Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

(We continue our review of the tract by the above title written by Jim B. Miller, a minister of the First Assembly of God in Brenham, Tex., who also claims to have formerly been a member of the body of Christ-1 Jn. 2:19).

16. That musical instruments in public worship is a violation of Scripture. If Mr. Miller thinks there is no passage to defend this teaching, it is quite obvious he never understood the teachings of the word of God to begin with, and that in less than one year he did not progress “long enough” to ever learn what we actually do believe. Since there is no authority for their use, they stand condemned under 2 Jn. 9, 1 Jn. 3:4, 1 Cor. 4:6, Matt. 15:8-9, etc. Paul notes this argument in Heb. 7:14 in pointing out Christ could not be a priest on earth (Heb. 8:4) since he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, “with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” Silence did not authorize (see also Lev. 10:1-2). Since he claims to have learned more, maybe he can show us the authority for their use today.

17. That it is a violation of Scripture for a church to be called anything else other than “the Church of Christ.” Again his ignorance of what we actually believe is showing. The N.T. church is referred to in a number of different terms, such as “my church” (Matt. 16:18), “the church of God” (2 Cor. 1:1), “the household of God” (1 Tim. 3:15), “the kingdom” (Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:9), etc., in addition to being the body (church) of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, Rom. 16:16). Since Christ is its head, savior, purchaser, foundation, and it is his bride, it logically follows that it should bear his name or one so designated by him (Col. 3:17) and so should his followers (I Pet. 4:16). Such reflects the glory to God and not to men and human actions as does denominationalism. The calling of ourselves after human names was condemned by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:10-13.

18. That one must affiliate with the “Church of Christ” denomination in order to be a true Christian. If such a denomination exists (begun by Alexander Campbell or any other man), no true Christian can be in such and please God who disapproves of denominationalism and division (Gal. 5:19-21). On the other hand, one cannot be pleasing to God, do His will, worship as He prescribes, and get to heaven without being a part of His body or church. The churches of men are a clear affront to His very will (Matt. 15:8-9, 13). We find in Acts 2:47 that the Lord adds to the church those who are saved, and 1 Cor. 12:13 points out we are “baptized into one body” (see also Eph. 2:16). Thus, upon obedience to his will, we are automatically added to His body by Him-that which He promised to build (Matt. 16:18), over which He is the head (Eph. 1:22), which He died upon the cross to purchase (Acts 20:28), and the only institution He has promised to save (Eph. 5:23). No one can be a true Christian and not be a member of the body of Christ because being one is equated with being in the other. Again, Mr. Miller does not know what we actually believe, and perhaps this is why he claims to be an “Ex-Campbellite.” He never was a true Christian at the beginning, but merely following the teachings of men rather than the word of God, and as such, never comprehended the true nature of the body of Christ.

19. That elders are chosen by election or function in any other office than that of preaching and teaching God’s Word. If Mr. Miller thinks all there is to being an elder is to run for a political election, he evidently has not read the qualifications set forth in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. That the office of an overseer, presbyter, bishop, or elder involved more than just preaching the word is evident from 1 Pet. 5:13, Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17, Acts 20:28, etc. To oversee inherents within it authority, just as to rule does, yet such must be done according to the will of God and not to suit their own fancies. Paul recognized this office in Phil. 1:1 and many other passages. And, if all their work is in just teaching and preaching, one is made to ask why must they be married and have children (read 1 Tim. 3:5)? Paul was authorized to preach, but he did not have to have these qualifications, hence the two are not the same office (note that they are treated separately in Eph. 4:11 as well-“pastors” are elders). Again, Mr. Miller’s lack of understanding is evident.

20. That the Gift of Tongues ceased in the Apostolic Age (1 Cor. 13:8, 12: 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 1: 7-8). Why just the “Gift of Tongues”? Why not all the gifts mentioned in Mark 16:17-18? It is interesting to note Mr. Miller refers to 1 Cor. 13, and does not call attention to verses 8-10. Paul here shows that when that which is perfect is come (the completed revealed will of God-James 1:25), there was to be no more need for partial revelations, prophecies, etc. Hence the futility of quarreling over who was going to get to employ what gift-they were only of a temporary nature to begin with, as the context of the 12th through 14th chapters reveal. But since the revealed word of God makes us “thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and these things “are written that ye might believe” (Jn. 20:30-31), we affirm the word of God is sufficiently powerful to save the sinner (Rom. 1:16). The miracles were given to confirm that word (Mark 16:20, Heb. 2:4), and once it had been clearly demonstrated to the people to be the word of God, it did not need further confirmation (Gal. 3:15). Thus, the miracles are recorded that we might evaluate all the evidences and be led to believe (Jn. 20:30-31). Furthermore, only the apostles could pass on the ability to perform these miracles (Acts 8:14-15), and since the apostles have ceased and thus there is no longer a transmitting power in the world today, then the powers ceased also, in confirmation with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 13:8-10.

21. That there was ever an AApostolic Age.” In view of the fact Mr. Miller himself used the term in the previous question, it is obvious that this is just a quibble on words. The term, used today in an accommodating way, merely describes the period of time the apostles lived on the earth. This question is about like asking for a passage that mentions “denominations,” when all recognize what is clearly under discussion, and serves absolutely no purpose but to take up space.

22. That healing for the sick (James 5:14-16) in answer to prayer is not valid today. This is merely a repetition of the question under point No. 20.

23. That physical healing for the church is not a part of Christ’s atonement (Matt. 8:16, 17; Isa. 53:4, 1 Pet. 2:24; Isa. 53:4 and Matt. 8 have nothing to do with our atonement. The word atonement simply means “reconciliation,” and was accomplished by the death of Christ on the cross (Rom. 5:10-11). While the miracles demonstrated Christ to be the Son of God (Jn. 10:25), they were not used as part of the plan of God to reconcile men to him throughout eternity, but rather Isa. 53:10 points out that by the death of Christ we shall be saved from our sins. The context of 1 Pet. 2:24 shows the same application, just as does Psalm 41:4 and Matt. 13:15. That healing of the physical body was not part of the atonement of Christ is seen by such passages as James 5:14-16, 2 Tim. 4:20, 1 Tim. 5:23, 2 Cor. 12:8-9, Phil. 2:27, etc. Thus we see I Pet. 2:24 is carrying the same message as Matt. 26:28, and not dealing with physical healing (nor so quoted in Matt. 8 either).

24. That Christ does not heal today. This point has been thoroughly dealt with under No. 20 and 23.

25. That the Gifts of the Spirit enumerated in I Cor. 12:810 are not operational today. This is a repetition of the same question again. We might just pause here and ask Mr. Miller, in turn, what evidences he can produce to show his alleged “miracles” today are any more authentic than those used by other sects whom he would brand as “false”? Is God today confirming (conflicting) doctrines other than that which He confirmed to be His divine truth in the word of God?

26. That the Bible teaches more than one “law of pardon.” To answer this question, one must first of all determine what is under consideration. The alien sinner is given plain instructions what he must do to be saved (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16). However, in Acts 8 we find a man who has already complied with those terms (8:13), and then became guilty of sin. Does he have to be re-baptized every time he becomes guilty of sin? Does Christ have to be re-crucified that his blood might be shed again for every Christian (Heb. 7:27)? The blood of Christ can serve its purpose, and so can baptism. Thus, the Christian is not told to be re-baptized, but to repent and pray God (Acts 8:22, I John 1:9).

27. That there are no longer apostles and prophets in the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16). These were to abide until we attained the unity of “the faith” (4:13), which has reference to the completed will of God (Jude 3, Gal. 3:25-27), at which time all prophecies were to cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Since apostles were eye-witnesses of the resurrection and personally familiar with Christ (Acts 1:21), we know they do not exist today since none are eye-witnesses. Paul mentions he was born “out of due season” (1 Cor. 15:8), and also that such required the signs of a true apostle to have to be done by him on many occasions to prove he was such (2 Cor. 12:12), and he was indeed an eye-witness even during the life of Christ. None today can fulfill that role, hence we know they no longer exist.

28. That to be `filled with the Spirit” means to be `filled with the Word of God. ” Like so many other Pentecostals, Mr. Miller sees “filled with the Spirit” and it just automatically means one being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit to him. Yet, in Eph. 5:18 we are told to be “filled with the spirit,” and in the parallel passage found in Col. 3:16 we are told, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.” Thus we see in this instance the “word of Christ” is equated with being “filled with the spirit.” Again, we offer him the following to also ponder: If being “filled with the spirit” always means being “baptized,” how do you account for Luke 1:15, 41, 67-all three of which were before the baptism of the spirit was ever promised?

29. That the elect were not chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim. 1:9). This is a play on words, as Mr. Miller obviously does not mean the same thing the Bible is talking about. It is true we are elected and called in Christ before the foundation of the world, but that was accomplished, not by the modern day doctrine of Predestination as advanced by John Calvin, but through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14). God does not want any to perish (2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4, Acts 10:34), and thus has not already condemned specific individuals to Hell, but has predestinated that all who obey His gospel (thus are “in Christ”-Eph. 1:3) shall be saved. Thus we find Bible predestination is dealing with the class of men rather than the specific individual in the mind of God. If Mr. Miller means what he affirms here, he might as well quit preaching the gospel, forget about right and wrong, and go his own way. After all, if God has “elected” him, he cannot be lost regardless of what he may do; and if not, he cannot be saved regardless of how much he might desire it. This makes a mockery of the very death of Christ on the cross (Jn. 3:16).

30. That Christ was not the Head of the Church before Pentecost. The reply to that is found in Eph. 1:20-23, which shows Christ was made the head at the time God raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand. Note also that the church is in the future tense prior to Pentecost (Matt. 16:18, 16:28, Mark 6:l, Acts l:8), and in the past tense afterwards (Acts 2:47, Col. 1:13, etc.) Thus we find the death of Christ purchased it (Acts 20:28) that he might reconcile all men unto God through it (Eph. 2:16). Also, if it existed prior to the death of Christ, it was in existence without His will to govern it (Heb. 9:15-17).

Challenges to Mr. Miller

Without being repetitious and detailed, we now pose just a few simple pointed questions to Mr. Miller which, if he examines them in the light of God’s word, will show him who is teaching the word of God. Please find for us:

1. One passage that says one is saved by “Faith only” (Jas. 2:24).

2. One passage where Christ or the apostles ever commanded anyone to be baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5; 10:47-48).

3. One passage that talks about both baptism and’ salvation in which one is said to be saved before and without baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Rom. 6:37).

4. One passage where instruments of music were used in the worship of the N.T. church (Eph. 519, Col. 3:16, 2 Jn. 9).

5. One passage setting forth qualifications for an apostle of today (Acts 1:22).

6. One passage justifying a state or national board to oversee the work of the church today (Eph. 1:20-23, 1 Pet. 5:1-3, Phil. 1:1, Acts 14:23).

7. One passage authorizing the existence of a human creed (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Gal. 1:6-8).

8. One passage that says Christ failed to do the job God gave him to do (Jn. 17:4, Dan. 2:44-45, Matt. 16:28, Col. 1:13, Heb. 12:28, Rev. 1:9).

9. One passage that says Christ will ever set foot on the earth again (2 Pet. 3, 1 Cor. 15:24-26).

10. One passage that says God will save a man who does not obey him (2 Thess. 1:8, Heb. 5:9, Acts 6:7, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).

I believe these questions will readily reveal Mr. Miller not only never learned the truth of God’s word, but while still “learning,” became entangled again in the ways of the world and turned back to “believe a lie.” We pray this review will assist those running into his material, and perhaps Mr. Miller himself, in finding the true church of Christ revealed in the pages of God’s sacred writ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 9-11
May 30, 1974

By Bruce James

The thought of unity is to me a very thought-provoking and emotional subject because it is that which most religious people wish for many times. As I ask myself, can unity be obtained today, the thought also enters my mind in the form of another question: what is the cause(s) of division in the church and in the denominational world today? And really, when you stop and think about it, unless we answer the latter question it would be useless to try and answer the former question.

You and I know that there are a lot of reasons that can be given as to why divisions have come about in the past (personal matters, selfish ambition, rule of opinion, unscriptural policy, inactivity, etc.). But after all is said and done, I believe the real reason is that of misunderstanding and misinterpreting God’s word, the Bible. Biblical interpretation has long been neglected by the average man of this day. God has revealed His will in the Bible, but since man has been endowed with the power of choice, having been created a free moral agent, God does not seek to force His will upon him. It is for this very reason that man must make an effort to learn what God has said if he really wishes, to know His will regarding him. (2 Tim. 2:15).

Contrary to the belief that the Bible is so plain that ii. needs no interpretation, I believe God expects us to use His book in becoming acquainted with His character and in gaining a knowledge of His will. Nothing has ever been written that all people at first understood alike. Age, change in customs, religious attitudes and sentiments, and change in the meaning of words make Biblical interpretation necessary. But we must understand that God does not inspire the interpretation. This is an individual duty and responsibility (John 7:17; Matthew 13:12).

I do not believe that it can be emphasized too much that there never has been, and there never will be a greater book than the Bible; but with all of this greatness, its message will never be understood by those who read it without the proper kind of study. Paul said, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15-emphasis mine, BJ). This passage clearly indicates that there are both right and wrong methods of Bible study. If we can know the things that will hinder as well as the things that will help us to understand the word of God, then a major battle will have been won. So, for right now, we shall look at six outstanding hindrances.

1. A desire to please the world. I am not saying that all desire to please the world is wrong (Romans 15:2), but what I am talking about is that desire to please the world, regardless of what the Lord has said. This is what causes the trouble. Paul said, “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? . . . if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). There are men who will preach popular, though erroneous, doctrines because they desire to please those who sincerely, though incorrectly, hold them to be true. There are also those who will refuse to preach the whole truth in order to remain in the good graces of those who are not willing to consider all that God has said in His word to man (see 2 Tim. 4:5).

2. Another hindrance is to regard the Bible as a property of a favored few. The creeds which govern most Protestant and Catholic bodies are based upon the interpretations of their leading men, and they are the standards of faith and conduct, rather than the Bible itself. This attitude is also true of those who claim to be “Christians” only, to an alarming degree. There has descended to us a kind of reverence for authority found in great names that is very hurtful. In this way, errors are handed down from generation to generation without being suspected of being untrue. When men and women allow others to do their studying and thinking for them, they are breaking a direct command of God (2 Tim. 2:15) and will ultimately be led to eternal destruction (Matthew 15:14).

3. Using the Bible to prove doctrines is another hindrance.

We should always remember that the Bible is not a book with which to prove doctrines; it is the doctrine itself (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Scriptures are used wrongly, so that instead of searching for what they may contain, the doctrines are first assumed and then the Bible is forced into some sort of recognition of them. The context should always be considered, and conclusions should not be drawn from less than all the truth upon a given subject. You and I cannot “prove just anything by the Bible.”

4. Another Hindrance: Reading the Bible without expecting to understand it. This may be done by reading from a sense of duty, or simply to have it said that the Bible has been read through. We must strive to know its thought and purpose. It is done by reading irregularly and without any system. The “random method” is useless (a psalm one day, a chapter from the gospels, and then one from the prophets). What would be the result if chemistry, medicine, law or history should be studied in this way? One is hindered by reading only favorite passages. I even know of one woman who cut the passages out of her Bible because she did not like what they said. How sad! How sad!

5. Interpreting the Scriptures from sinister motives. This is done quite frequently to save property or in justification of some questionable business interest, to satisfy a desire to do as we please; to continue our customs or begin new ones, and in justification of sectarianism.

6. A last hindrance is a desire to be known as persons of leading thought. This is done when men want to exalt themselves rather than the God of heaven. “Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

But let us not forget to look on the positive side as to what we can do to help make Bible study profitable. I list them for your consideration:

1. We must have a desire to know and do the truth.

2. We must remove all religious prejudice.

3. We must exercise common sense.

4. We must have faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. We must get the setting of the passage under consideration.

6. We must be willing to investigate or employ mental industry as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11-12.

Yes, unity can be had if correct interpretation is practiced by all of the modern religious world and if selfish ambition and carnality are removed. God expects us to use His book in becoming acquainted with His character and in gaining a knowledge of His will. A correct interpretation is indispensable in our efforts to reach heaven.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 8-9
May 30, 1974

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