abilene Christian College. Brother Lemmons was my respondent. One of the worst ice-storms that ever hit West Texas hit on Sunday, just before the lecture series began. It got down to zero, and about ten inches of snow fell on a thick layer of glassy-like ice. Many were hampered in arriving at the lecture program on time. Quite a few missed the lectures of the first day. Brother Lemmons and I spoke on the first day of the program. Among the late arrivers was Alan Highers, able liberal preacher from Memphis, Tennessee, and who has in the past defended the Herald of Truth cooperative radio and television program in debate. So far as is known to me, there is not a single man in the whole United Slates who has ever defended the Herald of Truth in debate previously who will do so now! If there is, I wish he would speak up. Everything I have seen from the pens of these erstwhile defenders of the Herald of Truth reads something like this: “I have defended it in debate before, but I certainly would not do so now.” Is there a single exception in the entire nation? If so, I would like to hear from that man. We might even arrange for him to defend it again, if he says he will.

But back to my Abilene story. Alan Highers has always been congenial toward me, and we have had three or four brief discussions privately in the years that we have known each other. So Alan came over to me, sometime after I had spoken, and apologized for being unable to get to Abilene in time to hear my speech and that of Brother Lemmons. Alan told me he had ridden down with a car load of (liberal) preachers. He said that one of these preachers asked what they were missing, by getting in late. Alan said he replied, “Oh, Cecil Willis and Reuel Lemmons are discussing the `Cooperation’ question.=” His (liberal) fellow-preacher inquirer then answered, “Reckon which side Brother Lemmons is on today?” When Alan related that incident, he laughed and said, “Now, you will probably go and publish that in your paper!” Well Alan, at least I waited over a year to do so! I also thought his observation was quite humorous. But it indicated that even Brother Lemmons’ fellow-liberal brethren know that he can do the flip-flop quicker than any man in the brotherhood.

In the April 9, 1974 Firm Foundation, Brother Lemmons wrote on “The Church in Alabama.”He reported that there are “some 500 churches in the state . . . .” His article was intended to report how that the Alabama brethren (and we might add “churches, ” Brother Lemmons) who were “once almost totally anti-Christian education” today are supporting Mars Hill Bible School and Alabama Christian College. Brother Lemmons then commented: “Alabama is also a stronghold of conservatism with respect to the church. Conservatism is good only if it is not overdone. Anti-cooperation and anti-orphan elements are perhaps stronger percentage-wise in Alabama than anywhere else. They came by it honestly. It is easy to find somebody who is ‘agin’ it, and with us, this has always been a popular stand. There is not as much risk involved in defending the fort as in spreading the territory. Churches grow more slowly in areas where the emphasis is on defending the status quo.” Then Brother Lemmons descends to give us a little lecture on “brethren (who are) bandying these terms (“conservative” and “liberal”-CW) around and using them as labels in a most unchristian and unholy way.” Yet he took the time, in the same article, to state that the “conservative” preachers (among the “liberals”-CW) “have not made ‘conservatism’ a fetish to the point of becoming hidebound legalists.”

Really, I did not want to use the word “enigma” in my references to Brother Lemmons in this article. The word “enigma ” has been so often applied to him, and applied to him by so many, that I felt it was a little trite to say again that Reuel Lemmons is “This Generation’s Enigma.” So I resorted to my Websters Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) thinking perhaps I could find another not-so-often used word to describe the vacillation of Brother Lemmons. So I looked up the word “enigma. ” thinking that somewhere in the discussion of its meaning a suitable synonym would be used. I learned that “enigma” means “to speak in riddles,” “an intentionally obscure statement,” “an obscure speech or writing,” “an inexplicable circumstance, event or occurrence,” “a person not readily understood,” “one that exhibits an incomprehensible mixture of opposed qualities.” For a synonym, the dictionary suggested, “See ‘mystery.'” But after considering each of the definitions of “enigma,” I decided that there just isn’t any word in the English language that better describes Reuel Lemmons than “enigma,” unless it would be the word “mystery.” So if you will pardon my triteness, I will just have to say Reuel Lemmons is “This Generation’s Enigma.”

The liberal men who write for Mission, and who are the spiritual off-spring of men like Lemmons, Guy N. Woods, B. C. Goodpasture, G. K. Wallace, Tom Warren, etc., look upon Reuel Lemmons as one who has “made `conservatism’ a fetish,” and thus as one who is a “hidebound legalist.” In fact, the Mission new-breed-of-scholars get quite a chuckle out of the fact that Truth Magazine sometimes refers to the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Advocate as “liberal” papers. The only basic difference between Mission, and the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Advocate, is that the Mission fellows are one generation removed from the liberalism Lemmons and his helpers taught them. The Mission men have just been willing to follow the inherent conclusions in the premises they have been taught by Lemmons, Warren, and Woods. Lemmons, Warren, and Woods know “just now far” it is safe to go; the Mission writers either do not know how much the liberal brethren will tolerate, or else they just plain do not care how much the liberal people will tolerate. The Mission fellows do not want anybody calling them a “hidebound legalist,” and they probably will not have anyone doing so for about one more generation. The generation which grows up on the kind of teaching done in Mission might even produce us “our own” A. A. Altizer, Bultmann, Tillich, or Niebuhr; in fact, they might produce us “our own” no-telling-what kind of a modernist.

Lemmons says that we should not use “labels in a most unchristian and unholy way.” Yet he refers to us as the “hidebound legalist.” He calls the faithful brethren in Alabama the “anti-cooperation and anti-orphan home elements . . . .” Now Lemmons knows what kind of cooperation we oppose; he just did not want to tell his readers. The Christian Church would call Lemmons “anti-cooperation” because he opposes cooperation of churches through the missionary society. Guy N. Woods could call Lemmons “anti-orphan home” because Lemmons believes that orphan homes must be under elders (if church supported) and must not be under a separate board. But Lemmons could just fire-back the same “label” of “anti-orphan home” and attach it to Guy N. Woods, for Woods teaches that orphan homes must be under boards, and must not be under elders. About half of the “Homes” are under elders, and half under boards. But Brother Lemmons and Brother Woods get along just fine, for they both can join hands in fighting those “hidebound legalists” who are “anti-orphan home.”

Lemmons implies that the Alabama brethren who stand for the truth have taken the easy and popular course. Now who does he think he is kidding? Lemmons will treat a Christian Church preacher better than he will those of us whom he labels as “anti-orphan home.” At least, Lemmons did call on a Christian Church preacher to lead in prayer at an Abilene Christian College lecture program, but I will guarantee you that if one of those “hidebound legalists” who are “anti-orphan home” had been in the audience, Lemmons would not have called on him to lead a prayer. He knows he dare not do that. Lemmons says that “There is not much risk involved” when you take the “Agin’ it” position. Try it for a little while, Brother Lemmons, and see where the “risk” involvement really is. There is not a “hidebound legalist” in Alabama, or anywhere else, who does not have sense enough to know that it would be to his advantage monetarily and in popularity to leave this “popular stand” (?) which Lemmons and his buddies so affectionately have dubbed the “Antis.” And Lemmons knows that too! I can tell you where there is not much risk involved. Not much risk is involved when you write ‘for” it one week, and ‘agin’ ” it the next week; when you preach it “round” one week and preach it “flat” the next week. When you are willing to do like Brother Lemmons does, you can have butter on both sides of your bread!

On December 30th I received a letter from one of Lemmons’ fellow-liberal brethren. This brother said: “As for Reuel Lemmons’ extolling Roberts (J. W.-CW) after his death, when he had been pressuring him to get off of Mission’s Board of Trustees before his death is, as you put it, `a little strange.’ However, it is consistent with Reuel Lemmons. After all, as Jimmie Lovell so aptly put it, Reuel can write equally well on either side of any issue. Of course, then, too, there is what James said about ‘a double-minded man’. (James 1:8) As for Lemmons’ later optimism about the future of Mission, there did not have to be any improvement whatever for Reuel to get his optimism back. When I consider his optimism about Pat Boone, Campus Evangelism, Don Finto and the Belmont/ Nashville, Tennessee church, Pepperdine and (currently) Highland (in) Abilene, well, if he can shout hallelujahs for these, who not Mission too!”

You see? Reuel Lemmons does not even have his fellow liberal brethren fooled as to how he can do the flip-flop in record time. It seldom ever takes him more than one week to do it. Recently I heard a man say, “You have seen monuments of many great men astraddle a horse, but you never saw a monument to any man astraddle a fence!” That might be true up until now, but if any monument is ever erected to the memory of Reuel Lemmons, if he is not depicted as being astraddle a fence, it will be a complete misrepresentation of his person,. his preaching, and his writings. Brother Lemmons, if I had wobbled around on as many different issues as you have, I would not have the gall to charge those faithful Alabama brethren with having taken “a popular stand.” It is very evident who has taken the popular stand, and who is standing for his sincere convictions, and then who is paying the price for the stand he has taken.

I can just see that monument now: Reuel Lemmons, astraddle a big white fence! I suggest that a suitable location for such a monument would be out on the lawn, just in front of the Administrative Building on the Abilene Christian College Campus, or on the lawn in front of the Highland Avenue building, or in the middle of the cotton farm owned by the Tipton, Oklahoma church whose elders oversee the Tipton Childrens’ Home, and which home Lemmons so avidly promotes. It will be a great monument to commemorate a great life; half of it spent teaching truth, and the other half of it spent teaching error. Whether popular or not. . . having been a perpetual compromiser is not the way I want to meet my Maker, or to be remembered by my brethren, if indeed I were to happen to be remembered by them at all.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 3-5
May 30, 1974

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Men are dreamers. When they turn their talents to writing, the result can be a great fiction. When they turn their talents to technology, the result can be a great leap forward in the living standards of mankind. But when men turn their talents of innovation to the field of religion, the result is apostasy and antagonizing God. God has spoken; His will is plain. When He has spoken no mortal man has the right to alter His law. God expects things to be done the way He has ordained them to be done and neither eliminated, altered, nor added to. Not one thing more and not one thing less will please God.

In the days of Jeremiah there were religious innovators in Israel who dreamed of changing the religion God gave Israel. Time and again the innovators carried the day and the dreams of men were translated into the religious practices of the day. Yet God despised it all and repudiated all their efforts. Let us note some of the things Jehovah revealed through just one of His prophets, Jeremiah.

1. Following their own desires rather than God’s will made Israel useless to God. “This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who stubbornly follow their own heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be like this waistcloth, which is good for nothing” (Jer. 13:10).

2. Following their own desires in religion caused Israel to go backwards rather than forward spiritually. “But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their own evil hearts, and went backward and not forward” (Jer. 7:24).

3. Following their own desires resulted in Israel being punished with humiliation and disaster. “Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, or walked in accord with it, but have ,stubbornly followed their own hearts and have gone after the Baals, as their fathers taught them. Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will feed this people with wormwood, and give them poisonous water to drink” (Jer. 9:13-15).

4. Following their own desires resulted in Israel being sent into foreign captivity. “And because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn evil will, refusing to listen to me; therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor” (Jer. 16:12-13).

5. Following their own desires caused Israel to be disgraced in the eyes of her pagan neighbors. “But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Therefore thus says the Lord: Ask among the nations, who has heard the like of this? The virgin Israel has done a very horrible thing” (Jer. 18:12-13).

6. A characteristic of a false prophet was the fact that he told people to do as they themselves wished. “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to every one who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you’ ” (Jer. 23:16-17).

Rebellion against God is one revolution that is predestined to failure. God does not “hang the traitors” as human governments do; instead He has a place of wrath stored up for them that far exceeds the worst punishment that human ingenuity could ever devise.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 2
May 30, 1974

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Communication is defined as “an exchange of information.” It involved the transmission of ideas and thoughts. To communicate means that you share with others your concepts, your thoughts and ideas. Most of our time is spent in this mutual relationship by either speaking or listening. This ability to communicate is what makes man the unique creature that he is, with the ability to control and dominate, to build and maintain. Communications is a big thing in America. It is said to be our most vital and largest industry. We are awed by man’s methods of communication. We find them complete in oral, written or visualized form.

In spite of this, communication is a big problem in our lives. Because of human nature, certain barriers exist making the communication process either ineffective or impossible. At times we just do not get through to people. This often results in misunderstanding. Many splits in congregations are due to the communications problem. Brethren have trouble talking to each other, they become estranged and some become enemies. Much of this can be eliminated if we understand some of the barriers to our communication.

Actually we are obligated to communicate as effectively as possible. In the classroom and in the pulpit the gospel of Christ is proclaimed by this action. We are constantly trying to influence others by communicating with them. Because of this we should make an honest attempt to understand the barriers of communication. This will help us to eliminate many of the problems that exist in some areas in our relationship as brethren.

The Barrier of Language

Language is the “systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by vocal sound.” Language involves the use of words and words convey meanings. Each word stands for a common element or a pattern of common elements. Because of this, some words stimulate different mental images and others convey only part of a mental image. We think in terms of images. Consequently we cannot convey our thoughts in their entirety, nor can we capture a total concept through the use of words. We have to keep adding words in our attempt to convey a thought. Our language is limited. For example, walk through the budding woodlands on a warm Spring day and try to put your impressions into words. The extent and limitation of the language used becomes the only means of expressing your impressions You simply cannot convey all that you see. Because of thi: we should strive to be exact and proper in our use o: language. There are certain facts about language that we need to recognize if we are going to destroy the language barrier.

1. Language is regional:’ Words in America have different meanings than those same words in Canada or Great Britain. Even in the North there is a variation in some meanings from the states in the South. Familiar idiom in one region is often a “cuss” word in another.

2. Words undergo change in time: An expository study of the Bible will be based on the unchanging meanings of the original Greek words, but our language in English has and does change. For example, “giddy” originally meant “divinely possessed;” “silly” meant “blessed, happy;” “saddest” meant “full, contented, reflective.” The meaning of many words in the various English translations has changed since those translations were first printed. One can see this by comparing the King James Version of 1611 with the American Standard Translation of 1901.

3. Language is always growing: There are approximately 750,000 words in the English language. Half of them are technical words. More new words are being coined in our age than ever before. Judging the motivation and / or sincerity of a person by the new words he uses can form barriers of communication. Furthermore, a. speaker will wisely use words familiar to his hearer if possible. Words are only “capsules of meaning” and should be spoken and understood in that function. In all of our teaching relationships we should season our words with salt, and look for the intended meaning in the words of others.

The Barrier of Listening

Listening is an art. Not listening well is often a barrier. As listeners we have the advantage over the speaker in that we can listen faster than the speaker can talk. It is a proven fact that we can receive at the rate of 500 to 700 words per minute. A speaker can impart 100 to 200 words per minute. Ninety percent of all communication is oral and this places a great responsibility upon the listener.

Most people listen at only 25% of their efficiency. This is a great problem. Jesus recognized this problem by constantly reminding His hearers to take heed how they hear (Mk. 8:18; 4:9, 23). As speakers, we are often “tuned out” by the listener. The listener hears only part of what was said, and sometimes misunderstands even the part which he hears. When a listener fails to listen carefully a barrier has been erected. This could be avoided if the listener would only assume his responsibility in the process of communication. Research has revealed that there are three major reasons why people do not listen well. They are:

1. Listeners have different word reactions: Some words cause violent reactions in people because some experience is identified with that word. The experience may have been pleasant or unpleasant. The use of a certain word or expression may be like a red flag blowing in the wind, bringing to mind a certain experience. This often results in an emotional expression. For example, mention a person’s name. The very use of this name could cause a feeling of love or even hate to swell up within the listener. The word “war” may cause a veteran to become very upset. The word “mother” may cause a person to become sentimental. The frequent use of the word “lost” may generate a feeling of uneasiness. Very often the emotions excited by the “red Flag” word will be transferred to the speaker. The speaker is “tuned out!” Feeling of hate or contempt dominates the listener’s mind. Every sentence is interpreted by this emotion. A barrier has been erected by the listener.

2. Listeners have different background experiences: Education, position, experience, etc. all affect the way a person hears. Each listener has some form of background experience which is present when he listens. It is impossible to completely divorce our listening habits from our experiences of life. But we must try to understand why we may misunderstand. Communication often breaks down because of our own notions and personal experience, rather than by what has actually been said.

3. Listeners have different temperaments: Personalities and temperaments differ. Most people have periods when they are on the “moody” side and act differently at one time or another. A speaker may say something at the wrong time and this could cause hard feelings on the part of the listener. The barrier is not in what was said, but in the listener’s reaction to it. We certainly would be better listeners if we understood our moods better.

We all need to give more attention to the how of our hearing. Action from listening is determined by how we hear. Therefore, “acquiring sensitivity to the implicit content of conversations requires practice. When you listen to others talking or are engaged in conversation yourself, get into the habit of asking yourself, why is he saying this? What is implied?” 2 There are four levels of listening:

1. Level of importance: We tend to hear what we want to hear and listen to whom we want to listen. We tend to give more attention to people of importance. If a person is our equal, or even our inferior, we will give him less attention than we give our superiors. Can any good thing come out of “Nazareth” is the attitude of too many listeners. This ought not to be our attitude. The Bible says, “. . . but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). All should be considered our superior.

2. Level of comprehension: Jesus, on one occasion, taught His disciples about His death and resurrection (Mk. 9:31). “But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him” (Mk. 9:32). They no doubt could have repeated every word the Lord had spoken, but they did not understand any of it. Something, be it prejudice or preconceived notions, had so filled their minds that their understanding was darkened. Many things tend to fill our minds today. Malice, envy, hatred, prejudice, etc. cloud the mind so that having ears, we hear, but do not understand. This is a serious barrier to communication.

3. Level of Exclusion: The prejudiced person has prejudged all things. The speaker cannot add one bit to his knowledge. He will not even give- you the courtesy of listening to you. Not only does he create a problem in communicating, but he limits his own learning and spiritual growth.

4. Level of no action: In this case the listener understands the message completely, but does nothing about it. Perhaps Felix was in this level when he said; “go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25). People will say today, “yes, I know you are right, but . . . .” His problem is that he does not have the courage to act on his convictions or he is dishonest. He may love the “praises of men more than the praises of God” (Jno. 12:43).

Loss In Transmission

The final communication barrier that we will give attention to in this article is the loss that occurs in the transmission of information. Tests have proven that in the field of oral communications there is often a loss of 80% of the original information from the speaker to the hearer. This is a great problem, but it can be overcome by such things as asking questions, note taking and reviews. Every effort should be made to get the information correct. Those who are seeking to impart information should see the value of visual aids as it relates to this problem and strive to use them effectively.

Conclusion

There are other barriers that could be considered. But these three are among the major barriers and are worthy of careful consideration.

Footnotes

1. G. R. Holton, “Barriers to Communication.” Firm Foundation (Dec. 13, 1966), 787.

2. Jessie Nirenberg, Getting Through To People (New Jersey: 1963), 79.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 12-14
May 23, 1974