Truth Magazine

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

By Ray Ferris

” . . . I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” Acts 26:29.

Perhaps many of us recognize these words as those spoken by Paul to Agrippa when he told Paul that he had almost been persuaded to become a Christian (KJV). Have we ever stopped to think of what it would require for us to be able to make the same statement that Paul made to Agrippa? It would mean much more than being just a member of the church. It would mean that I could examine the type of life that I am now living, and yet be able to say the world would be a much better place to live in, even if every other person in the world were living that same type of life! It would mean that the universal church of Christ would be more like what the Lord would have it to be, even if every other Christian lived and served the same way that I do! It would mean that the local congregation of the body where I worship would De more active and more zealous in doing that which is pleasing to the Lord, even if every other member of that congregation attended the services, gave of his money, and helped to do that which must be done just as I do. Remember, Paul said ” . . . I would to God, that … all that hear me this day, were … altogether such as I am . . . ” What a sobering thought!

But now, let us apply the thought. Are you a member of the Lord’s church? Then ask yourself this question: “If every other person in the local congregation where I am a member worshipped, labored for, and served the Lord as I do, what would this church be like?” We all think it is wonderful for the church to do very great things, but when the time comes to do, oftentimes “Big I” am not to be found.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 22, pp. 6-8
April 5, 1973

By James W. Adams

The virulent onslaught of the “new technology” of our day against what its devotees choose to call “traditional religion and morality,” the undeniable success of atheistic Communism in proselyting and controlling the teeming masses of the world’s population in Asia, Africa, and South America, and the almost universal youth revolt against organized religion have shocked and frightened all segments of so-called “Christendom.” The shock has run like an electric charge through Roman Catholicism’ at its highest level of ecclesiastical authority and scholarship to its humblest priest. Like a great earthquake, it has shaken protestant denominationalism from the hinterland of “Christian Atheism” and the “Death of God Movement,” through the ivory towers of Neo-orthodoxy, to the most obstinate and unreasonable sects of “dogmatic fundamentalism.” Suddenly, the awful truth has dawned upon the whole spectrum of so-called “Christianity” that, in any and every form, it is involved in a titanic struggle for its very life.

The crisis thus generated has focused attention upon the vulnerability of divided Christendom. It has pointed up the need for a burial of old antagonisms and a diligent search for a formula for unification of the dissenting and warring segments of the so-called “Christian community.” The minimum objective is thought to be some sort of amalgamation of the sects of “Christendom” which is capable of marshalling its total resources for all-out war with its common foes. The effort to accomplish this is what is called 11 the ecumenical movement” or “ecumenism.”

The Stance of the “churches of Christ”

Not being Roman Catholic and repudiating denominational status, professed “churches of Christ” whether denominated “liberal” or “conservative” (often most inaccurately) are too conservative to embrace such an amalgamation as the ecumenists propose. Only a few far left brethren have shown any great interest in an inter-denominational conglomerate of divergent sects for functional, if not doctrinal, purposes. Yet, the many divisions of what Brother W. Carl Ketcherside calls “the heirs of the Restoration Movement,” and to which he so frequently and contemptuously refers, have impressed members of “the churches of Christ,” particularly the better informed elders and preachers, with the dire need for a closing of our ranks. It requires little argument, logically or scripturally, to demonstrate that New Testament Christians should constitute an impenetrable, spiritual phalanx, with no flanks vulnerable to attack by reason of senseless and unscriptural division. Only thus united and their resources thus employed can they marshal an effective offense and defense against the overwhelming, physical odds of current enemies of New Testament truth.

With the strongest condemnation of division among brethren and the most fervent emphasis of the need of unity among the Lord’s disciples, I have no quarrel. To the contrary, with such, I am most fervently aligned. However, with the bases proposed by what I have chosen to call “the neo-Calvinistic, unity cult” upon which the mire for division is predicated and the attainment of unity anticipated, I am in almost total disagreement. It constitutes an abdication to error and a creation of a pseudo “fellowship” of doctrineless and faithless non-entities. Like the Abner Jones and Elias Smith movement of Vermont which, at its zenith, assumed a similar posture, its destiny is oblivion.

Secondary Sources

In a previous article, it has been shown that our current “neo-Calvinistic, unity cult,” had its beginning with a group of ultra-extremists whose force had been spent and whose sun was setting among the “churches of Christ.” However, in all unscriptural religious movements, other elements are soon fused with the original. Such is true in this case. There are at least three other groups or classes of individuals who have mounted the band wagon and are beating the drums of propaganda in this matter.

This “neo-Calvinistic, unity-fellowship cult’s” appeal has struck a responsive chord among a considerable number of brethren. The fundamental reason for this is its psychological timing. We shall be emphasizing this point throughout this series of articles. I do not believe this was accidental or spontaneous but deliberate and opportunistic.

The movement was launched while there yet reverberated among the churches the echo of an often-bitter struggle over church support of human institutions and cooperative evangelism and benevolence by the churches through the sponsoring church arrangement. It hoisted its mainsail at the dawn of a new and perhaps greater and bitterer struggle among those who favor the aforementioned matters. This battle is already in progress and gaining in intensity by the hour. It is a confrontation on the one hand between classical liberals and their more conservative contemporaries. Already, these churches have, for the most part, accepted the first forms of the “social gospel.” The ultraliberals want the whole package, and they are right. The “social gospel” was germinated in the hotbed of German Rationalism of the nineteenth century. Out of which fertile soil came also “modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and existentialism,” not to mention “organic evolution and atheistic communism.” If one accepts the first fruits of the “social gospel,” why should he not accept the seed from whence it sprang and the complete harvest?

On the other hand, fighting has erupted on a second front. Having lost faith in the all sufficiency of Divine Revelation, a considerable segment of these brethren have turned to what I have recently called “subjective sentimentalism” in an article in “The Preceptor Magazine.” They are finding their answer to doubts which plague them in the emotional fanaticism of a supposed immediate indwelling and functioning of the Spirit of God in the believer with consequent intuitive guidance, miraculous divine healing, and glossolalia (ecstatic tongue-speaking).

Ketcherside and Garrett (These men are my brethren in error, and I so regard them, but for the sake of brevity and space, they will hereinafter be designated without the appellation, “brother.”) are making their unity pitch to people harried by fear, weary of controversy, and longing for relief. Peace at any price often is deceptively desirable under such circumstances. Our recent experiences as a nation in South Vietnam constitute a classic example of this very thing. Coupled with this is the youth unrest and rebellion, which pervades our country, the world, and the churches. Young Christians, by reason of this fact, are particularly vulnerable to the platitudes, sophistry, and astutely pietistic overtures relative to “unity” and “fellowship” which are made by these men. Ketcherside and Garrett have worked this fertile ground with consummate skill and diligence. In their political niachinations aimed at relating to youth, they remind me of the abortive efforts of a recent, unsuccessful presidential candidate. At first, the youth of our nation seemed overwhelmingly attracted, but their fundamental good sense and innate perception asserted themselves and they refused to be politically managed and selfishly used for another’s unworthy objectives. Some young Christians have been caught up in the surge of this “neo-Calvinistic, unity movement,” but it is my fervent hope that their fundamental intelligence and knowledge of truth plus their unsullied integrity will deliver them from its destructive current. I shall deal with this point at greater length in subsequent articles.

This brings us to a discussion of the first of the three secondary sources from which the current “unity cult” draws its strength. There are those (preachers and others) who have had unhappy personal differences with fellow preachers, elders, and other brethren and / or have experienced thwarted ambitions and abortive undertakings. By these experiences, they have been disillusioned and embittered. In their chagrin and hurt relative to these matters (for which they were largely to blame), they lost their personal faith in the correctness and validity of their religious convictions and practice. Suddenly, they began to imagine they saw in their religious colleagues that which was in reality at the root of their own problems-an unholy desire for popularity, place, and preeminence. With no personal animosity toward any person, and certainly, with no desire to be unkind or unnecessarily harsh, I must say it is my personal conviction that such brethren as Charles A. Holt and Harold Spurlock (recent editors of the now deceased Sentinel of Truth) along with Pat Hardeman of some years past, in a very large degree, are properly classified in this category.

By thus classifying certain brethren who have been prominent and vocal in the advocacy of their positions in specific categories, I do not rule out the possibility that other factors than those mentioned may have contributed to their defection. For the men just named, I once had high regard and warm personal affection. A consideration of their departure from the ranks of those whom I personally consider faithful to the Lord brings me no pleasure. It brings only a deep melancholy and a distressing sense of irreparable loss.

Conclusion

In the next article, I shall consider the two other secondary sources, which have contributed to the present state of things relative to the “unity-fellowship” movement under consideration-the emotional fanatics and the precocious neophytes. The article will appear under the subject heading: “Secondary Sources of the Neo-Calvinistic Unity Cult” (II)

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 22, pp. 6-8
April 5, 1973