Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Haffley

Levelling with Lovell

Larry Ray Haffley

“I have never bothered very much about these controversial, sensitive, extreme religious questions-it comes mighty hard for me to figure out what I believe on the simple things. However, let me provoke a bit of thinking on the subject of miracles.

“It seems to me that much of our trouble in the church is due to misunderstandings miracles is a good example. We do know that this is a Bible subject. Jesus and the apostles were not the only ones who performed miracles-those outside the church did so. The Bible does not define the word — great translators called it mighty works. In our age we depend pretty much upon what Webster says, and on this he wrote, An event or action that apparently contradicts scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural cause, especially an act of God.

“We hear so much today about some brother who is branded a heretic, false teacher, etc., since he believes in miracles, divine or faith .healing, working of the Holy Spirit. My question is, is there really one Christian on earth who doesnt? It would seem to me something sillier than a game of five-year old children for us to eat of the bread and drink of the cup without a miracle taking place. Is the forgiveness of sin through baptism some sort of a human or natural situation? And if we are dead-set against divine healing why on earth do we pray (you hear it in our pulpits every Sunday) for the sick? If we do not expect some kind of a supernatural or act of God to take place why bother doing it at all?

“Every question I have asked can be rightfully answered by every one of you — as can almost every other divisive and troublesome question — when asked soberly (sic) and soberly considered, but so often we speak against what we truly believe for fear of being identified with some who hold extreme positions. That is why I contend that most of the trouble in the church comes about due to misunderstanding or contention of opinion.

“I wish we were not thought of as a people who believe that all it takes to save is baptism; that Sunday attendance is the whole of our faithfulness; that miracles have ceased and that there is no such thing as divine healing.

“I am really happy that I am not involved in the area of theology. Much truth seems quite simple to me and when it is such I cannot understand it, I leave it alone-it is still truth. Thank God for the Bible and those eternal truths which come so clear and meaningful to most of us” (James L. Lovell, Action, Vol. 37, No. 5, May 1972).

“A Bit of Thinking”

Brother Lovell aspires to “provoke a bit of thinking on the subject of miracles.” It is a shame that he did not do a “bit” of the same before he tried to kindle others. It is glaringly apparent that be has “never bothered much” with his subject. His botched effort manifests a total lack of former bother.

“Know ye not,” Brother Lovell, that simple subjects are considered “controversial, sensitive, (and) extreme?” Has Brother Lovell ever been “bothered very much” about baptism for the remission of sins, the existence of God, the Sonship of Jesus, the veracity and authenticity of the Bible, or the work, worship, order and organization of the church? These are “controversial, sensitive, (and) extreme” to some. Let Lovell cite a Bible subject devoid of controversy, sensitivity, or extremity. By his standard, Lovell has “never bothered very much about” anything the Bible teaches, since he avoids these “religious questions.”

Understanding

“Signs and lying Wonders” and “many mighty works,” such as those performed by “the magicians of Egypt,” were performed “outside the church.” But they were not done “by the power of the Spirit of God.” Yes, “much of our trouble in the church is due to misunderstandings,” misunderstandings of the will, way, and word of the Lord, such misunderstandings Lovell displays to a great degree. “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5: 17).

Miracles

All Christians believe in miracles, divine healing, and the work of the Holy Spirit. No one is “dead-set” against either. But the Bible does not teach that the work of the Holy Spirit enables men today to perform miracles or miraculous divine healing. Any one who teaches to the contrary teaches falsely, and a term or “brand” better than “false teacher” for one who teaches falsely has never been born or invented.

No, a miracle does not take place in eating the Lords Supper or in the forgiveness of sins in baptism. There are spiritual laws (Rom. 8:2), and there are physical laws. Anything that operates according to established law is not a miracle. The remission of sins by the blood of Christ in baptism would truly be a physical miracle, but it does not occur in that realm. In accordance with spiritual laws, spiritual purposes and relationships are achieved. Physical, natural laws produce a baby. The birth of a baby is not a miracle, even by Websters definition. Birth into the family of God in accordance with spiritual laws is not a miracle. It is a result of natural, spiritual law.

Will Brother Lovell take Webster and show what scientific law the Lords Supper “apparently contradicts?”

All healing is divine healing. God set it all in order and operation. Doctor healing is divine healing. It is not, however, miraculous divine healing. Yes, we pray “in our pulpits every Sunday” for the sick, but that no more conceives of a miracle than does praying for bread around the dinner table. God gives the bread, the food, and God heals, but neither is a miracle or an “apparent” contradiction of “scientific laws.” Likewise, we pray “in our pulpits every Sunday” for the lost, but we do not pray for a miracle, for an apparent contradiction of spiritual law. We pray that they be saved, “not in their lost condition, but that something may be said to turn them to the truth before it is everlastingly too late,” that is, in accordance with established spiritual law. There is a difference that Brother Lovell could see if he was ever bothered very much about such things.

Hypocrisy

So, Brother Lovell concludes, we could all answer his questions and be in agreement if we were sober and unafraid. Hypocrisy, and not misunderstanding, is the problem. Earlier, he said it was “misunderstandings,” but now it is sheer insincerity begotten by the fear of men (“so often we speak against what we truly believe for fear”). Brother Lovell, I resent the slur and slander. Do not so label and libel me.

Wishful Thinking

All who love the truth wish Brother Lovells first two wishes could be granted, but such thoughts of others are the product of ignorant misunderstanding at best or prejudicial dishonesty at worst. Regardless, neither misconception nor misunderstanding shall prevent the truth from being taught. But Brother Lovell wishes “we were not thought of as a people who believe . . . that miracles have ceased and that there is no such thing as divine healing.”

Here it win be necessary to tread lightly on Brother Lovell, for his words are based on perverted definitions of miracles and divine healing. Besides, it is not good to kick a man when he is down. However, I am glad to be “thought of” as one that teaches miracles and miraculous divine healing have ceased. As such, I stand in the apostles doctrine and fellowship.

Conclusion

Brother Lovell concludes that he is “happy.” Well, it is said that “Ignorance is bliss.” Brother Lovell, therefore, is surely sublimely contented. He says what he “cannot understand . . , I leave it alone.” Concerning the cessation of miracles, he, like certain teachers of old, understands neither what he says nor whereof he affirms, thus we trust his word will be his bond and that he henceforth will “leave it alone.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 48, pp. 12-13
October 12, 1972

By William B. Wright

In January 1972  I attended the Florida College lecture program. On my way south, I stopped on Sunday evening to worship with a sound congregation in Ocala, Florida. A prominent evangelist of many years was just completing a weeks meeting that evening at that congregation. Since he is reasonably well acquainted in the upper Ohio Valley area, we naturally fell into a discussion of the condition of churches of Christ in that area. After a few minutes he said this: “Two men have done more damage to the cause of truth in the Ohio Valley than any others.” Before he could finish I named two men who have each preached about fifty years or more and have unquestionably had a greater influence and baptized more people than any two preachers of which I know. He affirmed this to be the two he had in mind.

Why Do You Say That?

But you might say, “If they have preached longer, baptized more, and had a greater influence, why do you say they have done much damage to the cause of truth or have done damage at all? Have they been teaching error?” Insofar as I know, they have not positively embraced some of the principal heretical doctrines taught in churches of Christ. My charge against them is simply that they have silently stood by and pretended nothing was being taught that would cause division, or that such heresy was the product of a lunatic fringe and would not last, or that it was only a change of custom, or something like that. But, as someone put it, “At times to be silent is to lie.”

In the spring of 1969, 1 beard one of these men speak during a funeral service in which be urged brethren not to divide over things “that are not really very important.” I wonder what that would be. Church support of human institutions? Church support of recreation? Fellowship halls? Preachers in the ministerial association? Exactly what he had in mind, he did not say. I heard the other in a fall meeting in 1969 in which more than once he cautioned brethren against dividing the church of Christ. It was quite obvious he was not talking about the width or length of the meeting house, or which way to turn the seats, but rather was speaking of those things we have commonly called “the issues.”

Is Unity Always Desirable At Any Price?

Now I agree that we ought not to divide over things that are not important and that it is a serious thing to divide the church of Christ. But there are reasons why separation is necessary. One is simply that when a congregation is teaching and practicing error, they that are approved may be made manifest. Another is that we are commanded to separate from the disorderly. The two brethren to which I referred are guilty of ignoring the real substantive issues in the matter and have, in fact, “aped” the broad spectrum of Protestantism in saying we ought not to divide over certain things but rather should unite on points of agreement.

Protestants tell us that we ought not to divide over the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, sprinkling, the purpose of baptism, predestination, and other things. They urge us to unite on points of agreement and to compromise on other matters. The problem is the Bible does not read that way. These two brothers would urge us not to divide over church support of human institutions, concentration of funds from 2,000 churches of Christ in the hands of one church of Christ to do a work not its own, and other things. Now they may make occasional sounds that could be interpreted to mean they are against innovations into the work and worship of churches Of Christ, but why is it the churches they preach for do not seem to get the message? The reason, I think, may be seen in a quotation from each. The older of the two wrote: “If I was locating with some congregation and they were sending some support to an orphan home I would not leave the congregation. Nor either would I split the church over that. On the other hand if I were to go to a congregation that they were not supporting a home I certainly would not advocate that they do so. If that is not a safe course to pursue then I am wrong.” (Just for thought purposes, substitute sprinkling, mechanical instruments of music in worship, fellowship halls, and church support of colleges in the above quotation.)

The other brother wrote to the editor of bulletin who published some of his old articles, saying, “Please remove my name from your mailing list. I was hopeful of some constructive teaching, but the pattern is the same as other bulletins that have done so much damage.”

Each of these brethren proclaim to the high heaven that they preach the same gospel they always did, which, in the words quoted from the Sacred Volume they may, but they do not make the same application to error that they always -made. The error now is called by a different name and is practiced in churches of Christ and they, in effect at least, say it is not error at all.

But you may say, “I cant believe brother B and brother D would be as cowardly as to fail to contrast truth and error in churches of Christ!” What happened to Solomon when he was old? (I Kings 11: 1-8) What happened to Demas? (2 Tim. 4: 10) And, didnt Peter in his manhood as an apostle lose his nerve on occasion? (Gal. 2:11-14) Didnt Paul, that great apostle, recognize he could become a “cast away”? (I Cor. 9:27) From whence came the notion that any of us (no exceptions) are immune to digression?

Being With The Majority

I think the real problem with men of this type is that while they have made some rather “stiff” remarks in their preaching over the years, they have always had a large following that applauded their “hard preaching.” When they viciously and crudely attacked the doctrines of our religious neighbors who chanced to visit out assemblies, the members of the church of Christ applauded their “courage” for “telling it like it is.” But how much raw courage does it take to make crude remarks about the religion of our Methodists, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic neighbors when only one or two or three may be there?- These guests do not have the “power of the purse!” The people who are laughing at crude jokes about the habit of a nun or the garments of a priest pay the preachers salary. And, they like what they hear!

Though these preachers were not in the majority as far as total population is concerned, and though they did not always escape censure in some congregations, nonetheless in the average church of Christ in this area they were accepted, respected, applauded, and paid. Members of the church read the Bible, measured what these men preached by it, and insisted that they speak as the oracles of God. But now it is different. No longer will the majority of groups wearing the name church of Christ in this area be content with what is written and permit a preacher to discuss most anything that is at variance with New Testament teaching. Its alright to have “hard preaching” as long as it hits the “legalistic antis.” But, one must make sure his “hard preaching” does not hint at anything at variance with scripture which relates to Herald of Truth, church support of human institutions and recreation, fellowship Halls, and many other things. The two aged brothers to whom I referred have made peace with some or all of the advocates of these various items and they have done it principally by remaining silent. They simply do not have the courage to face up to a hostile audience and “tell it like it is.”

I can reach no other conclusion than that when they with their great influence remained silent, they, in effect, lied. Ignorant and well-meaning brethren needed a word of counsel from them — a sure word of Biblical honesty — and it did not come. Indeed, “At times to be silent is to lie.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 48, pp. 10-11
October 12, 1972

By William V. Beasley

When I was a child I, along with many of my generation, looked longingly to the day when I would reach the magical age of 21 years. We (I and my generation) felt that then we would be adults! No one could tell us what to do, where to go, how to act, etc., etc. We could, if we so desired, enter into a legal contract (get a car), get married, drink, and have to account to no one.

Fortunately most of us matured mentally as we aged physically, and learned how ignorant we had been and how little we really knew even at age 21. Those who did not were in for rough times and a rude awakening.

From time to time we meet those who think they will one day reach the magical age of 21 years old as a Christian. That is, that they will at some point in the future know all that there is to know as a servant of God. Even more revolting is to be forced to deal with one who believes he is a 21 year old Christian.”

While it is true that we can attain unto spiritual maturity (perfection-Eph. 4:12; Heb. 6:1), we remain a disciple (learner or pupil) of the Lord Jesus. If nothing else, the “21 year old Christian” needs to learn humility (Luke 14:11; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5-6).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 48, p. 9
October 12, 1972

By William B. Weight

The, church of Christ, of which I am a part was founded a little more than a year ago. A few months after the starting date, I talked with a dedicated member of a neighboring church of Christ which is striving to abide in the teaching of Christ with respect to “the issues” that have destroyed the unity that once existed among us. In the course of our conversation he recounted some details of an experience he had one day at work while he was eating his lunch. He was reading a paper published by Brother Leslie Diestelkamp. A member of a nearby liberal church of Christ approached him and asked what he was reading. He told him what he was reading and also informed him that Brother Diestelkamp was soon to be engaged in a meeting at the church of Christ where I have membership. He further suggested that his liberal friend take the time to go and hear Brother Diestelkamp preach. This brother responded by saying something to this effect: “Oh, they are just a bunch of antis! They are against orphan homes and colleges. I wouldnt go there.”

Well-Meaning, But ill-informed

This response suggests an unfortunate circumstance where well-meaning, but ill-informed, brethren of liberal congregations repeat statements made in their presence by people in whom they have confidence and they simply “assume” the statements to be true. This is especially true where some emotional aspect is involved.

Emotional Issues

There is probably no more emotional issue than the plight of the orphan. Those who promote the orphan home resort to emotional ploys which create the notion that to oppose the use of church funds to support this kind of human institution automatically makes one some kind of heartless beast who has no compassion for orphans. They then proceed to drag out of their stock of emotion arousing clichés such terms as “anti” with which to brand brethren who oppose church support of human institutions. These epithets are used out of context and are, therefore, meaningless as used.

Another emotional issue closely akin to the orphan home issue is the matter of the so-called “Christian” college. The college issue has become emotion packed because of the propaganda used in its behalf. Propagandists have created the notion in mens minds (by inference) that if ones children are not graduated from one of “our schools,” they are automatically second class citizens of the kingdom of God.

The charge that we are against orphan homes and colleges as such is false. I have no doubt that many of the people who repeat this charge do not know that they are repeating a falsehood, but they are nonetheless. Thus, it is necessary, and it is the purpose of this little essay, to set the record straight on these matters.

Setting the Record Straight

For purposes of setting the record straight, it must be understood that, the typical orphan home operated by our brethren and the so-called “Christian” college are self-constituted human organizations which do some things (at times) that churches of Christ and individual Christians are charged with doing in the New Testament. It is just as possible for a plumbing and heating firm or a steel company to engage in benevolence and to teach the gospel, but it does not follow that because they choose to do so the church should reach into its treasury and support these organizations with its funds. Nor, if it were the case that this was done by them, would Christians by the very nature of the problem become “beasts” for opposing such contributions or be , against plumbing and heating establishments and steel companies. It would only indicate that Christians are opposed to the unscriptural practice of supporting business organizations out of church treasuries — nothing more.

What We Really Believe

We believe the Scriptures are complete and that they furnish in completely unto every good work (2 Tim, 3:1.6-17, 2 Pet. 1:34). We believe that we are able to learn the will of Christ for His church by precept or command (example: Mark 16:15-16), approved apostolic example (Acts 20:7), and necessary inference (Heb. 10:25). The command to meet (Heb. 10:25) necessarily implies the right to have a place to meet. That being the case (that we can learn all of Christs will for His church in the New Testament), we believe it is scripturally false to suggest that God told us what to do but did not tell us how to do it. And, then, to follow this travesty on scriptural exegesis with the argument that since He did not tell us how to do it, we are justified in making a contribution to some human institution which incidentally happens to do some things Christ commanded His church to do! Then, in the next place, to compound this fast and loose playing with Gods word by lying about the attitude of conservative, brethren toward human institutions and other matters is worse yet.

Now, Lets Look At the Facts

The facts about these matters (the attitude of my brethren and me toward the work of the church, human institutions, and some other matters) are:

(1) We believe human institutions have the right to exist as self-sustaining human institutions. We believe those institutions have no right to church support. It makes no difference whether those human institutions are so-called “Christian” colleges, orphan homes, or profit making business organizations! To those who would argue otherwise we ask, by what precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference do you justify the use of church funds to support human institutions?

(2) We believe that individual Christians have the right to gather together and engage in wholesome recreation but we deny that the church as a church has any scriptural authorization to engage in the promotion of recreation. To those who wish to say we are wrong on this matter, we ask, by what precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference do you justify church support of recreation?

(3) We affirm the right of Christians to make gifts to colleges, benevolent, efforts, and recreational programs, as long as this does not interfere with the Christians giving as he is prospered and the institutions, etc., do, not promote unscriptural practices. The writer of this essay makes a small monthly contribution to a college operated by members of churches of Christ.

(4) We affirm the right of individual churches to cooperate with other churches of Christ by sending evangelists and sending support directly to evangelists who need support (Phil. 4:15-16), and by aiding congregations that are in need (Acts 11:27-30). We deny the right of one congregation to act as a broker or sponsoring church in handling funds of other churches of Christ. Those who favor such arrangements are bound to produce precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference for it!

(5) We affirm the right of a church of Christ to support its own destitute members, but we deny its obligation to use church funds to support non-members. There is no New Testament command, approved precedent or necessary inference for support of non-members from the church treasury; If we are bound to support non-members, with whom we incidentally come in contact, from the treasury, then why not every needy non-member in the world? Why discriminate? And, if every needy non-member in the world, where would the preaching of the gospel come into the picture?

(6) We affirm the right and duty of individual Christians to help non-members in addition to Christians (Gal. 6:12; Jas. 1:27). To those who would say these verses apply to the church as a church, we ask, tell us how from the stand point of grammar, exegesis, and logic you so conclude?

To our Separated Brethren

It is your right to decide these matters as you please. You will stand in judgment, as we will, to give account for your conduct in this life. You have our permission to repeat anything we say in these matters wherever you wish. But, please, oh, please, do not lie about us. “Tell it like it is.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 47, pp. 6-8
October 5, 1972