Truth Magazine

By Bennard R. Wiese and Urban G. Steinmetz.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1967 one marriage in four is broken up by divorce. There are other marital troubles where the marriage may be legally intact but internally wrecked. The problem of marriage is really a problem of staying married. This book is presented by its authors as a manual to accomplish just that and to “like it.”

We live in a “high tension” society that is tuned to high living, fast ways and so-called “personal freedoms.” We are gorging ourselves to the gagging point on fun and frivolity. The laws of neither God nor Washington amount to very much for so many people in our land. All of this adds to a frantic problem of trying to keep the base of our society solid, viz., keeping the home what it should be.

As I read through this book I observed at least two very good features it has. First, the authors present the real problems that plague so many marriages. It can be ground down basically to the unhappiness that exists in far too many marriages that, although not in legal battles yet, are fraught with constant domestic fights, quarrels and arguments. The authors analyze why such things go on between two human beings who once promised God they would love each other till death and accept one another “for better or for worse.” Second, the book offers many constructive answers that serve to remedy such ugly situations. There is a constant effort throughout this book to make the reader aware of the fact that marriage is real-it is not the Hollywood type of fantasy or a mere physical arrangement. Marriage is presented in this book in Biblical terms where two human beings become “one flesh” with all that implies.

Quite well is there an analysis of the various “stages” through which the average marriage passes. From the “dream world state” to the “time of disillusionment” to the “time of misery” to the “time of awakening” to the “time of love” stage is a long way for two people, and many marriages never make it all the way through these precarious stages. Some marriages, of course, never encounter all of the problems and dangers the authors discuss, but for those that do, there are many things worth considering presented in this manual.

How do you build love in a home? Is there any way that it can be done? The formula that is offered by the authors of this book is “Communicate-Work-Pray which is to equal Mature Love.” Each of these elements is elaborated upon in a very readable and intelligent manner. It is amazing to realize after considering what these men have to say that it is quite possible that married people may have lived together for a long, long time without really knowing one another.

The treatment given to the problems surrounding the sexual relationship in marriage are done frankly and with good taste. The authors point out very clearly that in this “sex oriented” society where the movies and books are drenched in the sordid, perverted and licentious display of sex that real life is not at all that way. The place of sex in the marriage relationship is put into its Biblical connotation and shown to be something beautiful and normal between two married people.

There may be a point or two where the reader will disagree with the view of the authors on such things as birth control. I suppose I am mentioning this for self preservation, but while I agree with them in a married couple’s privilege to use birth control methods, others may consider this heretical. However, to those who agree with the authors you will find their discussion one that is done in good taste and yet very practical.

I recommend the book to every elder or preacher who has to deal with marriage problems from time to time. It also is a good book to use in the family. I rate it a good solid “G”. At the end of each chapter are several points for discussion based on what has been presented in the text. Of course, like any book, it should be taken only insofar as it is right and proper and to that extent I recommend it to you.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, pp. 5-6
March 29, 1973

By James W. Adams

Religious movements are begun, perpetuated, and consummated by men. We refer to movements purely human in character. Such movements, like rivers, never rise above their sources; their course is ever downward unless elevated by alien elements. They degenerate. Since movements do not rise above their sources in character, but manifest instead the nature of their origin, it is important in reviewing a movement that one observes carefully the sources from whence it springs.

This means that one cannot separate men and their movements. It also means that one cannot deal adequately with movements without paying his respects to the men whom gave them birth. It is idealistic, unrealistic, impractical, and often dangerous simply to address oneself to the principles of a movement and ignore its principals. This is my reason for noting the sources among “conservative” brethren from whence springs the neo-Calvinistic, “unity-fellowship” movement or cult, which is the occasion of this series of articles.

Conceived by Extremists

Ernest Renan remarked concerning the Pharisees of our Lord’s time, “Religious zeal is always an innovator, even when it pretends to be in the highest degree conservative” (The Life of Jesus, p. 238, Dolphin Book). In a sense, this is but the adaptation of an old proverb to the effect, “One extreme begets another.” While I have no sympathy with the skepticism of Renan, I judge his analysis of Pharisaic character to be eminently correct. Fanatical, religious zeal is rarely, if ever, constant. It rebounds from one extreme to another heedless of consistency. In the field of Biblical exegesis, it often combines crass meticulosity with the grossest kind of loose constructionism with never a care regarding incongruity or equivocation. Therefore, movements generated by extremists are always suspect.

Our current “unity-fellowship” movement has at its very roots a number of well known, ultra-extremists, though men of unusual ability, who became so obnoxious to brethren generally, over a long period of time, that their influence was all but dead. According to their own testimony (and I heard them give it recently), they took a good, long look at themselves and were appalled by what they saw. As a result (according to their own testimony l, they thereby and therewith experienced a complete spiritual metamorphosis. Whereas they had been the slaves of a Diotrophesian exclusiveness (3 John 9, 10), which was the product of a Pharisaical self-righteousness (Lk. 18:9-14) and an untenable concept of the demands of Divine authority, they indentured themselves to a Pergamosian or Thyatiran type of permissiveness (Rev. 2:14-16; 18-23). Whereas they formerly could include in their fellowship almost no one; they now can include in their fellowship almost anyone. With no feeling of personal animosity whatsoever and with no desire to wound needlessly the feelings of errant brethren, honesty and the necessity for clarity demand that I identify brethren W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Ervin Waters among this number. In fact, in my candid judgment, they are classic examples.

A Qualification

In the use of Pergamos and Thyatira as examples, I do not imply that the brethren to whom reference is made believe in or practice the immorality characteristic of the false teachers of those places. I emphasize only the permissiveness of their fellowship. However, I am thoroughly convinced that their concept of salvation by grace with its resultant allpervasive fellowship will lead ultimately and inevitably to a compromise of moral principles. It has done so among Calvinistic bodies. The doctrine of “the impossibility of apostasy” which is inseparably linked with their concept of “salvation by grace” has spawned licentiousness. As far as I am able to determine, the Nicolaitan doctrine of New Testament times (Rev. 2:15) differed little from Calvinistic theology in this respect.

Libertarianism in Morals vs. Libertarianism in Doctrine and Service

Libertarianism in the realm of morals is certainly no worse than the same spirit when it manifests itself in the realm of doctrine or religious service. In fact, Uzzah of Old Testament notoriety died at the hands of God for merely taking hold of the Ark of the Covenant in an effort to save it from falling and possibly breaking (2 Sam. 6:1-7). On the other hand, David was allowed to live despite the sin of adultery with Bathsheba and the consequent murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11: 1 to 12: 24). Furthermore, David and Bathsheba were permitted to continue as husband and wife, and Bathsheba became the mother of Solomon, heir to the throne of Israel and divinely honored builder of the temple of God.

Does It Make a Difference?

It may be asked, “Does it make a difference in one’s consideration of the current ‘unity fellowship’ movement that its originators and primary promoters have been for many years noted extremists?” It does, indeed! Any movement emanating from men who have spent the major part of their lives building systems of religious faith and practice on the bases of distorted concepts of the teaching of Scripture, the fundamental teachings of which carry within their bosoms the germs of their own destruction, and which are in fact in the final throes of their demise, is not likely to be possessed of a high degree of validity.

W. Carl Ketcherside has spent most of his life with an ultra-radical wing of the all but dead, so-called “Sommer Movement, of the Midwest. (More about this later.) Leroy Garrett came up as a sort of proteg4 of G. A. Dunn Sr. in his later years. In those years, G. A. Dunn (and I knew and loved him) all but destroyed his usefulness through preoccupation with opposition to what he called “the pastor system” and other equally extreme concepts. Garrett’s early years as a preacher were spent in obtaining a succession of academic degrees and theological degrees from sectarian seminaries while he himself was opposing and rabidly denouncing educational institutions operated by brethren in which the Bible was taught daily in an effort to achieve the development of the “whole man —physically, intellectually, and spiritually.” Ervin Waters has spent his whole life in the advocacy of the non-Bible class position and the one container on the Lord’s Table position.

Had these men been more balanced, moderate students and teachers of the Word, had that which they were affiliated with been meeting with a higher degree of success and growth, had they, in the midst of their labors and at the peak of their influence, forged their views on “unity” and “fellowship,” and out of pure philanthropy, at the risk of place and position, in a thriving religious community, committed their reputations, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause, it would have made a difference! At least, it would have liberated the minds of all from lingering doubts and haunting suspicions based on the well-known fact that “necessity is the mother of invention.”

The Acid Test

Despite the fact that the “unity-fellowship” movement does not recommend itself by reason of the men who have conceived and launched it, this does not mean that it shall be judged solely on this basis. It will stand or fall on the basis of its Scriptural merit or lack of it. In articles to follow, a thorough review will be made of the men, the movement, and the teaching and practices, which are associated with them and it. Truth is the issue. Where it lies is of paramount importance.

There are valleys of sophistry to be filled. There are mountains of spurious piety to be leveled. There are rivers of inconsistencies to be dammed and bridged. There are multitudes of evasions of consequences, which must be exposed to light and truth. We promise you, it will be done!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, pp.3-5
March 29, 1973

By Norman E. Fultz

Like most other preaching brethren, each week I receive a large number of bulletins from churches throughout several states. Some of these I requested, others I just happened to be receiving. They serve a useful purpose to one who is interested in knowing something about how the Lord’s work is progressing in various sectors, and many of the articles are very stimulating and helpful. Some of the articles prove to be of inestimable value when I, having myself edited a bulletin for many years, need a “selected” article. And I am not adverse to using the articles of others, especially when they say so well something that I want to say, though I do prefer to use articles which bear the author’s names. Since these little publications come in all sizes, colors, and forms, I have tried to do some evaluating which it is hoped will be helpful.

When I sit down to go through a large pile of bulletins, and they do sometimes arrive in piles, many of them I glance at hurriedly and lay aside for more careful reading at a later time; many of them I glance at and file away in “No. 13.” Some of them I read closely, some of them scarcely, some of them not at all. Now what makes the difference? Several things enter into it, and since these reactions might also be true of the readership, for which the bulletin is primarily intended, let me offer these thoughts.

One of the overriding determinants in the readability of a bulletin is its overall neatness- neatness of layout and neatness of mechanical production. And since the preacher’s (generally) time and the Lord’s money are both expended in the publishing of a bulletin, we should aim at having a readable paper in order to accomplish that for which it is intended.

While it is the discretion of the editor, which determines layout, I venture a few personal observations. Many of the bulletins received have very fine material, but in some instances, even though the mechanical part of the bulletin may otherwise be very good, there is a serious overcrowding of the material. There is very simply an effort to include more in the little paper than it ought to have to bear. This results in a lack of “white space” in the margins, between paragraphs or between different articles, but a fair degree of that “white space” aids readability. In trying to crowd in too much material, one may defeat his own purpose by “turning off” the readers. Better to have less material read than much material unread.

The type style and size are also important considerations affecting the readability of a paper. A few of the bulletins I receive are beautifully printed in fine quality, but the print is so small (even with 20-20 vision unaided) it is laborious to read. This may be prompted by the desire again to get more material in less space. Severely reduced type is difficult enough to read, but there are some who insist on the lines running the page width rather than using columns. That makes it even more tedious to read. To be sure, a little more effort is required to print in columns, but it is effort well expended. Not that all bulletins printed with single columns are like that … one lies before me now which is easily readable having been printed in normal size type with a space between each of the short paragraphs, resulting in neatness.

The mechanical production of a bulletin can seriously affect readership. This is not to say that one certain type of production must be used; but whatever is used, it should be good quality for ease of reading. Many mimeograph machines do a beautiful job and are well used by some churches. In recent years, more and more churches are making use of offset ‘reproduction. These are capable of doing a really fine job, but using offset does not assure neatness. Others have bulletins commercially printed and usually have good workmanship.

Publishing a bulletin is to a great extent a thankless time-consuming task for most. But bulletins have done, and can still do, much good as teaching mediums and as a medium for advertising the church and its services and work. Objectivity in evaluating one’s publication may be difficult, but it results in a more effective method of communication. So, look it over. Is it easily readable?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, p. 2
March 29, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Some man-made churches include in their services what they refer to as “altar call.” Instead of inviting sinners to “obey the gospel” (Rom. 10: 16; 1 Pet. 4: 17; 2 Thess. 1: 7), they invite them to “come, kneel at the altar, confess your sins, and pray through.”

The New Testament knows nothing of “altar call.” On the day of Pentecost, when sinners asked what to do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). He did not tell them to kneel at an altar and start confessing their sins, praying for forgiveness. Take your Bible and read it for yourself.

When the people of Samaria were taught by Philip the evangelist, they believed and were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12). There is no hint that they feel on their knees before an altar to confess their sins and pray through.

The eunuch from Ethiopia learned about Jesus when Philip preached to him; he confessed faith in Jesus and was baptized (Acts 8:35-39). Nothing is said about his confessing his sins, going to an altar, or praying for the remission of sins.

Peter was sent to tell Cornelius and his house what to do to he saved (Acts 11: 14). They needed to hear the word of the gospel that they might believe. They were granted repentance unto life (Acts 15:7; 11:18). Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10: 48). In this example of conversion there is no altar, no confessing of sins, and no commanding sinners to pray through.

After the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, Ananias was sent to him in the city. The Lord told Ananias that he would find Saul praying (Acts 9:11). Despite his praying, his sins still had not been washed away. Ananias told him to arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Until one calls upon the name of the Lord by submitting to him in baptism, sins are not remitted. A lot of modern preachers would have told Saul to keep on praying. Had he asked about baptism, they would have denied that it is necessary. Contrast this with baptism.

When Paul and his companions taught Lydia and her house, she was baptized, and her household (Acts 16:14,15). She was not told to go to an altar and start confessing her sins in prayer.

The jailor was converted by being taught by Paul and Silas, by believing and being baptized (Acts 16:25-34). There was no “altar call.” He was not told to confess his sins and be saved. He was not urged to pray through and get the Holy Spirit. Paul and Silas did not preach what many modern preachers are presenting as the way of salvation.

The Corinthians were saved by hearing, believing, and being baptized (Acts 18:8). One who says, “I never heard of such teaching,” obviously has not read the book of Acts. Some who claim to follow the Bible are not teaching belief, repentance, and baptism as the plan of salvation; they have substituted their humanly devised “altar call” plan.

Jesus told the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16: 15, 16). Now, take your Bible and see if that is what Jesus said. Your preacher may say, “He that believeth and confesseth his sins at the altar shall be saved,” but you know that is not what Jesus said. Who gave any man, preacher or not, the authority to change Christ’s plan of salvation?

Men say: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have come to the altar and prayed through have put on Christ.” The Bible says: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Which is right, the Bible or modern man? Both cannot be right.

Men say: Baptism doth not now save us. The Bible says: “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Again I ask, which is right? Will you follow man or the holy scriptures?

Men say: “We went to the altar, confessed our sins, prayed to God, and he hath quickened us together with him, having forgiven all trespasses.” The Bible says: “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath be quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:12,13).

God’s plan of salvation includes faith, repentance, and baptism. The Bible says nothing, absolutely nothing, about “altar call.” Friend, have you obeyed the gospel?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 12-13
March 22, 1973