Truth Magazine

By Ezekiel Akinemi

It has been published in the May, 1972 issue of the Gospel Defender, which I publish, that certain individuals have constituted themselves as the Registered Trustees of the Church of Christ in Nigeria. Brother Eno Otoyo of the Christian Technical School, Oyubia – Oron, who is the present leader of the board, confessed that the board was formed in 1955 for certain purposes.

A document was signed on July 23, 1955 by His Excellency, J. W. Robertson, then the Governor-General of Nigeria, stating that three men were “duly appointed Trustees of Church of Christ, Nigeria.” The three men were “Huffard, Peden, and Horton.” Some other features of the document worth quoting are:

“Aim and Objects”

“The aim and objects of the Church of Christ in Nigeria are:

1. To teach Christianity.

2. To train and develop leaders in religious and moral thought and work.

3. To encourage and assist the advancement of education in Nigeria.

“Trustees”

1. The Trustees of the Church of Christ in Nigeria . . . shall be appointed at a general meeting of the missionaries of Churches of Christ in good standing and residing in Nigeria. 2. Such Trustees (hereinafter referred to as “The Trustees”) shall be three in number and shall be known as “Church of Christ-Nigeria, Registered Trustees.”

3. The Trustees may hold office for life.

4. Upon vacancy occurring in the number of trustees, a general meeting will be held to appoint another eligible member of the Church of Christ in Nigeria.

5. The Trustees shall apply to the Governor General for a certificate of Incorporation under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Ordinance chapter 107.

6. If such certificate is granted, the Trustees shall have the power to accept and bold in trust all land belonging to Churches of Christ subject to such conditions as the Governor-General may impose.

“Common Seal”

1. The Trustees shall have a Common Seal.

2. Such Common Seal will he kept in the custody of the Secretary who shall produce it when required for use by the Trustees.

3. All documents to be executed by the Trustees shall be signed by at least two of them and sealed with the Common Seal.”

The document further stated that the Church of Christ in Nigeria is a Corporation. The existence of this “Church of Christ Incorporated” under the rule of a Three-man “Registered Trustees” was known only to a handful of men until recently when the Trustees started to exercise their power of central control over the churches of Christ in Nigeria. Here are two instances of such exercise:

1. Last year, two evangelists from the U.S. brethren Leslie Diestelkamp and James W. Sasser applied for visas to come to Nigeria, but they were denied entry. Two congregations in Lagos sought to bear Immigration Responsibilities on behalf of these evangelists, but they were turned back because the current chairman of the “Registered Trustees,” Mr. Eno Otoyo, has signed a letter addressed to the Federal Immigration Office, Lagos, to The Nigerian Embassy, Washington, D.C. and to the Nigerian Consulate, New York, instructing them to refuse these men entry into Nigeria.

2. The Church of Christ in Owerri, East Central State, has consistently refused the false teaching of Jim Massey and rejected the overtures made to it by Stephen Okoronkwe, principal of the Onicha Ngwa Bible College, by Moses Okpara, Administrator of the Nigerian Christian Hospital, Onicha Ngwa and by  J. W. Nicks, another evangelist from flie U.S. Brother John Obijuru is a strong, faithful preacher who works with the Owerri church.

After Jim Massey and his clique failed in their struggle to seduce the Owerri church from the truth, they started to intimidate Brother Obijurn and the church by every diabolical means they could muster, in order to break their resistance against error. I quote one evidence of such intimidation in a court action taken by the “Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria,” on February 21, 1972, in the High Court of Owerri, against Brother John Obijuru:

“Plaintiff-Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria.

“Defendant – John Obijuru”

“Claim: The plaintiff claims from the defendant as follows:

1. Possession of the church buildings and premises of the plaintiff situated at Owerri judicial Division.

2. An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from entering the said church building and premises again.

Dated: 9 October, 1971

Issued: 7 Feb. 1972, to appear in court-21, Feb. 1972.”

To those who understand the truth and abide in it, the above revelation must be shocking. When these things became known to some faithful preachers in Lagos, the West, the Midwest, the East Central and the South East State, approach was made to those who currently hold the office of-Registered Trustees for the Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria. There were two meetings held at Uyo on March 17 and April 17, 1972. In the first meeting Timothy Akpapan gave the names of the Trustees as Eno Otoyo of the Christian Technical College at Oyubia-Oron, D. M. Anako of the Bible College, at Ukpom, Stephen Okorornkwo of the Bible College at Onicha Ngwa and N. A. Udo of Uyo. Since none of these men were present in the first meeting, a second was held on April 17 where Eno Otoyo confirmed the formation of the “Registered Trustees for the Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria.” He also admitted that certain U. S. evangelists have been refused entry into Nigeria by the Trustees.

The error of such activity was shown, and we pleaded that Eno Otoyo should get the board to dissolve forthwith. He rejected all of our pleas. Later efforts by brethren E.Ekanem of Uyo and E. J. Ebong of Lagos to persuade the Trustees to disband were in vain.

Brethren, the “Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria” with a three-man rule is another denomination. No more, no less. Think of the Roman Catholic with its Ecumenical Council and the Pope of Rome as chief, the Church of England with the Synods of “Reverends” with a President as the chief, then think of the “Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria” with a Council of “missionaries” and a three-man board of trustees headed by Eno Otoyo.

Remember the court action taken by the “Church of Christ Inc.) Nigeria” against a faithful preacher of the gospel, who, with the Owerri church has withstood their error. You know that a brother is not supposed to take his brother to court (I Cor. 6:1-8). Then imagine the “Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria” suing a faithful member of the Lords church in court without any just cause! All these are proof positive that “The Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria” is simply another sect which has fallen from the faith.

You remember their chief propagandist, Jim Massey, who came to Nigeria some months ago with a massive ten-page article, teaching brethren that they could arrange for one church to supervise the work of the other churches. He told us that other churches can send money to one super church so that the super church does the work of the churches, taking the oversight thereof. He also has argued that it is right for one man to be appointed as “Missionary Agent” who will receive money from many churches and allocate the money to preachers at his own discretion. In other words, he teaches that one man can be a supervising evangelist who will check on any laxity among preachers by controlling their salaries. This must remind you of the district or diocesan bishops of the Church of England. Eno Otoyo, D.M. Anako and Moses Okpara have been made paymasters on many occasions. They probably are still in that position.

In addition to the above false teaching and practice, Jim Massey teaches that hospital business should be in the budget of the church 15:13) because the hospital does good to men! But I think he forgot to include the suppliers of electricity, water, roads, and mail in his budget, for all of these are also good for men!

The same Jim Massey even wanted to make us believe that the church, with its God-given personnel, is not sufficient or competent enough to carry out the work of evangelism and benevolence, hence he advocates the building of institutions such as “The School of Preaching.” In a recent American publication Massey reports that the Sunset church in Lubbock, Texas plans to open such a school in Lagos “in response to urgent requests from J. C. Thomas, Jr., who has been in Lagos five years.” You hear of the Baptist Seminaries and the Roman Seminaries where they brain up their “Reverends, Pastors, and Fathers.” “The Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria” schools of preaching in the East have also been turning out “diplomats of digressive preaching.” But such diplomats are like fake doctors who prescribe wrong medicine for the sick. Is Lagos prepared to swallow such? I think not.

Do the churches of Christ in Nigeria have any need for “Registered Trustees” in order for the churches to exist? There is no need for it at all on a joint basis, since each local congregation is independent of the others. There is no functioning organism through which all churches can act together. It is left to each congregation to meet the requirement of the local authority or State Government in its area if such registration is at all demanded.

Brethren, what are we to do with the fallen away brethren who refuse to turn back to God? It is simple. We must follow the word of our Lord in Rom. 16:17 and 2 in. 9-11: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have teamed; and avoid them.” “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Pather and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for be that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” “The Church of Christ (Inc.) Nigeria,” with its three-man Executive rule is another plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted, and it shall be rooted up (Mt. 15:13).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 41, pp. 7-9
August 24, 1972

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