Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

In previous articles, what I have chosen to designate as a “Neo-Calvinistic, Unity Cult” has been discussed from the standpoint of the sources from whence it springs. It has been noted that its prime movers are a number of well known extremists who have for the greater portion of their preaching lives been identified with comparatively small groups of equally extreme brethren holding scripturally untenable views relative to the limitations of Christian liberty in the realm of generic authority. I have specifically identified brethren W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Ervin Waters as belonging to this number. Of these men, Carl Ketcherside has been the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most successful in attracting followers. The major part of my attention will, therefore, be paid to him in this series.

A Recapitulation

In my last article, I began a discussion of some -secondary sources” from whence springs the baneful influence of the “unity cult” under consideration. Attention was called to a number of men who have had unhappy personal experiences with fellow preachers and elders, who have been involved in abortive undertakings, and whose ambitions have been thwarted. In this connection, I mentioned with sincere personal sorrow such men as Pat Hardeman, Charles A. Holt, and Harold Spurlock.

Brother Hardeman took his departure from among what I conceive to be faithful brethren sonic years ago. Brethren Holt and Spurlock have more recently done so. Hardeman’s departure was more drastic but less vocal. Holt and Spurlock, through the medium of a journal which they called Sentinel of Truth, through the pulpits of faithful churches, and through the public medium of radio, attempted to indict churches of Christ as constituting a human denomination, and to stigmatize gospel preachers as money-grubbing, time-serving slaves to popish elders, as devotees of idolatrous ecclesiolatry, and as non-thinking parrots of “traditional Church of Christ doctrine and practice.”

Today, neither Holt nor Spurlock has much influence either among so-called “conservative” or “liberal” churches. Yet, the influence of their teaching-which was done while they yet moved freely among conservative brethren-remains. Wherever there exists a vestige of this influence will be found active sympathy for and empathy with Ketcherside, Garrett, and their ilk. There will also be found an attachment to the points of view, which characterize them. Furthermore, wherever such persons are found, they will be operating subversively to create as much dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and obstructionism as they can. This alone constitutes sufficient reason for such a series of articles as I am now engaged in writing and which Truth Magazine is publishing.

 Other “Secondary Sources”

The second source in this category is a considerable number of brethren who have become enamored of “the lust of other things” and “the pleasures of this life”-worldly allurements-and have compromised their principles. Their aberrations brought them to the brink of the abyss of complete loss of faith in God and the validity of things spiritual. Facing moral chaos and spiritual bankruptcy, and the word of God no longer constituting for them; in acceptable basis for a living faith (Rom. 10:17), they reached out emotionally and blindly for some concrete, sensual experience that would impress anew upon their consciousness the reality, of Deity and the validity of things spiritual. In subjective experience, they sought indisputable proof (?) of God’s active interest in, concern for, and acceptance of them personally.

The poignant desire of these people for self-assurance and the spiritual anguish which it occasioned (and I am not callous toward nor unsympathetic with them in their dilemma) became the parents, of their experiences in the realm of the supernatural. Hence it was that they (1) experimented with the occult, (2) experienced glossolalia (tongue speaking), (3) discovered “new truth” (?) through intuition or subjective revelation, and (4) found a common denominator in their extraordinary experiences for “unity” and “fellowship” with representatives of almost every species of error taught in so-called “Christendom” today. Brother Pat Boone among our more “liberal” brethren is a classic example of what I am talking about.

Until recently, conservatives have been able to say, “We have none of this among us!” This is no longer true. While I know of no overt “tongue-speakers” as yet among those professing to be conservative, I have heard of militantly conservative churches having to deal with some of their constituency who were experimenting with private “sensitivity” meetings. In these meetings, male and female Christians (married and single) sat together on the floor in a dark room, sometimes by candlelight, holding hands, and participating in spontaneous praying and singing. I judge they acted “as the Spirit moved them” as Quakers used to do in their public meetings. I do not regard this as an unwarranted judgment of motives by reason of the fact that these same people and others like them have expressed themselves as believing in an immediate indwelling and operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts and lives of Christians. It seems logical and eminently fair, therefore, to assume that these people in their “cell” worship of the spontaneous variety expect immediate, Divine guidance through the inner-working of the Holy Spirit with the view to enhancing their consecration and holiness as servants of Christ.

As further evidence of the correctness of this analysis, brethren have been experimenting in the public worship of the saints with “spontaneous singing.” An amazing thing about this is the fact that such has been done with little or no opposition. In some instances it has been incorporated with enthusiastic support by people who should know better. Spontaneous praying will follow, if it has not already occurred, then testimony. Several years ago in Lufkin, Texas, Charles A. Holt, for all practical purposes, advocated testimonial meetings as a part of the public worship. He did this by offering derogatory criticism concerning how shocked the brethren would be if such occurred.

Whether they know it or will admit it or not, brethren who practice such contemplate some immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, wholly unconnected with Divine truth, to preserve order or to give direction to that which they do. Otherwise, as they well know, that which they spontaneously do will not edify. An excellent young man, who has planned for a number of years to give his life to the proclamation of the gospel, personally known to and sincerely loved by me, has recently begun to insist that the Holy Spirit personally dwells in him and exercises all immediate influence upon him to keep him from sinning.

It is hard to describe how utterly nauseating it is to one who has spent so many years and so much of his strength opposing such phantasies among denominational lists now to witness, in his declining years, the birth and growth of such a preposterous delusion among professed New Testament Christians. In articles to come, I propose to establish a direct relationship between “cell worship” and “direct Holy Spirit guidance” and the Ketcherside unity cult by means of direct quotations from Ketchersides own writings.

A third group in the “secondary source” category is composed of a considerable number of young people, many of them preachers but veritable neophytes both by age and experience, who are caught up in the tolls of the neoCalvinistic unity cult. It is almost inconceivable but true that these people actually believe they have discovered “new truth” in their agitation for unity and fellowship on the basis of modified Calvinistic error and refined Pentecostal fanaticism.

The preachers of this group are young men of unusual ability and dedication, who otherwise could look forward to many years of useful service among conservative brethren, are beyond question militantly involved in Ketchersidism. A considerable number of them have spent from two to four years in Florida College, a school that, theoretically, provides a militantly conservative educational situation. They have been exposed to every teacher and all of the Bible courses which this school offers. Most of these men were outstanding students academically, morally, and spiritually. They are of high intellectual caliber; they are neither stupid nor lazy.

Despite all of this, they are now militant promulgators of a view concerning salvation by grace through faith which, by the most charitable application of sound interpretive principles, is nothing short of modified Calvinism. Some advocate openly their belief in an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the Christian independent of divine truth. They advocate and practice a Ketchersidian type of “fellowship” with brethren involved in pernicious error and with denominationalists.

Incidentally, when questioned concerning their teaching and practice these young men are quick to cite the writings of Brother Edward Fudge, Associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, to their interrogators as containing an able expression of their views. Brother Fudge needs to take note of this fact. These are bright young men, and have little difficulty in understanding what they read. If Brother Fudge is not saying what they have concluded he is saying, he needs to recognize the fact that he is guilty of spiritually criminal ambiguity and is misleading eternity-bound souls made in the Divine image. He should set these young men straight and dispel the confusion and alarm of others whom he has disturbed by his pronouncements by a clear, unequivocal statement of his true attitude relative to the matters wherein they “misunderstood” him.

The views of our neophyte preachers are pressed with a great show of humility, piety, and love by constant affirmation-much as premillennialism was foisted upon gullible brethren in the not too distant past. In this regard, they bring to mind the often-quoted line of William Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” It is the old story, “If you don’t believe I’m humble, just ask me!” I am not impressed by this show of humility, piety, and love. These young men who are parroting the Ketcherside line are intellectually egotistical to the point of being nauseating. Their terminology, mannerisms, and constant references to the original languages in which the Scriptures were written constitute a type of intimidation through affectation of superiority. They are insufferable arrogant relative to & scope and depth of their understanding of Scripture. Nothing demonstrate, this better than there rushing into print with reams of material upon

subjects which have challenged the minds of the most pious, scholarly, mature students of the ages. Though often in error, they are never in doubt. Their protestations of piety are superficial Saccharine emotionalism is not piety. True piety is never permissive. It is loving, helpful, understanding, but never permissive in any realm governed by the will of God.

Is There A Cause?

What caused these young men to become involved in Ketcherside’s errors question which keeps pressing for an answer. Several considerations could have contributed: (1) The universal agitation in religious circles emanating from ecumenism in the denominational world; (2) the current “youth revolt” against “the establishment” and the “status quo” (3) disenchantment with hypocrisy and materialism in the church; and/or (4) it could be an “identity crisis-youth seeking to find itself and to establish its place under the sun. Perhaps any or all of these have had some influence, yet I am haunted by the conviction that there is a common denominator in this matter which has not yet been discovered-a fountain to which all of these young men had access and from which they have drunk other than and in addition to the writings of W. Carl Ketcherside. I think we do him entirely too much honor to attach such significance to his eternal mouthing. If there is such a common denominator, it needs to be identified, exposed, and eradicated. To the accomplishment of this objective, I am absolutely and unswervingly dedicated.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, pp. 7-9
April 12, 1973

By Michael E. Grushon

It is very easy to become disconcerted about the problems that plague our society. If you read the newspaper or watch the television newscasts with any regularity, you most certainly are informed of many things that seem to be tearing the vitality and strength right out of our society. Not the least of our country’s problems is the plight of its young people. If you are not convinced that our young people face any real problems in their lives, consider these three items involving our youth:

Item Number One. On a recent Chicago Report on NBC, it was reported that a pusher was arrested at a suburban Chicago school for selling marijuana. He was selling the marijuana to junior high and senior high school students at a cost of one dollar per cigarette.

Item Number Two. A special entitled Can You Pass the VD Test? was recently aired on the local CBS affiliate. One of the most startling statistics given during the entire program was the fact that the occurrence of venereal disease is increasing most rapidly in the 12 to 14 age group.

Item Number Three. During the past basketball season (I coach a little league basketball team) one grade school youngster reported that someone stole twenty-five dollars out of his wallet. When the proper officials checked with his parents, they affirmed that he could have had that much money on him at the time.

Without a doubt, many of our young people are vexed with serious problems. The examples that I have cited tend to indict the parents of the young people to the degree that the parents have failed to restrain their children. I would hope that this problem is not as severe among young Christians and their parents, but I am sure we can all profit by examining the question, “Where are today’s parents?”

God has charged parents with the responsibility to educate and discipline their children. The apostle Paul said, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Many young people who could be a positive force in society end up in trouble because their parents neglect their responsibility to build and mold the character of their sons and daughters. Many of the young Christians who become derelict of their duty before God are those raised in homes of parents who were Christians, but never obeyed the gospel themselves are in the condition that they are simply because their parents did not take time to bring them up in God’s discipline or in His instruction.

The three items that I mentioned at the first of this article speak loudly of the prevalence of parental neglect. Marijuana sells for a dollar a cigarette, and hard drugs cost much more, yet a pusher can do a thriving business at the local school. No doubt the parents cried out in anguish when they heard of the arrest, and undoubtedly they wanted to know why the school had not caught the man before they did! I am plagued by other questions. What I want to know is why the parents of junior high and high school students will allow them to have so much extra money. The pusher would not be at the school if business were bad, so he was making money. Where were the teenagers getting all this money? You know how they got their money? Mom and Dad gave it to them. We are living in an age when it is not much of a joke to hear that Dad has to ask his teenage son for the use of the car. Too many young people are indulged excessively by their parents, and they use their abundant wealth to buy pot, alcohol and other luxuries. Not every young person uses drugs, but the parent who supplies his child with a large bankroll and then does not care where it is spent is inviting trouble. Can you imagine an eleven year old having twenty-five dollars in his wallet? I doubt if I even knew what a wallet was at that age, much less have one with twenty-five dollars in it! Parents, do not make the mistake of indulging your teenager with excess money.

The second mistake often made by parents is indifference and unconcern. Because they indulge the material wants of their children, many parents evidently feel that they have fulfilled their parental obligations, and leave their children to live their lives without direction and guidance. When children are left without guidance the result can be disastrous. The dramatic increase in the rate of venereal disease between grade and junior high school student is damning evidence that far too many parents are allowing their children to enter unguided into relationships for which they are not sufficiently mature. Is it any wonder that such voting people are contacting a disease such as syphilis when parents are pushing voting girls into tinder garments designed for the figure which “is about to be,” when voting boys and girls are encouraged to date when they ought to be riding bicycles and playing with dolls, or when grade scholars are “going steady”? We have to face facts; VD is not contacted in the normal course of supervised activity. This problem and many others faced by today’s young people are the result of children or young adults being left alone to cope with emotions and situations that they are not mature enough to handle.

As Christians, let its be admonished to obey God’s instructions to parents. It should not be necessary to warn Christians of the dangers that their children face from the influence of the world, but too often we find our voting Christians straying into worldliness. Let its learn from the plight of the world and front the word of God that as parents we need to be actively concerned about our children’s welfare, and we need to show this concern by involving ourselves in their lives and teaching them the righteousness of God.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, pp. 5-6
April 12, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Much is being written these days about how the world is changing, and no doubt many changes have been made. Some of these changes have been improvements, and some of them have constituted a downward course. But while many things do change, many have not changed at all. Of course, some things should never be changed, such as the gospel, which contains the pattern for Christ’s church in organization, work, and worship. But particularly at this time am I thinking about the fact that the begging churches are still begging. Jesus related an account of a man who said he was “ashamed” to beg (Lk. 16:1-4). Such could never be said of some of our brethren.

The paradox of the perpetually begging churches is that, without exception, they are among the largest and the wealthiest churches in the world. The Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas is reputed to be the second largest church of Christ in the world. Their February 18, 1973 bulletin reports that the preceding Sunday 1925 were present for Bible School, and “We had over 3,000 worshippers in the two combined services Sunday morning.” These impressive figures still leave them only second to the Madison, Tennessee church.

The same Lubbock bulletin gives a summary of their budget for 1973. It calls for weekly contributions of $10,382.00, or for an annual total of $539,842.00. You would think a church with that much money would not perpetually have out its hands to receive the donations of hundreds of smaller churches throughout the world. But if there has been a single year since the 1940’s when the Broadway church was not begging brethren to send them money, it has escaped my notice. They always have some grand ideas about how to spend other churches’ money, as though these other churches were not wise enough to administer their own funds.

One of their projects, for which they expect the brotherhood to pay, is “Children’s Home of Lubbock.” To the embarrassment of the Gospel Advocate people, these Broadway elders continue to insist that they do oversee the “Home” as elders. In case you are not aware of it, the Gospel Advocate position is that these brethren must not oversee the “Home” as elders.

Brother Guy N. Woods probably now is considerably embarrassed by what he thought was a great point in the Woods-Porter Debate held in Indianapolis in January, 1956. Brother Woods then, with great satisfaction, quoted a letter from the Broadway elders in which they said: “The children’s home of Lubbock is not incorporated, but is under the direct supervision of the elders of the Broadway Church of Christ, as is the regular Sunday morning Bible classes, the Texas Tech Bible Chair, and other work carried on by the congregation.” (Woods-Porter Debate, p. 286)

 

Some of the liberal brethren have tried to tell us that childcare legally could not be attended to without incorporation, but Lubbock said theirs was “not incorporated.” Further more, they said they oversaw the “Home” “under the direct supervision of the elders . . . as is the regular Sunday morning Bible classes. . . .” In 1956 Brother Woods had not learned he was supposed to argue that they oversaw the “Home” not as elders. Tom Warren had not yet sold the brotherhood (liberal) on his significant differentiation of overseeing as elders as opposed to overseeing not as elders. Woods, and the Lubbock elders, then were blindly stumbling along thinking the “Home” was being overseen by the elders as elders. Woods has since decided that to do what he in 1956 argued Lubbock elders were doing is sinful.

The Lubbock elders still maintain they oversee the “Home” and its operation just as they oversee “the Sunday morning Bible Classes . . . Now either they oversee the “Home” as elders, or they oversee their Bible classes not as elders, for they insist they oversee both the “Home” and the Bible classes alike.

Keep in mind that this Lubbock church, with a budget calling for over $10,000 a week in local contributions, perpetually begs churches all over the world to send them money either for evangelistic or benevolent programs they dream up. This large and wealthy church operates “as elders” a 160-acre farm, unless they have recently disposed of it. Before me is a clipping from The Childrens Home, which is a Broadway church publication, that reads as follows: “The chief development for the month in our agricultural activity has been the planting of our cotton crop. We are now farming 160 acres and will plant the allowable allotment tinder Plan A of the government program, which will allow us approximately 65 acres. Other portions of the farm will be planted in grain sorghums.” (The Childrens Home, Vol. 6, No. 3, May, 1959)

Also before me is a letter addressed to W. W. Otey and signed by Emerson A. Shepherd “for the elders” that states, “The approximate value of the Childrens Home of Lubbock is $200,000.00” (Letter dated January 19. 1957). Reckon what a farm worth $200,000.00 in 1954 is now worth??? But Lubbock is still holding out her hand and wanting more churches to send her ever more money. Another issue of The Childrens Home shows elder John B. White “examining the fruiting of this cotton grown on the 160 acres made available to the home. . . . Also shown is one of the farm tractors being operated on the “Home” property “under the direct supervision of the elders of the Broadway Church of Christ ……

Broadway is yet begging money. When a church sends them some money, how does the sending church know what they are paving for with their money? Would they be purchasing a new carburetor or tire for a farm tractor? Or, cotton seed, herbicide, or fertilizer for the cotton or grain crop? All of this is done under the guise of caring for orphan children. Yet actually they have turned the Broadway church into the supervisor of a large farming operation, which they insist they oversee as elders. But when one opposes any of this, he is said to be opposed to helping poor little orphan children. Or as was published by the liberal Blue Island, Illinois church; “We read so much these days where men, who claim to be gospel preachers, strike out at orphanages. It seems to be an obsession with them…. It is hard to understand how they have come to hate orphans so much.”

I wonder why they don’t charge us with “hating cotton,” or “hating wheat,” or “hating hogs,” or “hating beef cattle programs,” or “hating broiler growers,” or as haters of some of the other business operations which some of these liberal brethren operate and subsidize with church funds under the guise of caring for poor little, starving orphan children. They seem unable to see that these brethren, no matter how well-intentioned they may have been, have turned the Lord’s church into the supervisor of or the subsidizer of perhaps a score of different businesses. Boles Home, which also solicits funds from churches, owns and operates a 2300-acre farm, besides its commercial office buildings and apartments, and has assets considerably in excess of $2,000,000.00.

In the New Testament, churches sent to relieve poor saints, and in so doing, they sent their relief funds to the elders (Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). A little church, like the one for which I preach, can spend hundreds of dollars attending to the needs of its own poor members, or sending to relieve needy saints elsewhere, but if it does not go along with the big-time promotions and projects of the large and wealthy churches who are perpetually begging, someone will label it as “orphan haters,” or will say, “We like the way we are doing it better than the way you are not doing it.”

The man about whom Jesus spoke was ashamed” to beg, but such a sentiment has never entered the heart of Broadway, Highland, or Manhattan, all of whom have begged constantly for over a score of years, and in some instances, for 25-35 years. With a $10,000 a week contribution, and more than half a million dollars a year annual budget, you would think a little sense of “shame” would well up in the heart of Broadway when they beg the monies of small, and in some instances, very poor churches. But instead of “shame,” they simply set their budgets higher for next year. The Highland church in Abilene, Texas spends nearly $200,000.00 a year just for “support solicitation” (begging). They even beg money with which to beg more money, and if they have ever felt any shame in doing so, I have not heard of it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, pp. 3-5
April 12, 1973

By Jimmy Tuten

Pride is detrimental to the life of the church. Yet, we still see fruits of it in our weeklies in the form of “look what we have done.” Some brethren like to boast of their achievements and activities. They are no better off than the denomination on the next corner who is constantly trying to build a tower higher than St. Babel’s down the block. I have difficulty understanding how our brethren can claim they are seeking biblical unity without its prerequisite, humility, being evident in their lives. Before we become another rung in the ladder of social success or a patron of prestige, we need to take a long look at the apostles-condemned to death because they became spectacles to the world. Let no man boast in men. Above all we must not compare ourselves with those who commend themselves (2 Cor. 10: 12).

I am reminded of a story I read recently. A stranger went into a church one day. He was not a member of it. He mingled about with the people, patting them on the back, talking loudly and laughing in a gesture of friendship. The members of this church were shocked with his familiarity and horrified at his “lack of respect” for a place of worship. He was asked to leave. On the doorstep, he was approached by God Who said, “cheer up, fella, I’ve been trying to get into that church for years.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, p. 2
April 12, 1973