Truth Magazine

By Ray Ferris

Along about this time of the year it has been customary for many preachers and editors to have something to say about the immodest apparel that was for years associated with “summer weather.” We bad much to say about shorts, halters, swim-suits, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that such was timely and needed. It seemingly did little good.

However, I am now faced with a problem. How can I be critical of shorts and halters; and swim-suits after mini-skirts, micro-skirts, see-through blouses, etc.? The clothing of the modern female has reached a sad state, indeed, when a Christian who is a teacher in the public school system and who has fought the encroachment of shorts as acceptable dress for years, is constrained to recommend them now! Why? Because he feels it is less immodest than the dresses that mothers and fathers send their daughters to school in today! Many school administrators fought a brave battle for many months to restrain such activities, but alas, the foolish parents sided with the children, and even to the point of taking matters to court. Now a judge with much less sense than nerve has the audacity to say that no dress code at all can be sustained!

Now what does all that mean? Why one dare not be critical of the dress (undress) of a fellow human being, because the law is on his side. He may jolly well wear what he pleases, if be pleases to wear anything at all! Many people in many places, from what I bear, are now pleased to do just that – wear nothing at all. They call them nudists, and I suspect they are not as sexually stimulating to the opposite sex as the tease that will expose almost, but not quite all!

Someone is doubtless saying now, “Preacher, are you saying you think shorts, and halters, and modern swim-suits are all right now?” Absolutely not! I am just saying they are no worse than some things I see on the streets, in the stores, in the homes and in our own church building that supposedly consecrated people who call themselves followers of Christ wear for normal dress! Many times I have heard people talk about modesty being relative. They remind me of grandmothers day, when the dress went to the ankle and a glimpse of the ankle was deemed an immodest revelation. Well, perhaps there may be some relativity involved. Somehow it seems to me that we have just about used up all the relativity by now and must be just about down to the absolute! Mothers, what kind of example are you setting before your children? Fathers, what are you allowing to go out of the house? Boys and girls, do you want to he deliberate in your efforts to arouse one to sin and crime? Read again, I Timothy 2:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21. Study the word lasciviousness again. Are you helping in the solution, or are you part of the problem?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, p. 13
August 31, 1972

By Mike Willis

General Corroboration of Background Material

On opening ones New Testament, almost immediately a king named Herod commits an act of almost unbelievable wickedness when he “sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under.”1 Our knowledge of Herod the Great is now completed enough that this statement, or any other, is no longer unbelievable. He murdered his favorite wife, Marianne I, because he suspected her of unfaithfulness. Later, he convicted and executed his two sons by Mariamne I, Alexander and Aristobulus, for treason. 2 Thus, when in his old age Herod committed many acts showing emotional instability, why should one be overly appalled if lie murdered a few more babies because of his fear of one of them eventually taking over his throne?

Later reading in the gospel of Matthew (14:1-12) records the mention of another Herod called “the tetrarch” that had some type of marriage which did not meet the approval of John the Baptist. This Herod was called Herod Antipas and became a tetrarch following the death of Herod the Great. He ruled from 4 B.C., to 39 A.D.3 He was married to Herodias, who had formerly been married to Antipas half brother, Herod Boethus. Prior to Antipas marriage to Herodias, he had been married to a Nabatean princess whom he divorced. The divorce led to a war with Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans, who was determined to revenge his daughters mistreatment by Herod. 4 Since both Herod Antipas and Herodias had been previously married and divorced, no wonder John the Baptist said, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5

In Acts 8:27, the historian Luke introduced us to a certain eunuch who was treasurer under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. “Archeological light on this group of queens called Candace was found by Melver in his excavations in Nubia, 1908-1909. In the Christian period these Nubians still called their queen Candace: they fed her on milk, and regarded obesity as an attribute of royalty.” 6 The British Museum contains a large relief showing one of these queens named Candace.

Paul recorded his escape from the ethnarch of Damascus under Aretas the king. 7 Regarding the king Aretas, this quotation relates the following:

“Dr. A. Cowley, 1914-1915, found a particularly interesting inscription at Khalasa … dating from about 96 B.C.: This is the place which Nuthairu made, for the life of Aretas, king of the Nabateans. A number of other inscriptions mention Arems, who loves his people. One of these date from A.D. 31, and anotherfromA.D. 37. Itwas sometime between these dates that Paul escaped from the governor of Aretas in Damascus.” 8

Thus, little by little, archaeologists are able to piece together knowledge of history for that age in which New Testament history occurred.

Of no less importance has been the many papyri discoveries in the arid sands of Egypt. One significant help of these discoveries has been the light shed on the day to day living. “At Tebtunis in the southern Fayum 1899-1900, Grenfell and Hunt found papyri … Here in a sacred crocodile cemetery, where the deified animals had been mummified and interred ceremoniously, papyri turned up in profusion as wrappings for the crocodile mummies … There before the amazed eyes of the archaeologists were fragments of ancient classics, private A letters, petitions, land surveys, accounts contracts and royal ordinances.” 9

In addition to the rebuilding of the ordinary daily life of first century citizens, papyri finds brought new discoveries such as the one by Mjr. Adolf Deissman. “Deissman was the first to )recognize that these papyri were written exactly in the language of the New Testament, and to draw the conclusive inference that Biblical Greek could not any longer he regarded as an esoteric, sacred language, or as a language to any considerable degree Hebraized by its Jewish autbors.”10 With this discovery, a new period in the study of New Testament Greek began. Rather than considering the New Testament to be a “sacred Greek” or “Holy Spirit Greek,” the scholars found the New Testament to be written in the language of the common man. “The N.T. Greek is now seen to be not an abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world language, but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future of the Greek tongue.”11 “Numbers of New Testament words, once considered strictly biblical, are now known to be common to the Koine of the period. Even more important is the elucidation of the meanings of words. Words once thought to have special biblical or New Testament meanings in many instances have been found not to differ appreciably from their usage in the papyri.” 12

Archaeology, therefore, blew up some old-fashioned theories and completely re-vamped the study of the New Testament.

Footnotes

1. Matt. 2:16.

2. Bo Reicke. The New Testament Era, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19681 pp. 91-106)

3. Ibid., p. 115.

4. Ibid., p. 125.

5. Matt. 14:4.

6. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, (Wheaton, Van Kampen Press, 1952), p. 311.

7. 2 Cor. 11:32.

8. Camden M. Cobern, The New Archaeological Discoveries, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1917), p. 369.

9. Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 331.

10. Op. Cit., Cobern, p. 30.

11. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 30.

12. Op. Cit., Unger, p. 335.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, pp. 11-13
August 31, 1972

By Ron Halbrook

In five years of school teaching, the first topic of study I have presented to every history class is “The Divine Rule of the Universe.” This rule includes His appointment of and power over civil government. “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will” — even “the times” and “the bounds” of nations are in his Hand! 1

While Christians might seek to be His providential instruments by some participation in government, we must be cautious in assuming He is for or against some particular ruler, law, or plan. “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” His thoughts and ways are often far different from ours.2 Thus, brother Franklin wrote in 1856,

Jesus and his apostles … never attempted to correct the political institutions of the country, no matter how corrupt they were . . . When acting as a citizen of the civil government, be candid, quiet, peaceable, and kind, and do just what you think right, allowing every man the same privilege, as Christ has left us all free here, and leave the event with God. 3

God has been invoked as a sponsor on both sides of every political issue: (1) Patrick Henry spoke of “God” arming the colonies to revolt “in the holy cause of liberty,” but many an Anglican pulpit thundered with Gods condemnation on the rebels; 4 (2) since the Constitution recognized slavery, William Garrison called it “an agreement with hell,” while others defended slavery as “commanded by God;”5 (3) Henry Clay and others were sure that tariff laws were necessary to fulfill the “design” and “the order of Providence ” to sustain both “the wealth and morals of the community,” while “the gentleman from South Carolina,” Robert Hayne, was sure that “natures God” had the opposite plan in mind. 6 (4) Southerners like “Rev.” W. T. Hall of Miss. thought the South was compelled to fight the Northern invader because “the very authority of Gods word was at issue,” 7 yet Julia Ward Howe wrote a song to inspire the marching “invader,” in which she saw in him “the glory of the coming of the Lord … Our God is marching on;” 8 (5) the womans vote movement was seen as “the spirit of infidel reform … in … contempt of the providence of God,” but as an example of the ameliorating influence of Gods Word by others; 9 (6) the gold or silver standard issue, social integration issues, and a host of others could be cited.

Now we must add (7) those who have mobilized churches to support the Prayer Amendment, as though it was unquestionably Gods legislation, and those who indicate that to be truly “spiritual,” each Christian had “better get with the letter writing” against the Amendment. To express ones opinion on the Amendment is one thing. To assert that spirituality depends on accepting this opinion, that there is something appalling about Christians not accepting it, or that all “concerned Christians” will accept it, is something else! Brethren Wallace Little and Lyn Trapp might well have observed this important distinction when expressing their opinions on such politically-related matters. We are glad to consider their recent articles.10 Yet, we beg to differ without implying someone else is spiritually anemic or even lacking in concern for Americas freedoms.

1. The brethren say it is foolish to press “for the right of prayer in public school ” because the courts ruled against only “those . . . sponsored by public officials.”

The Supreme Court decision put many educators on notice that there was a trend in power circles to honor atheistic whims (remember who brought the case!); thus, schools did away with prayer and Bible reading in many places, as a precaution against further legal action.

Educators fears were justified and the courts went further than our brethren realize, as Rep. Wylie (Amendment sponsor) points out. “The ludicrous extreme to which the courts have arrived is exemplified by the Netcong case which said students could not meet in a gymnasium before school” for public prayer.11

The Amendment would remove this intimidation, doom future legal efforts of such nature, and simply restore a practice which was Constitutional for 171 years! In fact, Rep. Wylie is willing to let the Amendment die if his near-win influences “the lower courts and school officials (to) permit voluntary prayer in public schools … then the problem will have been resolved.” 12

2. Our brethren see a Catholic plot in the effort of ” Citizens for Public Prayer, a Roman Catholic front group led … by Roman Catholic priest, Robert H. Howes.” 13 The long-range plan is for Catholics to define what prayers will be allowed.

This writer knows Catholicism tries to manipulate our government for its advantage. But the evidence is lacking in this case. Catholicism evidently sees no advantage to itself in this. Rep. Drinan of Mass. voted against the Amendment. Why? “I am following the counsel and policy laid down by the U.S. Catholic Conference. I am abiding by their wisdom. Thats the whole explanation.” 13 The U.S.C.C. includes all Catholic bishops in the country I Catholicism thus flexed its tremendous muscle to defeat the Amendment. “Ill give you one guess as to which religion swings enough political clout to have the deciding voice” on whether the Prayer Amendment succeeds or fails.

3. The long-range plot is to succeed by interpreting “any public building which is supported in whole or in part through … public funds” to include “church buildings provided police or fire protection.” Then, Catholics in office will define what prayers are to be allowed-or required (?), a distinction overlooked by our brethren-in church buildings. Our brethren ask if we are ready to be told what prayers are allowed “within the four walls of your building.”

Government control based on a concept of subsidized buildings is feared. A stretching, yea twisting, of the concept of a “public building” and the intent of the law – – which can happen only by a lack of respect for the law in those who govern — is seen on the horizon. Without respect for the law, the provisions of our Constitution are nothing but “parchment barriers.” 14 Historically, unprincipled men in office always have been able to get around such provisions. Besides, politics, often called “the art of the possible,” is much more a creature of expediency than of principle.

Hitler declared a state of national emergency under Article 48 of the German Constitution, which gave him dictatorial power under such conditions — only the emergency never ended! Political activists in high offices have brought social, and even political, change by fiat. John Kennedy viewed our Constitution as outdated and thus unreliable for the 20th century; 15 Is the Supreme Court has been “using the Constitution to bring the nation to . . . practice which the Court thinks to be the ideal” rather than faithfully interpreting it. 16 Such leaders will do what they wish as far as their power permits when they lack respect for the law. They do riot need a lawful statement on paper and they will not be stopped by one.

All of which leads to this. The Supreme Court has already ruled that “it is hardly lack of due process of law for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” 17 Thus, the courts could control churches right now by merely defining churches as public buildings, in that they are subsidized (in the stretched sense-fire protection, etc. 1. The rationalization is already there. In fact, it is there with or without the subsidized building concept (and certainly with or without the Amendment!). The interstate commerce clause with the elastic clause can be made to mean nearly anything by political activists. These powers coupled with the general welfare clause would be amply sufficient to do all Brother Little fears.

Only the myriad checks on, and division of, powers instituted by our Founding Fathers, and the gracious providence of God, continues to protect us. The Prayer Amendment would not likely increase the dangers discussed, for it prohibits government interference with a specific, individual participation in prayer in public places. Yet~ it could be twisted, like any law, by unscrupulous men.

4. The brethren fear “nondenominational prayer” will be defined by Catholics. The definition will first come by local officials and educators. Only if some such decision is challenged would federal courts, and finally the Supreme Court, be involved. When this happened (and when is important–compare the 50s to the new Court), many factors and pressures would enter in, and it is correct to fear Catholic pressure. Too, we need to know a greater power enters into such matters providentially.

It is important to remember that the Amendment attempts to add nothing new, but only to restore a general freedom of practice, according to local and personal desires, which was understood to be Constitutional for 171 years in our schools.

5. “Lawfully assembled” is said to be “redundant” and “carries certain ominous overtones.” “How else would anyone assemble? This is part of the conspiracy seen; no group would use prayer and songs in connection with riots and looting; so, why the terms lawfully assembled if not to conspire and trick? “

Those who have lived where religious activities have indeed been used as a pretext and cover for defiant marches, immorality, riots, and worse can well appreciate the wisdom of “lawfully assembled”! An amendment guaranteeing the right of prayer in any public place would seem to give lawful defense to an assembly in the middle of a Chicago freeway, in the view of certain groups and liberal judges.

6. Gaston Gogdell, Director of the Organization for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is quoted as saying the Amendment makes “public Schools” agencies for teaching “state religion.” It thus implies tax support for parochial schools.

Again, we point out the Amendment is designed to restore an understanding of the Constitution which went practically unchallenged for 171 years. Any other use that might be made would come by twisting. And the twisters will find something to twist, when their time and power is right, with or without the Prayer Amendment. The amendment returns us to what we had before the courts began their recent trend-which did not include state religion or tax funds for parochial schools.

In conclusion, God does not teach sinners to pray for remission of sins. But, He blesses rulers (and their nations) who recognize Him as their Superior and who implore His aid. 18 Until a stronger case of cause (Prayer Amendment) and effect loss of freedom to worship) is shown, I do not intend to write any letters objecting to the proposed Amendment; this does not imply any lack of spirituality in those who disagree.

Our schools and governments, at all levels, need leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, who spoke to that brave band gathered in Constitutional Convention concerning Divine Providence and the need of prayer. Their work was about to end in futility after a month of haggling; Franklins appeal changed the whole mood of the Convention, and we are all indebted to him for the results. May we ever live in an atmosphere where such requests as he made can be honored in all sorts of public gatherings:

“In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illumine our understanding? … To . . . kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His Notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? ….

“I, therefore, beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning we proceed to business. . .” 19

Footnotes

1. Dan. 4:17; Acts 17:26

2. Rom. 11:33; Isa. 55:8-9

3. David E. Harrell, Jr., Quest for a Christian America, Vol. 1 (1966), p. 58.

4. T. A. Bailey (ed.), The American Spirit, Vol. I (1903 1. pp. 97, 116; American Loyalists warned a Catholic take-over would follow in the wake of Americas alliance with France and implied that every lover of religious freedom would oppose the alliance, p. 115.

5. Fremont P. Wirth, The Development of America (1956), pp. 349-351.

6. Calvin Colton, The Life & Times of Henry Clay, Vol. 11 (1846), pp. 138-332.

7. Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay (1971), p. 208.

8. H. A. Bruce, Woman In the Making of America (1926), pp. 214-216.

9. Richard M. Weaver, Ibid., p. 145 footnote.

10. Gospel Guardian (Jan. 20, 72), p. 7; Preceptor (Jan. 72), p. 9; Truth (Feb. 24 &May 11, 72) pp. 8 & 10; Searching the Scriptures (May, 72), p. 1.

11. Human Events wspaper (Dec. 4 7 1), p. 6.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. James Madison in No. 48 of The Federalist Papers.

15. David Lawrence, “Downgrading the Constitution,” U.S. News & World (Dec. 17, 62), p. 104

16. “How Supreme Court Is Changing U.S.,” Ibid. (Jan. 18, 65), p. 58

17. Majority decision written by Justice R. H. Jackson in Agricultural Adjustment Act Case of 1942.

18. Prov. 14:34; 16:12; Ecc. 10:16-17; Dan. 4:34-37; 6:25-26; Rom. 13:1-7.

19. Benjamin Weiss, God in American History (1966), pp. 36-39.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, pp. 7-10
August 31, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Under the above title I have been discussing some charges and counter-charges as to whether there is theological liberalism prevalent among the Bible faculty at Abilene Christian College. Three Bible faculty members are Trustees of Mission magazine. Thus in the most recent articles, I have been discussing some of the articles contained in Mission.

Most recently I discussed an article by Warren Lewis which appeared in Mission, January, 1972. Considerable reaction is occurring as a result of some of the teachings in Mission, and some among the liberals are exerting as much pressure as they ran to make the three ACC Bible faculty members (Everett Ferguson, Thomas Olbricht, and J. W. Roberts I disassociate themselves from Mission and its teachings. I think it is significant that these faculty members have not of their own volition either disassociated themselves from Mission or replied to the serious error that constantly is being taught on its pages.

Reaction to MISSION

Several of you are aware of some of the controversy that has occurred between me and some of the liberal American missionaries in the Philippines. Well, Mission is even too liberal for them. Douglas LeCroy, editor of Philippine Christian, wrote Mission: “It seems that before, seemingly just to be-devil the rest of us, Lewis has just written smart-alecky articles on issues that are presently causing strife in the brotherhood. In this current one, he has attacked the integrity of the Scripture and the four Gospel writers in particular…. Such liberalism ought not to be tolerated in your journal. . . .” It is going to sound a little strange to some of the Filipino brethren to bear Brother LeCroy crying about liberalism, since he has made himself the avid defender of it in the Philippines. Brother LeCroy will find out that there is no such thing as a little liberalism. You either take it all or none at all.

An Interview

Last night I was reading the June, 1972 issue of Mission. In that issue, several people associated in various ways with Mission had participated in an interview with Ernest T. Campbell, who is the preacher for the Riverside Church of New York City. Riverside, a so-called interdenominational church, is the church for which the famous modernist, Harry Emerson Fosdick, formerly preached. The funds for their building were donated by John D. Rockerfeller, Jr., and its present value has been estimated to be $86 million.

The Mission interviewers captioned their interview article, “Conservative Minister Erodes Image of Riverside Church as Bastion of Theological Liberalism.” The “friends of Mission” who participated in the interview were Foy Richey, Lewis Rambo, Scott Smith, John Davenport, Rod Spaulding, Don Haymes, Walter E. Burch, and Jim Fowler. Note that they called Campbell a “Conservative Minister.” But notice a few things said by Campbell.

Said Campbell, “I was raised on the view that the Scriptures had to be taken literally to be taken seriously. There was no liberation for me until that one was broken down-that you can take the Bible with the utmost seriousness without taking it literally.” Regarding the virgin birth, Campbell said: “Now I happen to believe still that Jesus was born of a virgin. Its not a very big concept with me. It is not vital or central to my faith…. But I still happen to believe it; though with less vigor.” Then Campbell added, “that for the moment,” he does still believe in the virgin birth, but it is no major issue with him. And Mission called this man a “conservative”! Campbell added further, “Its not something that I preach; its not something that colors my life one way or the other.”

One of the Mission interviewers said: “We in the Church of Christ have a real fetish about being non-denominational, that is to say, in our origins we made a big thing out of having no creed.” This concept of non-denominational Christianity to this Mission interviewer is just a “fetish.” It implies that with him the church is just one denomination among many denominations, and this is one of the charges being made against Mission by some of their fellow-liberal brethren.

This man whom Mission labeled as a conservative” said: “When Billy Graham makes an allusion to the literalness of Jonah, I can see the people getting off at that stop. He doesnt really want them to get out there — what difference does it make, see? … For a man to get uptight on the historicity of Abraham, or the literalness of Joseph, or what actually happened at the Tower of Babel, is to man the guns on the wrong front…. Its a great thing when a man can handle higher criticism, and still love the scriptures.”

On one occasion, the Negro James Forman entered the Riverside Church and made his demand that white churches pay $500 million in “reparations” “for their complicity in Western structures that have historically denied opportunity and equality to black people.” The Riverside Church agreed to raise $450,000, though the fund will not be administered by Forman. However, one of the Mission interviewers posed this consideration to Mr. Campbell: “Maybe James Forman was the angel of the Lord, come down dressed in white garments, to tell you, look here, you know youre wedded to this damn thing. You cant be a church without it.” I believe, if I had been one of the interviewers, in view of this brother language, I would have demanded that he be specifically identified and the corrupt language attributed to the specific individual who used the curse word, rather than attributed only to “Mission.” And personally, I had not heretofore thought of James Forman as “the angel of the Lord.”

The Foundation-Advocate Coalition

The Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate are now working together to try to stop Mission, and to try to get the three Abilene Christian College Bible professors to sever their connection with Mission as Trustees. James Bales said: “After sitting in on one of the early (Mission–CW) formation sessions, I had my apprehensions because of some who were taking the lead. Unfortunately my apprehensions have been confirmed rather than removed by the course the magazine has taken.” (Gospel Advocate, March 30, 1972) Bales stated that “I have been informed that the Board of Trustees of the journal has confidence in the editor, and they plan to keep him.” Since Bales charges that the editor, Roy Bowen Ward, “is, in my judgment, a modernist,” he said, “. . . it is my conviction that I should use whatever influence I have to appeal to the brethren to help change the nature of the journal or contribute to its cessation.”

Bales quotes a letter from Lewis Hale, which letter Hale gave Bales permission to use publicly. Hale had talked at length with Ray Chester, one of the Mission Trustees. Hale told Bales, “Some of the finest sermons I have ever heard were preached by Ray. Some four or five years ago when he was in a meeting at Edmond, Oklahoma, I asked Ray if he would preach those same sermons again. He said he would not, at least not as he did then, they would have to be modified. At the ACC Lectures a few years ago, Ray told me that he considered the churches of Christ (as we know them) to be one out of many denominations. . .”

Hale related a discussion with Chester, during the time when Mission was being planned. However, Hale said: “I never dreamed about attacks on the Creation story, undermining faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the absoluteness of truth, the un-denominational character of the church and a host of equally important matters.” Hale therefore concludes: “For this reason, I feel constrained to speak. I believe that men like Frank Pack and J. W. Roberts have been used to promote that which they do not believe nor endorse. If they knew they were staff writers for the purpose of giving a reading public to men like Neal Buffaloe and Roy Ward, I would like to think they would resign at once.” Bales ads, “I understand Pack has resigned.”

Bales charges: “Whether certain men on the Board and Staff realize it or not they are being used as a front under whose cover forces are at work to introduce modernism into the church.” Further Bales says, “. . . those associated with the journal have been content to leave the present editor, and some of his staff on the magazine even though it should be clear by now in which direction it is headed. Can they be without any responsibility for what the magazine is doing?”

You see, a good deal of pressure is being put on the three Abilene Christian College Bible faculty members to resign from Mission. Months have passed, and they continue to be listed as steady backers of Mission. Do you think perhaps Clevenger was right when he said, “The time is last approaching when the position of such men as are on the Bible faculty of Abilene Christian College must be made known to the brotherhood, and I have decided that L for one, will do what I can to expose the liberalism that prevails in the Bible Department here at ACC.”??

The Firm Foundation is also doing its best to get the three Abilene Christian College Bible faculty members to disavow the modernism which has been taught in Mission, but so far to no avail. Roy H. Lanier, Sr., one of the most respected of the Firm Foundation writers, reviewed the Warren Lewis article to which I referred in last weeks issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Lanier entitled his review, “Review of a Piece of Infidelity.” Lanier said, “I have received fourteen issues of the magazine and have learned that the majority of the articles reveal a decided distaste, and some of them a disgust, for the conservative positions commonly held among us and a decided effort to reform, or restructure, the doctrines and practices of churches of Christ. This movement is dominated by a group of young to middle-aged graduates of infidel and atheistic universities of the north and east and it seems that they are determined to lead churches of Christ into a socio-intellectual movement adapted in doctrine and practice to enjoy the fellowship of the denominational world.”

After reviewing this “Piece of Infidelity” written by Warren Lewis, Brother Lanier then adds: “But I cannot close this interview without saying something about the men who are responsible for such infidel teaching as this. Roy Bowen Ward is the Editor of the magazine…. But Editor Ward is selected, elected, to his position by the Trustees of Mission. Since Ward is their elected editor, they are responsible for what he endorses. If he endorses infidelity, and he is their representative, they are in the position of endorsing infidelity. I do not know all of these Trustees, though their names are printed in the magazine (p. 31). But there are three teachers in Abilene Christian College whom I do know. Being teachers at ACC, they are answerable to the brotherhood from which they draw students and financial support. If they continue to support such infidelity as is contained by Lewis, the brotherhood should know about it. If they do not intend to continue to support such infidel teaching they should tell the brotherhood in no uncertain language. And then they should clean up the magazine, turn it into an instrument of truth instead of infidelity, or take their names off the list of Trustees. . .” (Firm Foundation, March 14, 1972)

Brother Lanier continues: “The three teachers in Abilene Christian College who are Trustees of this magazine spreading infidelity are Everett Ferguson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and J. W. Roberts. I have no personal reasons for giving their names. They allow their names to be published in that magazine; they should not resent having their names given here as being partially responsible for this teaching going out to the brotherhood without their written disagreement and opposition. I think it is time for colleges depending upon the brotherhood for students and support to exercise some discipline met their teachers to see that they do not lend their names to encourage such infidel teaching as is being fed to the brotherhood in this magazine.”

Conclusion

Mission magazine is now in its sixth year. It has been putting out the same kind of liberal propaganda ever since it started. From its beginning it has been staffed, to a considerable degree, by Abilene Christian College and George Pepperdine College Bible faculty personnel. Several months have transpired now since the blasts of Bales and Lanier occurred, and the latest issue to arrive at my home (June, 1972) still lists the three ACC Bible faculty members as Trustees.

Now suppose these three ACC Bible faculty members capitulate to the pressure of such verbal blasts as those administered through the Gospel Advocate by James D. Bales and through the Firm Foundation by Roy Lanier, Sr. will this evidence a change of conviction? Or will it merely indicate that they too, like Eugene Clevenger, crumbled before administrative and brotherhood pressure?

Since Brother Lanier makes such a point about the Trustees being responsible for the infidelity taught through Mission, this raises another interesting little question. Brother Reuel Lemmons, who published -Brother Laniers article in the Firm Foundation, is on the Board of Trustees that employs these three professors.

I began this series of articles by a reference to an article by a young Brother Trainer in which he categorically denied there was any liberalism among the Bible faculty at ACC. With pressures like those referred to in these articles, cant you see how handy it was to President Stevens to have a conservative young man deny there is any liberalism at ACC? Brother Trainer agreed to write the article which appeared in the April 20, 1972 issue of Gospel Guardian in January. He had entered ACC the previous summer. He had not been there but about six months. Yet he assays to set at ease the mind of the brotherhood that there is no liberalism whatsoever in the ACC Bible faculty. I am sorry, Brother Trainer, but I am still not quite convinced!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, pp. 3-6
August 31, 1972