Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Reuel Lemmons apparently could not write two months without contradicting himself, if his life depended on it. Even his fellow-liberal editor, Jimmie Lovell, recognizes that Lemmons has the great ability (?) to be “equally strong on both sides of a question.” Less than one month before Lemmons “Butcher Shop” article, he editorialized under the title “Benevolence and Education.” I wish all his liberal brethren in the Philippines and elsewhere could read what Lemmons had to say in that article.

Let me quote somewhat at length from this article. Lemmons said: “Recent months have seen a revival of the effort to seek church support of our colleges and to put the college in the budget of every church.” Lemmons is referring to the effort recently made by Batsell Barrett Baxter, noted speaker on the Herald of Truth. You see, Lemmons thinks Herald of Truth keynoter Baxter is a dangerous false teacher on the church support of the college, for Baxter is for it, while Lemmons is against it. Incidentally Brother Lemmons, the church support of the college is one of the real hot issues among brethren in the Philippine Islands. The Philippine Bible College at Baguio City is church supported, and faithful brethren are as strongly opposed to this unscriptural practice as is Brother Lemmons himself.

When the Philippine brethren read what Brother Lemmons said in his March 21, 1972 editorial, they are going to think Lemmons is one of those dangerous jungle flaying “hobbyists.” They may even think he belongs to the “anti-orphan faction.” Lemmons is opposed to every institutional orphan home that is under a board of directors, which puts him in opposition to about twenty-five of the institutions subsidized by liberal American churches.

Lemmons said in his March 21st article, “Now, a college board, or an orphan home board for that matter, is larger than the local church and it is smaller than the church universal.” This statement will certainly ring a familiar bell with faithful Filipino preachers. Lemmons continued, “We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures. . . . Unless a church can support a work that is not its own, through a board which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than the church universal, then colleges are not eligible for church treasury funds.. . . This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of childrens homes under boards rather than elderships…. If it can be done under a board with church support, then let us apologize to the Christian church for opposition to boards. . . . Just address yourself to the task of proving by the Scriptures that boards are a scriptural arrangement through which the church can do its work. If this can be proven, all opposition to the arrangement will cease, and, as an added serendipity, we will, after we have apologized to the Christian church for a century of opposition to them, find ourselves much nearer union with them. These boards are either, scriptural or unscriptural; right or wrong. We ought to be able to decide which. It is not right to ignore the issue because it is the basis of much contention.”

Now Brother Lemmons, your “jungle flaying” Philippine brethren are going to have an awfully hard time telling whose side you are on. Furthermore, they are going to think you have struck very hard at Herald of Truth speaker, Batsell Barrett Baxter, who defends the church support of colleges, and at that noted terror of “Anti-ism,” Guy N. Woods, who defends nearly any kind of liberalism, including church supported human institutions of a benevolent nature (though be opposes church supported colleges). You said: “We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures.” Brethren Woods and Baxter, why dont you get “serious” about this matter?

Lemmons opposes about half of the childrens homes-the ones under boards. But he says he will not be swayed by opprobrious labels. Lemmons says, “By now, we are used to the old bromide, He is opposed to orphan homes. That is an untruth. We are opposed to boards. . . .” Wonder why Brother Lemmons would want to use an “old bromide” on Brother Cogdill and me? He said in his “Butcher Shop” article that we are “anti-orphan home. . . .” May I borrow your remark, Brother Lemmons? “That is an untruth.” Maybe I ought to make it just a little stronger. That is an outright lie! We also are opposed to “boards,” and to sponsoring churches.

Lemmons pleads, “If brethren cannot come to agreement on these issues they can at least desist from the practice of making raids on each others camps. . . .” (April 11, 1972). Wonder why it is wrong for me to write in Truth Magazine against “boards interposed between the church and its work,” but right for Brother Lemmons to write against them in the Firm Foundation? Wonder why I am a “factionist” and a “hobbyist” when I write against church supported colleges in Truth Magazine, but it is all right for Lemmons to write against church supported colleges in the Firm Foundation? And I wonder why it is sinful for Churches of Christ to support colleges in America but all right for the churches to support the Philippine Bible College.

The truth is Reuel Lemmons has made himself the laughing stock of the whole brotherhood. Guy Woods and Batsell Barrett Baxter know be is inconsistent, and those of us whom he so lovingly labels “factionists” and “hobbyists” also know be is inconsistent. Reuel Lemmons seems to be about the only fellow in the brotherhood who does not know he is inconsistent! A fellow with a mind like his would be a splendid subject for a doctoral study on weird minds.

To show you what other liberals think about Lemmons, let me quote from the bulletin published by W. L. Totty of Indianapolis, Indiana (April 23, 1972 issue). Totty defends both orphan homes under boards and church supported colleges. He is a consistent liberal, though he is consistently wrong. Totty said: “In the April 11 issue of the Firm Foundation, the editor, referring to a trip made by Cecil Willis and Roy Cogdill who are extreme anti-orphan home men, said, What these men actually did was just about stop all the gospel preachers in the Philippines from preaching the gospel and set them to fighting each other. And they called this a missionary journey. Further, in his editorial, Brother Lemmons said, About the most ridiculous thing we can imagine is to go into a foreign, even heathen, land, and preach to natives that they should not support orphan homes and Herald of Truth! Later, in this same article, in reference to Philippine preachers, the editor said, What a tragedy to see these men in later years fall under the influence of hobbyists who turn them from preaching the blessed gospel of Christ to flaying the jungle with denunciations of orphan homes, Herald of Truth, and each other. “

“I can give a hearty amen to those statements by Brother Lemmons, but I cannot commend him for his inconsistency and being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. One time he teaches the truth relative to orphan homes and another time he teaches exactly the opposite and condemns the orphan homes. For example, in the March 24 issue of the Firm Foundation, Brother Lemmons, in his editorial, severely attacked the support of orphan homes under boards of trustees. He said, This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of childrens homes under boards rather than elderships.”

“If he believes it is right to denounce the c orphan homes under a board, then why should he criticize Cogdill and Willis for preaching it in other countries? If it is wrong in the United States, it is wrong in the Philippine Islands and should be condemned. And if it is wrong to denounce orphan homes in the Philippine Islands, it would be wrong to denounce them in the United States. Therefore, either way 4rother Lemmons goes, he finds himself in a dilemma. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt. (Matt. 12:33) If the tree is evil in the United States, it will be evil in any other country… And I repeat: Anything that is wrong in the United States is wrong anywhere else in the world, and anything that is right anywhere else in the world is right in America. “

Brother Lemmons is afraid that Brother Cogdill and I would confuse the native Philippine preachers. Brother Lemmons himself does considerable world travel. I guess he also would call his trips “missionary journeys.” If be preaches elsewhere the jumbled up mess that he writes here, reckon what kind of a confused state he leaves native preacher in? Nobody here understands him. Do you suppose those “Jungle flaying” foreign preachers understand him?

Brother Lemmons is a dignified editor. In fact, he is so dignified that he refuses to make any comments about anything anyone says about him, or so he states. Of course, he is not hesitant to tell “untruths” about Brother Cogdill and me, but to reply to an article like this would certainly be beneath his editorial dignity. I would just be happy (!!!) to have him to publish this article in the Firm Foundation, and I will gladly give him equal space for his reply in Truth Magazine. If ever there was a double-minded man, it is our friend and brother, Reuel Lemmons. And James says a double-minded man “is unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 3-5
July 20, 1972

By Ray Ferris

In 2 Kings Chapter five, we have the story of a man % ho was of the same mind that many are today — he presumed once to think for God. You recall the story of Naaman; how he was informed the prophet of God in Samaria could cure his leprosy; and that he went to the King of Israel instead of the prophet. When he finally presented himself unto the home of Elisha he had reasoned everything out in his own mind regarding what should be done. Elisha did not (to what he had supposed he would, but merely sent a messenger to tell him to go dip in the Jordan seven times. Notice Naamans reaction: “But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought. . .” 2 Kings 5: 11. Do not think presumptuously. Long ago the Psalmist said, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright, and I shall he innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.” (Psa. 19:13-14)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 2a
July 20, 1972

By Owen H. Thomas

The state of South Carolina is virtually a mission field so far as the conservative element of the Lords church is concerned. To my knowledge there are only two congregations in the state which are self-supporting. Both of these have fewer than sixty members. Only five churches have fulltime preachers. I do not know of but about twenty congregations in the entire state that could be considered conservative and most of these have less than twenty-five members. There are several towns of medium size that have no church of Christ in them.

The liberal churches are not as strong here as in many other places but they out number the conservatives by a wide margin. Recently some of the liberal churches in Nashville, Tennessee have been surveying the state and are making plans to send liberal preachers into South Carolina for the purpose of starting more liberal churches.

Columbia, which is the capitol, has four liberal churches but until about a year ago there were no conservative churches there. However, there are two small conservative groups meeting there now. One of these began over a year ago and they now have about fifteen members. They are known as the North Columbia Church of Christ and meet at 928 Columbia College Drive. Brother Bill Brittenham, who was recently discharged from the army, is working with them. He is trying to raise support so that he may continue to work with this small group. They are trying to support him until he can find support, but they will not be able to do this for very long. Bro. Brittenham needs help and he needs it NOW. The other group started in January of this year when about five or six families were kicked out of the liberal Eastside church. They have about fifty in attendance and are known as the Brandon Avenue Church of Christ. They have made arrangements for Brother Gary White to begin working with them about August. I understand he will also need some outside support.

The church here in Camden is small. We have about fifty-six members. At the present time we are sending $335.00 per month to help support four other preachers besides carrying on our local work. Thus, we are not able to answer these other calls for help. We would, if we could but I know there are other churches that can help these men. Will you do it? I believe these men deserve help. The conservative cause in South Carolina needs these men. Columbia, being the capitol, offers the best opportunity for the spreading of the gospel in the state.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 2
July 20, 1972

By Ray Ferris

Under a New York Times News Service designation, dated March 31, 1972, the Chicago Tribune ran a news release regarding “an ecclesiastical bonanza” that had been discovered by a Catholic priest recently. “The Roman Catholic priest who bought a full-page advertisement in Playboy magazine last January to stimulate recruitment for the Order of the Most Holy Trinity (Trinitarians) has .come up with an ecclesiastical bonanza.”

It seems that literally hundreds of responses were being received from the ad in an effort to find suitable students for training for the priesthood. Responses had reached a peak of 30 to 40 per week from the ad which was placed in only the East Coast edition of the magazine at a cost of $9,222.00 with no fee from the advertising agency. The good “Father” who obtained the response had tried various other publications with results that were not satisfactory, including $10,000.00 spent last year in Life Magazine, as well as money spent in church papers, new magazines, and newspapers. They were getting an average of only five new students per year, and getting as many as ten was considered an exceptional year. They have already approved twenty-eight for testing from the new group of responses, and, “if all goes well, most of them will be approved as students for the priesthood in June.”

Varied Reactions

In the news story there were brief references to the reactions of various people regarding this approach. It is manifest that the “Father” who placed the ad must have approved of the action. The president of the Baltimore advertising agency was, of course, pleased with the outcome, and offered an analysis for its success. The establishment had turned off most of the young people, and any appearance of part of that establishment in unusual and- unexpected areas caused the young people to take note! One New Jersey resident said it was “one of the most disgraceful acts of any member of the church in this century.” A New Yorker said, “At a time when religion has lost its meaning for so many young people and has lost touch with them and has become irrelevant, we have to reach out to them.” The church official who placed the ad said, “In conscience, I do not feel that Christ’s message is out of place anywhere.”

The resident of New Jersey has hit “the nail on the head.” It is one thing to reach out with the saving gospel of Christ and declare His message anywhere; to demonstrate the “relevance” of the message of Jesus now to all people, whether in or out of “the establishment.” It is an entirely different thing to reach into the grossest elements of our society to find people to be representatives of the Lord in some special effort to bring people out of wickedness. It would make just as much sense to advertise in the midst of the crime syndicate for one to be schooled as a policeman, and then gloat of the success of the advertisement when several “hoods” answer the ad! Who would dare to say this was making law and order relevant to anybody and delivering its message to the syndicate?

There was no mention made of a need to convert to Christ those who responded, and then train them for the “priesthood.” A member of the Crime syndicate may reform and become a very effective policeman, but he can hardly be a logical representative of law and order, and one who would be used by reasonable men to enforce law and order, while a member of the crime syndicate. Likewise, a reader of Playboy Magazine may be converted and become a preacher of righteousness, but reasonable men who uphold truth can hardly recruit from those who subscribe to the immoral “Playboy” codes, and set these forth as examples of moral living and advocates of truth and godliness, while they are yet members of the “Playboy Community!” But that is exactly what is proposed by this plan.

Some Observations

Several observations seem to be in order here. First, the Catholic Church must be having a difficult time in recruiting priests. There is seemingly a tremendous shortage of men who are really willing to make a sacrifice in behalf of what they think of as the service of God and man in the “spiritual community,” regardless of what religious group is involved, and the Catholics are no exception. Second, we have illustrated the extent to which so-called religious people will go to foster the organization of which they are a part. Even though likelihood of getting a spiritually-minded person from the abysmal depth of moral pollution to be found among Playboy readers is almost non-existent, it does not deter some from perpetuating the organization at the expense of souls, who will be led and influenced by such immoral leaders. Third, the tremendous influence of immorality in the “religious world” is seen because “Father Lupo” says the basic reaction to the ad and its results has been favorable! Fourth, there is indication that some are saying of Hugh Heffner and his philosophy – “If we can’t lick him, we will join him!” Finally, the widespread popularity of this obscene magazine is seen. After all they only used the East Coast edition for the ad. Think of the result they might have gotten if they had advertised in all editions! The article ends by saying, “the Trinitarians were not considering placing another ad in Playboy but were currently working on ‘another new idea in recruiting.’ He declined to elaborate.” Hmmm-mm!

With all that result from just one ad in one segment of the magazine and it seems to have made everyone so happy, it is difficult to determine why they did not pursue the course with more frequent ads in all the editions. Since the implication is that this ad was “Christ’s message” to the Playboy Magazine readers, then it may be that they are considering placing ads for “students for the priesthood” in all of the “X-Rated” movies, the Burlesque Shows, Saloons, Hippie Communes, etc. Thus “Christ’s message” could be taken to these people, and this appearance of “part of the establishment” in these surroundings would be sure to attract the attention of some of these young people who will respond to become priests, nuns, etc! A whole new field of opportunity is opened.

Not Really Surprising

Do not get the impression that I am really surprised by the article. Anyone who has made even a slight study of church history is aware of the unbelievable immorality that has been condoned, practiced, and even advocated by the Catholic religion in its sordid history. This is but another milestone in the long road of their immorality.

Nor is this an effort to imply that all Catholics are immoral, or would approve of the practice referred to in the article, and other immoral deeds. But any Catholic is stuck with the stubborn fact of history. The history of the Catholic Church is filled with record after record of the immoral actions of its official leaders. This is but one of many evidences that could be cited to show that it is not following the truth that is revealed in God’s word. To be imperfect is but to be human, but to attempt to justify such unethical actions as an official claiming to represent God on earth is blasphemy!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 35, pp. 10-11
July 13, 1972