Truth Magazine

By Mike DuBose

In the May 28, 1972 edition of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper an article entitled “Church Choice Cost 3 Jobs at Lipscomb” made front page news. The article explained how three faculty members at David Lipscomb College had been “dismissed” because the teachers worship at Belmont

Avenue Church of Christ in Nashville.

As I read the article I was reminded of Peter’s words in 2 Peter 2:22, “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

The administration of David Lipscomb college, those associated with it and other colleges like it, have been begging money from the churches for years, all the while rejecting God’s divine way for doing things. They have laid aside scriptural authority and replaced it with babbling arguments and human reasoning such as “the end justifies the means” and “but it is a matter of expediency.” Now they are forced to wallow in their own vomit and the mire that they have created.

Now you see, the problem is that Belmont has gone too liberal for Lipscomb (although the paper made it quite clear that the college was still accepting funds from Belmont to the tune of $100 per month). But the problem according to “those who are close to the situation” is that Lipscomb “must appeal to the broad middle ground in the Churches of Christ if the private college is to survive. This means the school cannot cater to the reactionary right – as some church of Christ colleges have done – nor to the far left.” (emphasis mine MLD) Now I suppose that along with the term “anti” those of us who believe in doing Bible things in Bible ways will henceforth `be known as the “reactionary right” as opposed to the “far left” and the “broad middle ground.”

One who reads this article would be almost amused, if it were not so tragic, at Lipscomb’s reason for dismissal of the three teachers. They would have us believe that it is not because of the unscriptural practices of the Belmont congregation that this action was taken, but because of the liberal and informal way in which Belmont conducts the worship service; ways which are “too liberal for traditional Church of Christ standards.” Now get that reasoning brethren. According to Lipscomb officials there is nothing unscriptural with the teachings or practices of the Belmont congregation, but they just conduct their worship service a little too informally. Hogwash! Those who have disregarded Bible authority for so long have sown the seed for complete rejection of God’s divine pattern in every aspect of worship. Now that they see the result of their digression, they are trying to save face by weakly speaking out against the “far left” as they term it.

These people have poked holes in the dam for so long that the flood waters can not be held back and as a result worldliness has flooded into some local congregations. And now those who prided themselves on their “great brotherhood programs” find themselves in a position which cannot be defended. The Lipscomb officials cannot condemn the liberal practices of Belmont because they would condemn themselves at the same time. Appealing to the scriptures for all authority is what these brethren have been preaching and yet disregarding ever since the appeal to support human institutions was first sent forth. And now instead of trying to stand upon the truth, they ;are slapping the hands of Belmont and saying “no, no” whine they continue to wallow in the mire of error themselves.

But the most tragic thing about all this is the light in which it puts the church. It makes God’s holy kingdom sound like just another squabbling, confused, misguided, man-made denomination seeking to find God through worldly wisdom (in fact the newspaper article rises the term denomination in reference to the church.) How can someone who does not understand the nature and work of the church be shown the way to eternal life if the picture; he gets of the church is what is painted in this article? The only thing those who are not Christians will be led to, is disgust with the ignorance of human wisdom and worldliness. This should cause all of us who love the Lord to make a more determined effort to stand firm upon the truth and keep God’s house pure and holy as He meant for it to be. Brethren, there is no greater evil than to stand still and do nothing in the face of error.

One more quote from the newspaper article needs to be dealt with before I close this article. Now get ready for this brethren, “Pullias feels Belmont has become identified with liberal forces in the church–forces which have been coming under increasingly strong, indeed bitter, attacks in the Gospel Advocate. a publication regarded by some conservatives as being second only to the Bible in authority. “(emphasis mine MLD) Now I do not know, who is responsible for the above quote, but it certainly lays on the line the basic reason for the digression in the church today. Some do not have enough conviction to search the scriptures for a “thus saith the Lord” for all things. Instead they have been content to accept the position of the Gospel Advocate staff and other preachers. As a result they have been hoodwinked into accepting every innovation that has come along from the church supported orphan home right on up to the Herald of Truth and colleges in the budget.

The whole affair makes you kind of sick, doesn’t it! (?)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:19, pp. 10-11
March 24, 1974

By Fred A. Shewmaker

Since 1957 I have had in my possession a tract entitled “What Is The Church of Christ”. The following Statement appears on the inside back cover of this tract: “The material in this article was presented in a sermon on January 23, 1955 at the Hillsboro Church of Christ, 2206 Hillsboro Road, Nashville, Tennessee, and heard over radio station WLAC.” Although the overall content of the tract is good it does contain the following ambiguous sentence: “Congregations do cooperate voluntarily in supporting the orphans and the aged, in preaching the gospel in new fields, and similar work.” Since this sentence is given to more than one interpretation, it needed clarification.

The tract begins with an introduction and then proceeds by asking questions that are immediately followed by answers. The portion of the tract from which I have taken the preceding is the answer given to question IV: “Are the churches of Christ organically connected?” The full answer given in this old tract to question IV is as follows:

“Following the plan of organization found in the New Testament, churches of Christ are atonomous. (sic) Their common faith in the Bible and adherence to its teaching are the chief ties which bind them together. There is no central headquarters of the church and no organization superior to the elders of each local congregation. Congregations do cooperate voluntarily in supporting the orphans and the aged, in preaching the gospel in new fields, and in other similar works. There are no conventions, annual meetings, or official publications. The `tie that binds’ is a common loyalty to the principles of the restoration of New Testament Christianity.”

In my estimation this is not a forthright answer to the question. The author of the tract, brother Batsell Barrett Baxter, apparently agrees with this estimation. The evidence that he does is to be found in the change made in answer to question IV in the new issue of his tract.

I have recently come into possession of brother Baxter’s new issue of the tract. On the front cover in addition to the title, “What Is The Church of Christ”; are the words “Revised Edition” printed at about a 30 degree angle. A careful reading of the “Revised Edition” reveals that, other than an addition in the introduction and the updating of statistics, there is only one change to be found. That change is found in the answer given to question IV. In the new issue the author clarifies what he means by the sentence, “Congregations do cooperate voluntarily in supporting the orphans and the aged, in preaching the gospel in new fields, and in other similar works.” In the “Revised Edition”we find the following, entirely new, paragraph inserted, immediately after that sentence:

“Members of the church of Christ conduct forty colleges and secondary schools, as well as seventy-five orphanages and homes for the aged. There are approximately forty magazines and other periodicals published by individual members of the church. A nation-wide radio and television program, known as `The Herald of Truth’ is sponsored by the Highland Avenue church in Abilene, Texas. Much of its annual budget of $1,200,000 is contributed on a free-will basis by other churches of Christ. The radio program is currently heard on more than 800 radio stations, while the television program is now appearing on more than 150 stations. Another extensive radio effort known as `World Radio’ owns a network of 28 stations in Brazil alone, is operating effectively in the United States and a number of foreign nations, and is being produced in fourteen languages. An extensive advertising program in leading national magazines began in November 1955.”

Why did brother Baxter write about all these organizations of human origin in the new issue of his tract? With this in mind look back at the question he is answering. “Are churches of Christ organically connected?” If I were not a member of the church of Christ, would brother Baxter’s answer mean Yes or No, to me?

Brethren who have opposed taking money from the treasury of a local church and supporting the human organizations, mentioned in this new answer to question IV, have long argued that such support constitutes an organic connection of churches. Although brother Baxter may wish to deny it; his answer in the new issue of his tract admits those who so argue were, and are, correct.

How appropriate are the words on the front of the new issue of the tract. This new tract does not tell about the church of Christ as it is revealed in the word of God. This new tract tells about the revisions of the church of Christ that have been wrought by men who were not satisfied with the church described in the Holy Scriptures.

How suggestive of a name are the words on this new issue of the tract. Will the brethren who have organically connected many local churches of Christ soon find that their organization has become popularly known as the Church of Christ Revised? Time will tell!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:19, pp. 9-10
March 14, 1974

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Any person acquainted with the Bible and the history of its transmission realizes that multitudes of minor and insignificant differences exist in the surviving manuscripts. Some people (who should know better!) use this fact to discredit belief in the inspiration of the Bible itself.

R. Laird Harris, in his Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Zondervan: 1957) cites an example of this from near the beginning of this century and rightly remarks, “She holds, strangely enough, that the publication of the Revised Version in England killed the doctrine of verbal inspiration as it revealed variations among the manuscripts. As if this had not been known previously!” (page 300)

It is extremely unjust to hold against an author the mistakes made by those who have preserved his works. J. W. McGarvey wrote in 1899, “If I were charged with all the mistakes which appear in my articles almost every week, and which have appeared in the first editions of all the books that I nave published, I would esteem it a very great hardship; and if I were guilty of them, I think that I would write no more till I could go to school a few more sessions. Why visit upon the heads of the holy men who wrote the Bible a hardship which no modern writer could bear with patience?” (Biblical Criticism, page 322)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10; p. 12
January 17, 1974

By H. L. Bruce

In order for a preacher to persuade brethren that discipline is right and proper and that it is ordained of God and should be scripturally practiced in a congregation, it should not be necessary for him to fight the members of that congregation. But many times that is exactly what, he has to do. Furthermore, when he has to fight the members, the story does not stop there. Before he gets through, a lot of times he has either been severely hurt himself or winds up being dismissed by the elders of that congregation. Why is it some brethren think that in the tense and unpleasant procedure of corrective discipline that it adds anything at all for them to put the preacher under pressure by dropping an additional hot potato in his lap?

In the twenty-two years that I have been preaching the gospel, I have tried to influence congregations where I preach, among other things to practice corrective discipline as is taught in the New Testament. During that period of time it has been our unpleasant experience to have to withdraw from over 45 unfaithful and delinquent members. It was not pleasant in any sense. But this article does not deal with the mechanics of discipline, even though that would be an interesting and profitable study.

The way that brethren act during the procedure is what disturbs me! Why the additional burdens placed on the preacher when discipline is practiced? Why the implications against the preacher when he begins to ask brethren to do what God says? Why will a congregation that has never practiced discipline, and which has a tremendous backlog of ungodly and unfaithful members, fire their preacher when he tries to get them to practice scriptural discipline?

Why is the preacher the bad guy and the gambler the good guy? What makes the preacher wrong and the reprobate right? What makes illicit sex right and the preacher a church splitter if he wants corrective discipline? Why should a preacher have to sell his house, move away, have his family subjected to a strange territory, his children change schools, leave their friends behind, and experience the emotional strain of a fresh start and multiple adjustments simply because a congregation filled with ungodliness refuses to honor what God authorized with regards to discipline?

Yet some wonder why preachers become soft and relegate their preaching on discipline to either mere lip service or passive complaints. Preachers sometimes become cowards after having their hands burned and reputation wounded by ungodly people who toss them hot potatoes when they try to influence them to do what God says. Some fear their image. Brethren sometimes will ruin them if very much is said in trying to get them to practice discipline.

I have preached on discipline dozens of time and plan to continue to do so. I have influenced brethren to practice discipline and shall continue to do so, if God permits me to live. Some have been out right rebellious. Some have started and changed horses in the middle of the stream. Then there have been those who wanted to practice discipline and would go along with the action, provided they could keep the preacher walking on hot coals along as they went. While practicing discipline, they wanted to burn the preacher some way as if he were responsible for the necessary action. Then, thank God, there are those devout, resolute, Godfearing individuals who respect the word of God, at all costs-and there is a price. They are the ones who please God. They are the ones whom I respect. May their tribe increase. And may the preachers who are cowards increase their faith in God and be courageous.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, p. 10-11
January 17, 1974