Truth Magazine

By William R. John

As I sit here in my study at 3:35 A.M. on November 5, 1972, I have mixed emotions about what I am going to write. A few short hours ago, I was called to the home of Burl E. Russell by his son-in-law after Brother Russell had breathed his last breath of life apparently having experienced a heart attack.

I mention having mixed emotions because I have a desire to tell others (who may not know) that a child of God is free from the burdens of this world having had complete hope in life eternal; but all the while hesitating to write because I am limited to the information pertaining to his life which many people may wish to know.

While I am able to tell you his age (65 years old at death), I am unable to mention very many things, which are specific in nature. I do not know his date of birth or for that matter the exact time of death. While I know that he wrote numerous religious articles for publication, I cannot name every periodical, which may have published his articles; nor can I quote from or make comment about his writings. Of course, the funeral arrangements are still pending and while I know the name of the mortuary; the name would probably be unimportant to those who read this article. I have only known Burl for the past 12 years so I cannot convey to you anything regarding his earlier life, There are so many specifies which I do not know concerning his life that they are too numerous to mention. I realize that by waiting to a later date to write this article much of the missing details could be supplied by the proper research. However, the things which I know about the life of Burl E. Russell have benefited me and I believe are more important than anything mentioned above. The things I mention do not have to be researched but are quite vivid to those that knew him.

The greatest fact about the life of Burt Russell was the fact that he lived his life as a Christian. Burls interest was always in Christ and the church. He served in the kingdom of God as an elder and teacher while on occasion “doing the work of an evangelist. ” To those who are young in the faith (myself included), he was an example in practically every aspect of the Lords work. The words of Paul as expressed in Romans 1: 16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: . . .” were manifested by Burl in his deeds, in this thinking, in the words he spoke, and most certainly in the words he wrote.

Another important aspect of Burls life is that he was a good husband. Although his wife preceded him in death by some 9 months, I am convinced that his deep love for her lingered in his life. Burls wife was for several years an invalid having been weakened in mind and body by numerous strokes. This is where many have admired Burl the most. Although his wife surely was burdensome to his life, it was with love, compassion, patience, and understanding that he cared for her, never complaining about his plight in life. Brother Russell understood more than most men the words of the apostle in Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

Burls life was also significant as a father and grandfather. He raised a daughter and a son who have recognized Christ as their Savior and have obeyed the gospel. In this point alone, so many fathers, even in the church, are disappointed. At every service, Burl would wait with open arms for his grandchildren. When they would come in the front door of the church building, he would greet them, hold them, and in his own way, love them. He enjoyed them immensely and they felt his love.

While Burls mortal remains are yet with us a few more days, his soul has taken leave on the journey back to the Father. We who knew him are somewhat stunned, but fully impressed with the brevity of our lives. The words of a song seem more and more important with each passing day. “Oh! for a home with God, a place in His courts to rest, sure in a safe abode with Jesus and the blest; Rest for a weary soul once redeemed by the Saviors love, where Ill be pure and whole and live with my God above!”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 8, pp. 12-13
December 21, 1972

By Guthrie Dean

I. The Lord Is Unchangeable.

1. Christ is a Friend who never fails. The Son of man was called “a friend of publicans and sinners.” “A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born of adversity.” “A man that hath friends must show himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.” (Matt. 11:19; Prov. 17:17; 18:24).

2. His own affirmations. “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” “For I am the Lord, I change not.” (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5; Mal. 3:6).

3. What others have testified. “I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread… For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness.” (Psa. 37:25; Rom. 11:29; Num. 23: 19; 2 Pet. 3:9).

II. The Word Of The Lord Is Unchangeable.

1. The promise of a new covenant that would be everlasting. “Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Ezek. 37:26-27; 2 Cor. 6:16).

2. This everlasting covenant is the gospel of Christ. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” “He that rejecteth me, and receivetb not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (Matt. 24:35; John 12:48; 1 Pet. 1:24-25).

III. The Kingdom Of The Lord Is Unchangeable.

1. The kingdom in prophecy and promise. “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation… And the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.” “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” “Of the increase of his house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Dan. 2:44; 4:3; Micah 4:7; Dan. 7:14; Isa. 9:7; Lk. 1:32-33).

2. The kingdom in preparation and perfection. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” “Unto him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever… Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 3:21; Heb. 2:28)

Conclusion: Directed by the unchanging word; governed and redeemed by the unchanging King; and as citizens of an indestructible kingdom; we have every reason to be optimistic in the midst of a world of turmoil, upheaval and confusion. We can truthfully say, with our beloved brother Paul: “None of these things move me.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 7, pp. 11-1
December 14, 1973

By Ronny Milliner

How often do you leave the church building with very little idea of what was said? When the preacher gives a series of sermons, do you find it hard recalling what was said the previous Sunday? If you have these and similar problems, the cause is probably poor listening on your part.

While looking through some old Readers Digests, I came upon an article in the April 1969 issue, which I believe, would be of great value to members of the church. This article was written by Donald E. Smith, the Director of the American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry. In it he gave four steps to becoming a better listener.

Because of our constantly listening to lectures, sermons, and other types of speeches, I thought it would be good to present these helps for the readers consideration.

Learn to listen deeply. Many times during worship services we will be listening halfheartedly. When someone drops something, a baby cries, or the people in front of us begin to whisper, we quickly devote our attention to these things and lose what the speaker is saying. However if we strive to tune in only the speakers voice, then these distractions will not be as noticeable.

Teach your ego to hold its breath. How often have you found yourself thinking of what you plan to do after the services instead of thinking with the speaker on the things he is putting before you? We must give up our self-centeredness if we are going to become good listeners.

Be concerned. Certainly if we are not listening to what is being said, then our minds will begin to wander to some other area of thought. We all should be craving to study and learn more about the Word of God.

Practice patience. A person does not become a good listener overnight. It will take time and hard, patient work to improve and overcome badly developed habits.

It is hoped that each one will review his listening and comprehension ability, and try to improve them so as to gain more knowledge about religious matters.

“He that hath an ear let him hear.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 7, pp. 10-11
December 14, 1973

By C. G. (Colly) Caldwell, III

It is amazing sometimes to listen to advocates of error boasting of their theories as if they had discovered some new truth. It is not unusual at all to hear young men expressing some thought never entertained by them before in terms indicating that they think their positions are new to the world. At least their enthusiasm is admirable. It is very perplexing, however, (and I might add disgusting) to witness older men who claim to be quite familiar with Restoration history gloating over their “discoveries.” In the past few months we have seen this type egotist at work as well.

The patterns of digression toward subjectivism are very similar in many cases. The time period chosen to illustrate that fact is the quarter century following the open rupture resulting from the introduction of the missionary society and instrumental music (1865-1840).

Before looking at nineteenth century history, however, it should be noted that “subjectivism” did not first appear after the missionary society and organ questions arose. Among Christians that type thinking dates back to second century gnosticism. Seeds of it can be seen even in some of the problems Paul warned about at Corinth. It is at the heart of denominationalism.

Progression of Digression

The long discussion leading to the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society (1849) heralded the departure from Biblical authority. The introduction of the organ into worship brought the appeal for physical stimuli to the emotions one step closer to victory. Early in that dispute which separated Christian churches from churches of Christ, tile question of fellowship was raised. Those who saw that many would not be forced into practicing what they believed to be unscriptural began to ask what should be done with these 11 cantankerous dividers of the church.”

Moses E. Lard was among the first to sense widespread feeling in this direction in 1865. Evidently trying to cut the question off at its root, he suggested that division was impossible 11 among Christian churches.” Brethren could not divide nation-wide, he argued, because the churches are too autonomous. There are no tribunals to declare a division. One problem with Lards thinking was that the very ones bringing about the division had created nationwide organization and thus had taken away local autonomy.

For several years the theoretical aspects of the question of fellowship were discussed. Ben Franklin, in answer to the question, “Do you intend to make the organ a bar of fellowship?” answered, “We do not propose to make it anything. We want simply to have nothing to do with it” (American Christian Review, September, 1872). David Lipscomb, expressing the same idea, denied that division was worse than compromise and said that it “ought to come” if brethren persisted in introducing innovations (Gospel Advocate, December, 1883). Many today have lost the spirit expressed by Lipscomb, wanting unity at all cost on any human grounds. The defense of truth is not being considered by many as a primary test of fellowship with God. Fellowship with God is being sold for union with man!

Jacob Creath, Jr., sounded another warning. “When a man leaves the Bible alone, there is no rest for him this side of Rome. The most that can be said for all those persons who have ceased to the silence of the Bible is that they are only partly in the reformation” (Gospel Advocate, 1875). John F. Rowe called it the “new order of things” as opposed to the “ancient order of things” taught by the “reformers.” The point was that these men recognized that many were no longer interested in what first century Christians did: they were interested in what their “liberty in Christ” would allow them to do. Rowe saw it as a trend toward denominationalism. Men who felt that way about Bible authority were not fighting the denominations any more, he said. In fact they were no longer sure that the denominations were not “denominations” (segments) of the New Testament church. Rowe also saw that that kind of preaching produced weak Christians (American Christian Review, March 1880). He was right! It will today!

The question of “liberty in Christ” was generally coupled with unwarranted emphasis in preaching on “grace.” Every responsible preacher of the Gospel knows that he must emphasize the grace of God in his preaching. He also knows, however, that he must be careful not to leave the impression that Gods grace will overlook irresponsibility in dealing with Gods revealed truth. The term “legalism” was the word used as a slur against those who believed that obedience to the Gospel (including submission after baptism) was coupled with grace in salvation.

David Lipscomb viewed these signs as “Strange Developments” in an article under that title (Gospel Advocate, March, 1884). He could see that what all the talk about “legalism” and “liberty” really meant was that some were going to have their innovations regardless of the lack of New Testament authority and that they were going to give up the written objective standard in deciding who to fellowship (which meant that they would fellowship any baptized person except those who strongly opposed their innovations).

The next step was taken by the Christian Evangelist. In its pages it carried on a campaign to get the brethren to accept the “pious unimmersed” into fellowship. We could preach, its staff wrote, that the Bible teaches immersion to be necessary to salvation but that does not mean that the unimmersed will be lost in hell. I am not kidding you! They really said that! Alexander Proctor in 1878 called immersion a “rite” and said that the New Testament was not concerned with such “ceremonies.”

F. D. Srygley could not possibly conceive of such reasoning (or lack of it). He said that if immersion was necessary to salvation but that one could be saved without it, nobody would be lost and “you may as well convert hell into a calf pasture and be done with it” (Gospel Advocate, January, 1890). The Christian Evangelist came back with the ineffective response, “The church of Christ believes that it is wiser to keep the spirit of a commandment than the letter.” Srygley in his usual inimitable way replied, “This talk about the spirit and the letter of commandments usually comes from men who want to feel goodish, but do as they please in religion.” He added, “The point is, does God require man to conform his life to an external standard, or does lie leave him to determine his own course by an internal light?” (Gospel Advocate, August, 1890). that is the issue in subjectivism! !!!

End Results

One more point. If the subjectivist accepts the logical conclusion of his argument, he will become either a theological liberal, a neo-ortliodox, or an agnostic. R. C. Cave unloaded that bombshell on the brotherhood in St. Louis (1889). Denying the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus, Cave declared that “the Christian Church makes nothing a test of fellowship but that which a mans own conscience tells him is right and true . . . Strict loyalty to self is the real loyalty to God.” Those who denied it were termed “legalists.” Cave was not alone. Men like Alexander Proctor and G. W. Longan were right with him. Longan went so far as to say that Matthew and Mark were confused” on the second coming of Christ. The Christian Church since has had many defections to modernism and agnosticism. That type thinking, leads nowhere else.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 7, pp. 8-10
December 14, 1972