Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

The author of this article does not claim to be an expert on etiquette but there are certain amenities which ought to be evident to all who will stop and think a little. It is nothing short of amazing to observe some things which one cannot help seeing while standing in a pulpit. Some of the action not only is disconcerting to the one trying to preach, but to other worshippers as well. All such poor manners are not limited to the time when preaching is being done but occurs throughout services. In the hope that some will be helped I describe the following:

1. The Manicurist. This is the one who files fingernails during the service, and sometimes even clips them with a nail clipper. The person doing this is invariably a poor listener and seldom looks at the speaker. It is a diversionary tactic to help pass the time. Why not give the speaker your undivided attention-you just might learn something.

2. The Sleeper. If I had my way about it (and I don’t usually), I’d not call upon any brother to take any public part in worship of the congregation who shows so little respect for the Lord as to habitually sleep while God is being worshipped and his word being taught. What must be the impression made upon visitors to set, a man serve at the Lord’s table or lead public prayer, and then return to his seat and go sound asleep? What must be the attitude of God in beholding such irreverence? This is a curable ailment if one is willing to try.

3. The Isle Roamer. This might be a young child, a teenager or a grown person who wanders in and out during the service. We quickly excuse mothers with small children who must be taken out at times. I do not believe that the children and young people who wander in and out always do so. Do they go in and out at will at school? This becomes a habit and requires self-discipline. It is distracting to all present. It could divert one’s attention from a part of a lesson, which he needs the most.

4. The Gum Chewer. This person seldom does so discreetly. It is usually accompanied by popping and smacking with all the elegance of a cow pulling her foot out of the mud.

5. The Home Work Getter. This is the child or young person old enough to pay attention and to derive profit from the lesson. Some do this during song service. Such youngsters are not being taught proper respect for God and his worship. Firm parental attention will cure it.

6. The Invitation Up setters. These are the people who have come to look on the invitation, not as a solemn moment when every heart strains and yearns for the salvation of those who need to come to the Lord, but the signal for the end of the service. One is daresome to mention the word “faith” until he is right sure he plans to extend the invitation, for he will start a clatter of the early song book teachers. Then there are the gigglers and whisperers during this time. It is enough to make one decide not to obey the gospel if it breeds such poor manners.

Let us come before God with due reverence

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, p. 2
March 15, 1973

By Connie W. Adams

There is a tendency to take scriptural terms and expand them to include more than the Lord ever intended. It is all too easy to make of these terms a giant umbrella to shield whatever we want to put under it.

Sound

Timothy was admonished to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1: 13). Titus was to rebuke false teachers that they might be “sound in the faith” (Titus 1: 13). He was to speak “things which become sound doctrine” (Mt. 2: 1), and to use “sound speech, that cannot be condemned” (Tit. 2:8). A preacher is therefore “sound” when he teaches the wholesome words of life found in the scripture. He must not only teach sound doctrine, he must practice it and show himself “a pattern of good works ” (Tit. 2: 7). He is to be “an example of the believers” (1 Tim. 4:12). A congregation is sound when it adheres to sound doctrine, both theoretically and practically. This means an adherence to all the truth, not just isolated parts of it. It should permit and require the whole counsel of God to be preached.

Over the past twenty-five years the majority of congregations in this country took up some practices unknown to the New Testament. The support of human institutions became widespread. Theological defenses were devised to support this practice, thus doctrinal corruption resulted. The sponsoring church idea was revised to satisfy a desire, to activate the universal church through a single agent. Along with these changes came an increasing demand for church supported entertainment and recreational facilities. The churches which began to practice such things became unsound in so doing, because there was no Bible authority for them. Those who insisted on holding to the “old paths” began to look upon themselves as “sound” churches to distinguish themselves from those who have accepted “unsound” practices. The preachers who defended these practices were “unsound” because they were implicated in that for which no scriptural defense could be made. So the terms “sound” and “unsound” began to be used with respect to certain issues. When used in that frame of reference they are legitimate.

Sadly, there have been some who have decide that the only test of soundness in a preacher is his opposition to the above named practices. With some, the term has become an umbrella wide enough to cover preachers whose lives are ungodly, whose families live by the standards of the world and disgrace the name of Christ and who are to be tolerated because they know how to give the “liberals” “what for” every now and then. Never mind that they do not know how to present a balanced diet of truth. They are “sound”. They are against Herald of Truth! Don’t get me wrong, brethren; soundness in the faith includes opposition to error whether in or out of the church, but it does not end there.

Then there are those “sound” congregations, which have severed themselves from the “liberals” but have aligned themselves with the Devil on other questions. A church which is not doing what it can to spread the gospel in its own community and elsewhere as it has opportunity is not sound. One, which does not practice corrective discipline and allows the sacred body of Christ to become a spiritual garbage (limit) where all manner of sin is shielded with not so much as a little finger lifted to correct it is not sound either. One which knows how to do nothing more than fuss and fight over ever trivial idea or opinion is not sound, even if it is opposed to the college in the budget!

Certainly every congregation has its weaknesses and room for growth and improvement. As long as the whole counsel of God can be taught there and brethren are willing to listen to the truth and make corrections where they are needed, then that church is committed to soundness. Let’s be sound in the faith, but let’s not use a scriptural term as an umbrella to cover sin.

Fellowship

Much is said in the New Testament about the spiritual partnership of those who serve the one Lord. Such is attained by jointly walking in the light (1 John 1: 7). There is to be no fellowship with either moral corruption (Eph. 5: 11) or doctrinal error (1 John 2:19; Gal. 1:6-9).

But again, this great spiritual relationship with all its wondrous blessings has been made an umbrella to cover all kinds of doctrinal deviations — premillennialism, instrumental music, institutionalism and you name it. Men like Carl Ketcherside and his devotees will raise their fellowship umbrella to cover it provided one has been immersed for the remission of sins at some time. All along, the borders of this umbrella are getting wider and some of the “pious unimmersed” who are “brothers in prospect” are now standing under the fringes and in due time can expect full shelter.

Grace

Anyone conversant with the New Testament knows that man did nothing to earn the great scheme of human redemption. It was provided out of the riches of God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-10). The extension of favor may be conditional or unconditional and yet classify as grace. Some of the brethren are getting excited and thinking that some of us have forgotten all about grace when we stress the importance of gospel obedience. They hint that we have minimized grace and really hold to a concept of salvation by works – that God owes us salvation. If there is any hint in the word of the Lord that the grace of God saved a sinner without his believing the Lord to the point of obeying his commandments, then it has surely escaped my notice. The Lord is still “the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9). It will be of grace, to be sure, but grace may be rejected. The disobedient reject it and the obedient receive it. Unless a fellow has been dipping his bucket too deeply in the well of denominational theology, I fail to see the reason for the uproar. You just watch and see if this grace umbrella does not merge with the fellowship umbrella before it is all over until they will have one common handle. Already some who are enamored of Ketchersidism are in virtual ecstasy over their discovery of how the grace of God is wide enough to cover over all the doctrinal deviations, which have arisen among God’s people. Gird on your armor, brethren, there is going to be a battle over this! Dont be caught asleep.

There are other scriptural terms, proper in their correct application, which have become

umbrellas to cover too much. But perhaps enough has been said for now to rally friends of truth and to stir up a few enemies.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 18, pp. 8-9
March 8, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

“For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we mad known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of this majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. An we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Pet. 1:16-21).

Peter identifies the work of himself and the other apostles as that marked out by another; but in this disavows his information being second hand. He even affirms “we were eyewitnesses” of the things he testifies. To prove their work was not due to the leadership of others with fables or myths invented artificially when he mad known to these brethren the power and coming of the Lord, he testifies they were not only “eye witnesses” but they themselves heard the voice of God acknowledge Jesus Christ as His only Son! Peter says this voice came from heaven, “when we were with him in the holy mount.” The account of this majestic scene is recorded in Matthew 17:1-5.

Many are the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Saviour, and the apostle affirms that such prophecy is made more sure through the eyewitness and voice borne from the heavenly account. The story of Jesus Christ was not a made-up story, but rather the fulfillment of Gods redemptive plan. (cf. Acts 10:43). God did not leave his people without sufficient evidence. (2 Pet. 1:3). The revelation of light from heaven to man upon the earth was a “lamp shining in a dark place”; and the day-star (Christ) brought the dawning of a new day.

But Peter says, “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” He emphasizes first their need of understanding by saying, “knowing this first ” The verb “is” means to become or spring into being. Private means simply what is ones own, and interpretation is from a word that means explanation or exposition. So, Peter is affirming that no prophecy or scripture ever came into being simply by a prophets own exposition; but to the contrary, “For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Our evidence is both complete and sufficient. Various passages attest this fact (Jude 3; Acts 15:1-31). God caused His will to be made known in many ways (Heb. 1:1-2), and it can be comprehended by all responsible people (Eph. 3:1-6). Since this message from Him is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17), it should be read by one and all as though each man had personally received it. Jesus wants this message preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15,16), because each has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and needs the Saviour.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 18, p. 2
March 8, 1973

By Frank Thompson

I have just finished reading the April 1972 edition of Contending For The Faith, edited by IraY.Rice, Jr. In it he does a fair job of “taking to task” Pepperdine University for their liberalism. He points out that the President, William S. Banowsky, and the Chairman of tile Bible Department, Frank Pack, had both had connections with Mission Magazine. “Banowsky was one of Mission’s chief architects and founders.” “Frank Pack . . . has been-and may still be-one of Mission’s Trustees and on its Board of Editors. ” Rice said that neither of these had stated his disapproval of Mission. Rice says of Mission, “It is a fact that one of the chief avenues by which erroneous doctrines have infiltrated this brotherhood ever since its inception both has been and is the magazine called Mission.”

He takes the Chancellor of Pepperdine, Norval Young, to task for letting “known false teachers” such as “Roy Osborne, Wesley Reagan, Walter E. Burch, Ray F. Chester, Dwain Evans, Donald H. McGaughey, David Stewart, Roy Bowen Ward, and J. Harold Thomas,” write for 20th Century Christian and Power For Today.

Rice further opposes their using “known false teachers” such as James Attebury and four others who “were forced to resign under pressure for either false teaching or else sympathy for those teaching false doctrine at Harding College.” He also believes Tony Ash may be accepting and teaching “Theistic Evolution.”

He goes ahead to point out a number of other things such as President Banowsky speaking at the dedication of an Episcopalian school building in Ventura, Cal. and that Pepperdine had held some kind of Catholic week and had a regular mass in Chapel. Then they had a program called “We Don’t Give A Damn.” The man reporting this last incident, Shelby C. Smith, was told directly by one who was there that a “young man that came out on the stage said: ‘To explain what I mean by that, is the church of Christ don’t give a damn what we do.’ He said it got so rough he got up and walked out. Sounds like the new President isn’t helping any. I would say Pepperdine is getting kindly rough.

I can sympathize with Ira Rice in his condemnation of the situation at Pepperdine and certainly would not recommend anyone sending their children to such a school. But, what Rice and many others cannot see is that they helped to establish the atmosphere and set the precedents for what is now taking place, not only at Pepperdine, but in many so-called churches of Christ throughout the land. They did this in their upholding of unscriptural practices of centralized control and sponsoring church type cooperation, as found in the support of Orphan’s Homes, Herald of Truth, sponsoring church support for preachers, church support of colleges, hospitals, etc.

I have before me a Newsletter by Ira Rice written while he was in Singapore in which he labored long and hard to justify such things. He took the example of those in Antioch sending funds to Judea for the needy because of the famine (Acts 11:27-30), then very smoothly shifted gears and applied that to his wife and himself in Singapore to preach the gospel.

According to him, Acts 11: 27-30 would justify churches sending a contribution to the church in Dallas for the purpose of helping the church in Dallas support him in Singapore. Preaching the gospel and feeding the hungry is not the same thing, they are not parallel. Such disregard for Bible authority gave birth to the situation that now exists. Once you disregard Bible authority there is no stopping place. It is like the legend of the Camel’s Nose:

“An old legend relates that during a violent thunderstorm, a camel unobtrusively asked an Arab for permission to put ‘just his nose’ under the flaps of the Arab’s tent. Shortly thereafter, as the storm continued unabated, the camel asked permission to put in his neck and the request was granted; then, his shoulders. Soon the camel was entirely in the tent and the Arab was completely outside the tent.”

Ira Rice and others did not “beware the camel’s nose,” so presently, the whole camel is let in and they are being pushed out. They had not planned on this! They had intended for it to stop with just the nose coming in. But once the camel gets his nose in-look out!

Again, I do not like the situation at Pepperdine any better than does Ira Rice, but neither can I appreciate his disregard for Scriptural authority that helped make that situation possible.

I now wonder: Is Rice willing to kick the whole camel out? Or does he just want to back him out to where just his nose is left in? If the latter is what he wants, what is to keep the camel from working his way back in?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 17, pp. 12-13
March 1, 1973