Truth Magazine

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

By Luther Blackmon

I must be getting old. I can remember when students in school had no rights at all hardly except to do what they were told. The teachers ran the school and were backed up by the parents. There were no “sit-in” demonstrations and “protest marches” on the “campus.” There were no bearded beatniks and long-haired “intellectuals” (?) around then to inform the students of their rights in the matter of free speech. There were no television cameras to catch and reflect the physiognomy of the loudmouthed agitators who stand before the microphones with all the poise and dignity of a goat looking through a new gate (except for the brilliant look on the goats face). My! I just dont know what kept this old nation from falling apart in those dark days.

But with a few old fogies like Wm. McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft (I really dont remember those fellows) and Woodrow Wilson, we managed somehow to pull through with all our rights intact. But there was something lacking. There were not 3,000,000 mothers with children less than six years old then who worked and let someone else take care of the children, and 5,000,000 with children over six who worked. There were not a million youngsters between 16 and 25 unemployed, most of whom were dropouts. Seventy-five million 15 years old and over who drank alcohol, and an average of one out of sixteen becoming an alcoholic. There wasnt much in the way of girls dropping out of school to get married in a hurry, like now when it is reported the 85% of the girls that drop out of school to get married are in trouble. Readers Digest reports that the illegitimacy rate is up 60% in the past 25 years. Things were dull then, in the estimation of our modern “swingers.” But Ill let you in on a secret. I know some who would be glad to surrender some of their “rights” for a chance to live their lives over. There are three things indispensably necessary to happiness: 1. Love (to love and be loved.) 2. Self respect. 3. Peace of mind. You cant buy these, and they dont come in bottles and are not found in night clubs and motels.

But the youngsters are not so much to blame as their elders. People are the products very largely of their training and the environment in which they grow up. But young people and a lot of the older ones need to be made to understand that with every right comes corresponding responsibilities. I want my rights. But my rights do not include the privilege of neglecting my responsibilities or hurting others. The chief of police in a large American city expressed deep concern over the fact that the sympathy of the public is more on the side of the criminal than the victim. The sadistic murderer and rapist have the right to a fair trial. But we might remember that his victim had also rights. I strongly believe that a person has the right to be employed without regard to the color of his skin, his ethnic background. But he also has the responsibility to be qualified for the job. The workman has a right to a fair wage. He also has the responsibility of giving an honest days work. I have heard brethren speak of the companies that provide their livelihood as though they were their bitterest enemies.

I have known members of the church who wanted to walk on the very edge of the world of sin, even to engaging in things everyone recognizes as sinful, but who wanted to retain the respect and fellowship of other Christians. They may think it is their “business” what they do, but they must remember that it is my business, which I associate with. We might have the constitutional right not to bathe, but we shouldnt feel hurt if people exercise their right to shun us. I knew a member of the church who tried very bard to hurt my influence as a preacher because I refused to have anything do with him. He was guilty of the grossest kind of sins and showed no sign of repentance. I exercised my “responsibility” to refuse to hive anything to do with him. Eph. 5: 11; I Co. 5; 11; 2 Thess. 3:6. If you keep your ear to the ground you will soon discover that the people who yell the loudest about their rights, care the least about their responsibilities.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, p. 2
August 31, 1972

By Mike Willis

Introduction

When one turns to study the field of archaeology and its relation to the study of the New Testament, immediately he realizes that he has much less material relative to his study than if he had chosen to study the relationship of archaeology to the study of the Old Testament.

There are some very logical reasons for this apparent lack of material. First of all, the time period covered in the Old Testament is approximately two millenniums while the New Testament is confined to a bare century. Secondly, a large portion of the New Testament deals with matters which cannot be confirmed by the archaeologists spade. “Archaeology cannot produce extensive evidence from the world of the New Testament for the life of Christ offers nothing that would leave any material traces on this earth: neither royal palaces, nor temples, neither victorious campaigns nor burned cities and country sides. Jesus was essentially a man of peace; he taught the Word of God. Archaeologists have recognized their task to be that of reconstructing his environment and rediscovering the villages and cities where he lived, worked, and died.” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1956, p 340) Thirdly, the New Testament deals with a group of people held together by a spiritual union instead of a group in national union. Obviously, a nation is more apt to leave material evidence for the archaeologists because of its political ties whereas a spiritual union will leave little or no trace. Therefore, this held of study is more limited than the field of archaeology and the study of the Old Testament.

Lest I leave the impression that this study is altogether unimportant, let me list some areas in which the study of archaeology has aided in the study of the New Testament. Since neither the New Testament nor the Old Testament claims to give a complete history, archaeology has added much hitherto unknown historical information. At the same time, this has given us a wider general background in which to place the events recorded in the New Testament. Thus, archaeology has given us many facts which generally corroborate statements of the New Testament. Recent discoveries of New Testament passages on papyri in Egypt have also affected the dating of several of the books of the New Testament. Also, as would be expected, in several places specific statements of the New Testament have been corroborated by recent archaeological work.

Thus, our subject of study offers great potential. I now proceed in the next article to show how archaeological research has helped in the study of the New Testament.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 41, p. 13
August 24, 1972

By Robert H. Farish

Through the years theories of salvation have been advanced which arrayed grace against Obedience or obedience against grace. These theories beard and read would cause one to think that the two were antithetical rather than complementary. Care should be exercised to speak and write on the indispensableness of obedience without losing sight of the glorious grace of God; like care should also be taken to speak and write in praise of the grace of God without detracting from the essential character of obedience. Why cant people see that although obedience does not merit salvation, yet salvation cannot be had by any responsible person apart from obedience? God has joined the two, divine favor and human obedience; it is grace plus obedience of faith equals salvation.

Grace And Obedience In Romans

Paul wrote to the saints at Rome and declared that “we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:2). Peace with God, hope of the glory of God and the power to rejoice even in our tribulations are blessings mentioned as belonging to those of us who have by faith moved into the favor of God.

It is the opinion of this writer that erroneous impressions have been left, in some cases, by speakers and writers dealing with grace and obedience of faith separately. There is always the danger of emphasizing one at the expense of .the other when considered separately. This can result in a distorted concept which leads to presumption on the one hand, or self-righteousness on the other. People presume on the Grace of God when they lightly regard “doing the will of the Father; while others regard “doing the will of the Father” as earning salvation for themselves and thus are self-righteous. One despises obedience while the other despises grace. In this effort I wish to study not grace alone, nor obedience of faith alone, but grace and obedience together. We will learn that salvation is not of debt; neither is it for those who do not the things which Christ commanded.

The apostle declared that he received his apostleship “unto obedience of faith among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). Thus in his introduction to the Roman letter he states that the design of his being made an apostle was to bring men to obedience of faith, and in his conclusion he states that the gospel “is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:28). The great treatise on “access by faith into grace” is bracketed by “obedience of faith.” Ponder this as we study grace and obedience.

In the book of Romans the word grace appears twenty-two times (A.S.V.). In some of these references, it is a specific favor e.g., “grace and apostleship” (Rom. 1: 5), but in most places it is the favor of salvation. The saint is “justified freely by his grace” (Rom. 3: 24); “it is of faith that it might be by grace” (Rom. 4:16); it is by faith that he had his access into the grace (favor) wherein he enjoys peace with God and hope of glory (Rom. 5:2); the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, “abound(ed) unto many” (Rom. 5: 15); “they that receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). See also Rom. 5:20, 21; 6:1; 6:14, 15; 11: 5, 6 to be impressed with the fact that the grace of God occupies a prominent place in the Roman letter.

The careful student will avoid concentrating so intently on “grace” in the letter that he loses sight of its complement-Obedience – Doing the will of God. So we turn now to observe statements in the book of Romans which point up the essential place of obedience.

(Rom. 2: 4-8): “Or despiseth thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasuresth up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works: To them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factions, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation. . . .”

Note that, in the judgment, God is going to render to every man according to his work – those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honor and incorruption will receive eternal life. On the other side those who are factious and obey not the truth but obey unrighteousness will receive wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish. Note that the latter is for every soul that worketh evil.

But take another look at that word which is so unpopular with those who would presume on the grace of God – the word is “work.” The apostle states that every man will be rewarded according to his “work.” The work in view is clearly obeying the truth for the contrasting term is “obeying not the truth.”

But this same apostle in this same letter states, “But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (Rom. 11: 6). Now when a commentator says, “He mean 8 that grace and works are absolutely antithetical and mutually exclusive,” if he is including the “works” of Rom. 2:6, he is guilty f arraying the Holy Spirit against the Holy Spirit. But if he will allow the Holy Spirit to define the “works” which are excluded by grace as the works of the law, “because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Rom. 3:20), then he will have the proper contrast before his eyes. Grace and the works of the Law of Moses are antithetical, but grace and “obedience of faith” are complementary. Man can dispense with neither, save to his destruction.

Rom. 6:16, 17: “Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered.” In this reference the apostle points out that obedience establishes whose servant one is. One may gay that Jesus is his Lord yet in the absence of obedience, his claim is exposed as false. This is not only true of the Christian who must “work out his own salvation” (Phil. 2:12, 13) but also in the conversion of an alien as well. The grace of God and obedience of faith are both essential in turning to Christ. These saints before conversion, i.e., before they “became obedient from the heart to that form of doctrine . . .,” were “servants of sin.” This clearly describes their state before conversion. Their conversion is described as obedience from the heart and their state after obedience as free from sin. The order given by the Apostle is: (1) servants of sin (2) obedience (3) free from sin and servants of righteousness. The grace of God has provided no detour. Obedience of faith is the only route to freedom from sin.

Contextual study reveals what was involved in obedience from the heart to that form of doctrine. “Or are you ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:31. The act of obedience which the apostle had in view was their being “baptized into Christ.” Yet there are those who contend that grace and baptism are antithetical and mutually exclusive. Those who are sympathetic or tolerant of such a view of grace and obedience, for the good of themselves and those they influence, should ponder the apostles teaching on the necessity of baptism for freedom from sin, in this treatise on “access by faith into grace.”

Rom. 10: 1-4: “Brethren, my hearts desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Some of Pauls Jewish brethren, due to their ignorance of Gods arrangement, failed to “subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” The concerned student will want to know what it is to “subject” oneself to the righteousness of God! These Jews were ignorant of Gods righteousness due to their rejection of the gospel, “for therein is revealed a righteousness of God. . . .” (Rom. 1: 17). The apostle shows that they had heard the gospel – “Did they not hear? Yea, verily” (Rom. 10:18). They could have believed for He has before shown that “belief cometh of hearing” (Rom. 10:17). They are described as disobedient. “But as to Israel he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Rom. 10:21). These here described as a disobedient people are the ones that Paul said failed to subject themselves to the righteousness of God. Pauls prayer “that they might be saved” (Rom. 10: 1) shows that they were not saved – they are not of those of whom the apostle wrote that “we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.” Their failure to subject themselves to the righteousness of God is described as disobedience.

These quotations from the treatise on “access by faith into grace” powerfully and clearly establish the essential place of “obedience of faith” in salvation by grace.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 41, pp. 11-13
August 24, 1972