Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

In the March 23, 1972 issue of Truth Magazine, there appeared a brief excerpt on “Bibliolatry” by brother B. G. Echols. The excerpt is a quotation from an 1881 work of J. Cynddylan Jones of Wales, entitled, “Studies in the Gospel According to St. Matthew.” The comment is as follows:

“Some of our popular preachers have been descanting of late upon what they call Bibliolatry – idolatry of the Bible. The people they come in contact with, I conjecture, make too much of the Bible. I wish I knew where such people live. I should like to go and live amongst them. The people I know make too little of the Bible, a great deal too little. They read it too little, study it too little, and believe it too little. I would travel far to see an idolater of the Bible. I have not seen one yet. The truth is, that as to love Christ supremely is not idolatry of His human nature, so to believe the Bible intensely is not idolatry of mere thoughts and words.”

It is not the purpose of this treatise to take issue with the above statement; in fact, we readily concur with brother Echols that the truth contained in it is as much needed today as it was when its author published it in 1881. Rather, we are provoked by the article to approach the term “Bibliolatry” from a different viewpoint, not as the veneration of truth, the contents of “the book of all books,” but the homage that is so often rendered to the literal book, its material composition of pages bound by a cover. Because some apparently have made a fetish out of the material book itself, we believe that there should also be some thinking along this line.

The term “bibliolater” is defined by Webster: “one overly devoted to books” (Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 82). “Bibliolatry” as defined by Funk and Wagnall is: “Book-Worship” (Desk Standard Dictionary, p. 92). Illustrations of fetishism, the belief that the literal book with the imprint “Holy Bible,” has some magic power to protect or aid its owner will best serve our intent to consider this particular viewpoint of “bibliolatry.”

That some believe that the literal book (material composition) holds some special, magical power to its owner is evident when some soldier over-seas places a little copy of the New Testament over his heart for protection from bullets or flying missiles. Personally, this writer had far rather seek protection behind a Sherman tank, and you had better believe it!

Others, in paying undue homage or reverence to a material book will place a copy of the Bible over their hearts and talk about “the dear old book.” Such people usually find no more use for the book than to allow it to occupy a place in the room, possessing it as a matter of pride and sentiment, and a most convenient file f or combs pictures, and locks of babys hair. My wife and I recall that a number of years ago we went to visit a lady. She was very industrious to blow dust from “the book” and to be certain that it occupied a prominent place, as we entered the house.

In these concerted efforts to make impressions with “the old book,” we are reminded of the often related incident of the father who was most anxious to deeply impress his visitors with his devotion to Godly matters, turned to his small boy and said, “Son, bring daddy the old book that he loves so well” and the little boy, returned with a copy of the Sears and Roebuck catalogue!

Another example of bibliolatry, from this area of consideration, is paid in the court room. A witness in a trial places his hand upon the Bible as an officer of the court asks him to “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” We are made to wonder if in the mind of the court such a rite will somehow magically turn a liar into a man of integrity. Cases of perjury are sufficient proof that it does not always affect a mans moral conduct, it being self-evident that if a man is determined to lie, whether he lays his hand on a copy of the Bible or a fence cost will not deter him from lying.

A few years ago, a preacher in Fort Worth, Texas advertised that he had the largest Bible in the world and people came from far and near and were awed by it. For a small charge, advertisers offer to send the smallest Bible in the world, so small that a magnifying glass is required in order to read it. We are told of the largest Bible in the world and the smallest Bible in the world. They make good conversation pieces, but we are made to ask, “So what?” A big deal!

When we lived in Odessa, Texas, we observed an old worn Bible in a display case in the lobby of the hospital and it bad a note adjacent to it, stating that this Bible was the first Bible to be used in the prayer room of that hospital. This author loves books, and especially old and rare books, several of which he has in his library, but they should be regarded as items of interest and not objects of veneration. No objection whatever is registered with regard to books or items being made solely items of interest but the point is that many go beyond this with regard to the literal book with the imprint “Holy Bible” and their actions manifest this reverent, awesome feeling.

All of this adds up to the conclusion that all fetishism is not confined to the heathens of some remote island or a distant country. To say the least, there is prima facie evidence that there is undue homage paid to a bound volume of printed pages. Obviously, the reverence that some have toward the literal book is seen by their fear if the book should be dropped, or if it should be slapped when the preacher is driving a point home, or if it should be placed under another book or object. While such reverential emotions are manifested toward the literal book, and even though in many instances such persons are conscientious to live a good life from the standpoint of honesty and pure habits, they indicate little if any disposition to obey the teaching of the Bible with reference to baptism, the church, work and worship, and all that required in order to go to heaven. These people need to understand what the Bible is in the true sense, that it is the word of God and that its teachings should be respected and adhered to, rather than a material production of a bound volume.

We do appreciate the note on bibliolatry referred to at the outset of this article and we were just stimulated to back up and approach the subject from a different angle.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 41, pp. 6-7
August 24, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College (III)

The last two weeks, I have been discussing an article that affirmed that there is not even a “trend in the direction of theological liberalism” at Abilene Christian College. Please refer to the two preceding articles for an introduction to this article.

Last week I began to discuss some of the rank modernism that is appearing in Mission magazine, and called attention to the fact that three ACC Bible professors (Everett Ferguson, Thomas Olbricht, and J. W. Roberts) are presently on the Board of Trustees of Mission. Certainly the board bears some responsibility for what appears in the journal, or their positions as board members are mere figure-heads.

Warren Lewis Article

In the January, 1972 issue of Mission, there appears an article by Warren Lewis entitled “Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable.” Lewis is “a doctoral student at the University of Tubiggen, Germany,” and “advocates Pentecostalism in the church and had something to do with persuading a missionary in Germany to accept Pentecostalism,” according to James Bales article in Gospel Advocate, March 30, 1972.

Lewis article is the most blatant denial of verbal inspiration that I have seen yet by anyone who professes to be a member of the Church of Christ. Speaking of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Lewis said: “After we have seen that there are parts of the four stories which clash and jar against one another, we have to ask about our belief that scripture is breathed of God and profitable. We want to set forth how this belief can take into account the fact that scripture does disagree with itself.”

Lewis affirms that “one says one thing but another says something which does not square with what the other said. . . .” He declares, “Each of the Gospel writers paints a picture of Jesus which cannot be forced to agree with the other three pictures. The clashes in their stories which we have already pointed to are just a few of the large number of such clashes which a wide-awake reader could find for himself in the Gospels. We finally most say that there is a Matthew Jesus, a Mark Jesus, a Luke Jesus, and a John Jesus. One is left in the dark as to who the real Jesus might be, what he did, and what his thoughts and feelings were. Yes, they all point to Jesus; but, one wonders which Jesus to believe in.”

Lewis states that one must juggle the accounts to make them harmonize. He asks: “Why do the four Gospels f ail to mesh in so many places: Why do the Gospel writers give jarring views about Jesus?” He says that certain verses have been added to the Scriptures, and that these “show that Christians for a long time have been hard put to harmonize the Gospels. It shows that anyone who tries to harmonize will be forced to make up some new things and leave out some old things in order to remodel the four Gospels into a neater, more pat story.” He then asks, “bow can we say that scripture is breathed of God and profitable when it has jarring, clashing disagreements within it, when it makes up things that most likely did not happen, and when what it teaches about Jesus in one place does not tally with what it teaches about Jesus in another place?”

In his denial of verbal inspiration, Warren says: “God breathed his Spirit on scripture when it was written and he breathes his Spirit on scripture when it is read or beard. 2 Timothy 3 does not, however, speak of verbal dictation or plenary inspiration or any other of the bits of Latin-rooted theological jargon which have been brought in to muddle the issue. Nor does 2 Timothy 3 say that the writers of scripture were inspired.

Lewis says that each man can make of the Gospel accounts anything he sees fit to make of them “But what about the clashes and the jars? The knots of disagreement in scripture which cannot be untied. Nor, indeed, should one try to untie them. For, the disagreements are at the heart of the meaning of scripture. . . . Gods Breath overcomes shortsightedness and stubbornness in order to free the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be changed, rewritten, and made over for Everyman. Scripture was written as our Lord the Holy Spirit breathed men into a profitable freedom to shape their own story of Jesus, according to their own needs.”

If one can acquire Lewis way of looking at scripture, which he calls “The profitable outcome of this grasp of scripture,” then “Such a man does not see the Bible as a blueprint for building a church or a text book for doctrine or road map from earth to heaven. The Bible is a gathering together of many books, each with its own teaching, its own doctrine, and its own view of Jesus Christ.”

The Bible, when Lewis is finished with it, is virtually useless. He says, “the man who has learned to savor the clashes and jars of the Gospels as much as God the Holy Spirit enjoyed writing them should never again be able to use the Bible as a weapon against his neighbor. No one point-great or small-is so important that it cannot be questioned or gainsaid or weighted another way. Every truth about Jesus Christ in one Gospel can be turned around in another Gospel. . . . Scripture is not absolute, inerrant, infallible, or perfect.”

Frankly, it pains me even to be forced to copy such modernistic jibberish, especially from a brother in Christ. For several years, every time we have said anything about “liberalism” among Churches of Christ, some brother has replied, “But we do not have classical liberalism among us, and you therefore have misused the term liberalism.” I have heard that little spiel until I am tired of hearing it. Brother Lewis article is filled with “liberalism,” even the classical kind! I wonder if our young brother who wrote denying there is any theological liberalism at ACC would call this diatribe from Warren Lewis “liberalism,” after Brother Trainer spends three columns narrowing his definition of “liberalism.” Well, its liberalism, modernism, infidelity, and a few other words that describe unbelief, to me.

What did the editor of Mission have to say about his presentation of the Lewis article? Here is what he said in the same issue as that in which Lewis article appeared: “Honesty is the policy of Warren Lewis article, Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable, published in this issue of Mission. By honesty I mean this: Lewis is honest with the text of the Gospels — he lets it speak for itself; and he invites you, the reader, to read the text along with him. In other words, he makes an honest effort to speak where the Bible speaks.” To Roy Bowen Ward, speaking where the Bible speaks means to charge the Bible with being a book piled high with contradictions. I think James D. Bales had good grounds upon which he made this allegation: “. . . the editor of Mission is, in my judgment, a modernist” (Gospel Advocate, March 30, 1972).

Conclusion

But someone may ask, “What does all of this have to do with theological liberalism at Abilene Christian College?” I repeat: Three of the ACC Bible professors are Trustees of Mission and are responsible for the choosing or the Editor, and therefore are indirectly responsible for what he publishes, until they disavow it, which they have not yet done! At least, I have seen no public disavowal of their association with Mission, and I think I receive about all of the publications put out by our brethren.

In fact, Editor Ward specifically states that he has the “support” of the Board of Trustees of Mission, which includes three ACC Bible professors. Ward said, in the same issue containing Lewis article, and in the same column in which he made the above quoted observation about the Lewis article: “The Board of Trustees of Mission is a remarkable group. In many ways it is a pluralistic group. Some are relatively well-to-do; others are modestly solvent. Some are over 30 years old; some are still college students. Some vote Republican; others vote Democrat. Some are white; some are black. Most are men; one is a woman. They live all over these United States. But out of these and other diversities there emerges a unity which expresses itself in an extraordinary commitment to the publication, MISSION. Without their hard working support-financial and otherwise, MISSION would not exist. I appreciate their support. Honor to whom honor is due.”

Now Brother Ward said of the Board of Trustees, “Most are men. . . .” Lets just see which one of these ACC Bible faculty members will be the first to be “man” enough to disavow such modernism as that being promulgated by Mission magazine, and publicly to disavow any association with such a liberalistic publication.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 41, pp. 3-5
August 24, 1972

By Irvin Himmel

God told Moses to choose twelve men, one out 4 each of the twelve tribes, and send them into die land of Canaan to search out the land (Num. 13). The general plan was for these men to bring back firsthand information about the Promised Land as an encouragement for the people to go up and possess it. The twelve spies returned after spending forty days in Canaan. Ten of them protested the idea of attempting to conquer the land. Admitting that it was a good and fruitful land, they thought Israel was too weak to fight the strong people inhabiting Canaan. They objected because they thought there would be a wholesale slaughter if the Israelites made an attack. Joshua and Caleb, good spies, were powerless to quiet these loudmouth objectors, rebellion broke out, God threatened to disinherit the whole nation and raise up a new nation through Moses, but the punishment finally inflicted was the forty-year wilderness wandering during which time the protesters died.

During the earthly ministry of Jesus, on more than one occasion opposition was voiced to his eating with publicans and sinners (Matt. 9:913; Lk. 15). It seems that some of the religious leaders (scribes and Pharisees) attributed the worst of motives to our Lord. They imagined that he ate with publicans and sinners because he enjoyed their company. It never occurred to the objectors that Jesus sole purpose was to teach and save the publicans and sinners. Of course, the scribes and Pharisees wanted to find fault with Jesus, and when one wants to find fault, objections can be invented.

Our Master once attended a supper in Bethany. Mary, sister to Martha and Lazarus, broke an expensive box of ointment and anointed Jesus with the costly anointment. Judas Iscariot, an apostle who later betrayed Jesus, objected to Marys action. He asked, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” He pretended to have great concern for the poor, but the Bible says he really did not care for the poor but was a thief (John 12:1-8). Jesus rebuked Judas and commended Mary. Our Lords remark was, “Let her alone.”

Anything that is wrong should be opposed. Whatever lacks scriptural authorization must never be given endorsement. It takes knowledge, wisdom, faith, courage, and love for the truth to stand in opposition to practices that are against the will of God. In this article I am writing about objecting to things which have divine approval, not to things that are wrong.

One who objects to the doing of things that are good and right in the sight of God places himself in the company of the ten evil spies, the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, and Judas Iscariot. It requires neither wisdom nor knowledge to voice opposition to righteous endeavors. It takes neither faith nor love to shout, “I object.”

The work of the church is often hindered by faithless men who act as if born in the objective case and the kickative mood! They grumble because the church does not grow but object to every proposal that might pull the church out of its lukewarmness. Let someone suggest a worthwhile undertaking and immediately the objectors begin finding fault. Either the cost is prohibitive or money will be wasted; either the plan will not work or the timing is off; either we have tried it already or else it is too novel; either the congregation is too small for such a project or else a church this size does not need it.

Perhaps we should think about why the chronic objectors follow the path of resistance to a congregations enlarging its program of work. Why should one voice opposition to more “mission” work, a proposed gospel meeting, remodeling the meetinghouse, increasing a preachers wages, appointing more elders and deacons, upgrading Bible classes, expanding the personal work program, trying additional avenues for reaching the lost, or whatever the proposal may be? (Bear in mind we are thinking solely about things that are scriptural.)

Sometimes envy is the real ground of an objection. The critic does not want the preacher to get a raise unless he is getting one, too. He does not want more elders unless he is going to be one of them.

Sometimes greed is the motivating force. The objector does not want the congregation to spend more money because he is stingy. He objects to helping a preacher overseas because, he does not want to increase his own contribution to make it possible.

Sometimes selfishness shows through when the objection is analyzed. The critic is thinking of himself, not the spiritual welfare of others. He cannot see beyond his own nose.

Sometimes lack of faith is reflected in the objection. This was the real problem with the ten spies. Men convince themselves that the church is doomed to be without real success, so they object to everything that would n1ake for success.

Sometimes desire for attention prompts the objector. Like the child who stands on his head to get the attention of his playmates, one may feel that he can draw attention to himself by making an issue whenever he sees that most of his brethren are in agreement that a work should be undertaken. A critic may wish to impress others that he thinks independently.

Before saying, “I object,” think twice? Why do you object? What effect will your objection produce on others? Will it hinder the church while satisfying personal ego, or is it a valid objection based on sound reasoning?

Doubtless some will object to what I have written about objections. Be assured of this one thing: I shall not object to your objecting!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, pp. 12-13
August 17, 1972

By Connie W. Adams

I write this column from Martinsville, Virginia, a city of about 20,000 in the south central part of the state. It would be hard to find a more beautiful spot than Virginia in the springtime. Pink and white dogwoods are in bloom and azaleas provide a rich contrast to the lush green of spring grass. Martinsville is just to the east of the mountainous regions at the beginning of the rolling land which stretches across southern Virginia to Tidewater. From the mountain backbone in the west, up the Skyline Drive, through the Shenandoah Valley, down the Blue Ridge Parkway, or across the highlands to the Chesapeake Bay and the swampy low country of southeastern Virginia, this is a land richly favored by the Creator. Perhaps I am prejudiced because this is my home state. Here I fished and hunted as a boy, worked in the woods or the fields and in idle moments searched the woods with Grand mammy for “lady slippers,” green walnuts or musky dines. But more important to me, it was here that I heard the pure gospel preached for the first time and gave my life into Gods service.

Through the years Virginia has been a neglected field when it comes to gospel effort. There was a time when that was not the case. In early restoration days much work was done here by notable pioneers. Campbell preached throughout the state as did other worthies. The Showalters and the lamented W. W. Otey sprang from these quarters and did much preaching. Digression swept the state and most of the congregations went with it. Yet, throughout the state there remains a significant number of conservative Christian Churches some of which have been converted in part or whole to the truth and others of which, I am confident, can be reached now.

As the work began to slowly rebuild from the ravages of the first digression, the new digression of twenty-five years ago hit the state and carried along with it the bulk of what had been accomplished. Now, there are signs of progress. There are three congregations in Richmond standing for the old paths, another at Rivermont (just out of Hopewell in my home community). One of the most neglected areas is Tidewater containing such major cities as Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton and Portsmouth, an area with well over one million people. North from Richmond there is Annandale in the Washington, D.C. area. Down the western side of the state there is a small work at Winchester. Then there is not much until you get to the extreme southwestern part of the state where a number of small congregations are standing for the truth, such as Clintwood, Pound and others.

The church at Martinsville is four years old having gone through the trials of separation from a liberal group. In that time it has had great success and realized much growth. Though meeting under crowded circumstances in a truck terminal, they have become entirely self-supporting and conduct a radio program three days a week which is bearing fruit. They have purchased a lot and plan to build soon. Leonard Salyers is preaching here and doing an effective work. He is a native Virginian and has done most of his preaching in the western part of the state. He knows the area and the people and is counted one of them. A number have been converted out of conservative Christian Churches, some from the Baptists, Pentecostals and others. Through the diligent efforts of brother Salyers and others one whole Primitive Baptist Church was converted. This was a black congregation. These brethren meet often with the church in Martinsville and have faithfully supported the meeting thus far. Thus one sees the refreshing sight of blacks and whites alike working together in the Lords cause in the state which was the capitol of the Old Confederacy. Attendance in the meeting has run over one hundred.

Twelve miles to the south is Ridgeway, Virginia, near the North Carolina line where there is a congregation of about 75. This was formerly a conservative Christian Church which was converted entirely a few years ago. They have a nice building located five miles north of Eden, North Carolina. Randall Elrod is the preacher there. We are using their baptistery this week.

In my judgment, there is a great harvest of souls waiting in the Old Dominion, especially in the mountain areas of the west and the central highlands. People in these areas are conservative by nature and are not hampered by the pretentious sophistication which blinds many to the gospel. Radio preaching is especially effective. Within one hundred miles of Martinsville, north, east or west, there are several towns and cities where work ought to be started. I believe the church in Martinsville will be the launching place for much good work in the years ahead. There are sizable cities in the Shenandoah Valley where congregations must be established. Roanoke and Lynchburg are major cities. One family from Lynchburg is driving 160 miles round trip to every service at Martinsville.

Aside from the fact that there is a great need here, prospects for success are great, that souls can be and are being reached with the truth, there is much to commend life in this part of the country. Towns and cities are growing and coming into their own as places of industry and commerce. Martinsville was named the “All-American City” last year. Added to this is the splendor of living amid scenes of Divine artistry where the hills, mountains, valleys and streams all bear evidence of the work of a benevolent God. Young preachers, if you are looking for a place to go and spend your life, or even a part of it, in sowing gospel seed, why not come to Virginia? Older and more mature preachers are also needed. A man should not only have adequate personal support, but also sufficient working funds for daily radio programs and newspaper teaching ads. Tent meetings would still be effective in some areas. 1 appeal to preachers to think of coming to this with area to work and to elders of congregations with ability to consider providing the necessary support for these men to come. Martin Lemon of Dyersburg, Tennessee, Rufus Clifford of Franklin, Tennessee and Tom ONeal of Murfreesboro, Tennessee have done much good work in this area and are also well acquainted with the needs and prospects. They would be glad to share what information they have, I am sure. Why should not greater effort be put forth to spread the gospel in the very state to which the Jamestown settlers came and started it all on the North American continent?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, pp. 11-12
August 17, 1972