Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In this series of articles, I have been showing that the denial that the New Testament constitutes a divine blueprint is the basic error of digressives, of every stripe and hue. Thus far, I have discussed the position of those in the liberal Disciples of Christ denomination. In the last article I dealt with those who might, by some, be considered out on the extreme liberal fringe of the Churches of Christ. In this article I want to show how many in what has come to be called “mainstream” Churches of Christ also accept the liberal thesis, to varying degrees.

MISSION Magazine

The most liberal voice within the “mainstream” Church of Christ is that of Mission Magazine. Mission is staffed, to a large degree, with faculty people from Abilene Christian College and George Pepperdine College, in California. Blatant modernism is taught in Mission, as I purpose to show in some articles soon to follow. Those who do not do much reading from the liberal side of the brotherhood would think that Mission magazine and its staff and board are being misrepresented by some of the things I am about to say about them. Hence, I feel the necessity to document rather extensively the charges I am about to make against them.

Of course, like every other liberal, the writers in Mission deny they are liberal. Hasnt the wolf always worn sheepos clothing? Even Satan and his ministers disguise themselves (2 Cor. 11: 13-15). Mission has committed itself to the traditional digressive principle, namely that the New Testament was never intended by God to be a binding pattern for all time to come.

Mission is staffed by intellectual sophisticates, by the intellectual elite, by those whom Leroy Garrett calls the “Young Princes,” though some of their staff are not so very young any more. They always disguise their message in the dense language of modern theological scholarship. The article which I have chosen to refer to in this series is entitled “Some Thoughts on Theology and Mission.” It is written by Victor L. Hunter who is a graduate student at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Hunter also preaches for the Queens Church of Christ. Mission editor, Roy Bowen Ward, in his column in the March, 1972 issue of Mission, commends Hunters article as an excellent discussion of “the exegetical-contextual-theological method.” You see what I meant by my reference to the dense terminology of contemporary denominationalism. Ward says that Hunter is not advocating anything new. Ward states, “In a very real sense the method Hunter urges is nothing other than the method actually employed by most spokesmen in the Restoration tradition — except that some (many?) were not aware of what they were doing.”

Now if Editor Ward is talking about those of the liberal Disciples of Christ wing of the Restoration Movement, then we could agree that Hunter is not advocating or concluding anything new. He advocates nothing that was not advocated by the liberals a century ago, or that was not defended in A. T. Degroots book, The Grounds of Divisions Among the Disciples of Christ. Hunter simply maintains that we ought to recognize that the contemporary church is in the Twentieth Century, and therefore that we should quit trying to make it like the First Century church. His position is simply “No Pattern-ism” dressed up in the cumbersome language of modern denominational “scholarship.”

No Pattern-ism

What does our brother advocate? Briefly stated, here it is: “The problem with a restoration theology is that it rests on the premise that the mission of the church is to set up a true church in which all the details of church fife are exactly like they were in a first century world. It functions on the assumption that there is a blueprint or pattern in the New Testament that the church is to reduplicate in each succeeding generation” (Mission, March, 1972, p. 6). Admittedly, this is nothing new. We have been hearing it from the Christian Church for more than a century now, and have been fed it by the basket full from Ketcherside and his cohorts for nearly a score of years. The only thing new about it is its open advocacy among so-called “mainstream” Churches of Christ.

Listen to Hunter as he further explicates his digressive premise: “But theology is also time bound if it is concerned only with the past. It is bound to the past whenever one thinks of Christianity simply as reading ancient texts and then putting the puzzle together properly in order to transport it, ready made, into the twentieth century. This is playing first century bible land and leads to biblical fundamentalism. It assumes that the world view, needs and questions of the first century are the same as they are today. It is based on the premise that one can escape from the twentieth century by harking back to some golden age of the past … If it is concerned only with the biblical story and tradition, it is bound to the past and cannot speak with any relevance to the questions of today” (Mission, March, 1972, pp. 3, 4).

Occasionally when we speak of liberalism among us, some of our brethren raise their hands in holy horror, wondering who could he so ignorant as to think there really is any “classical liberalism” among Churches of Christ. Frankly, I get a little weary from reading from the pens of modernists who think they are the only ones who know what real modernism is.

If you want a good illustration of the presence of actual modernism (even the “classical” kind) among Churches of Christ, just read again the two quotes from the March, 1972 issue of Mission. Friend, thats real modernism. Of course, as I have tried to point out several times in this series of articles, the modernist or liberal always denies that he is a modernist or a liberal.

Our brother in Mission used nearly the identical words of the liberal A. T. Degroot. Degroot said, “the non-conservative Disciples have come to view as illusory the idea that a Golden Age of perfect men and institutions existed in the past. They distrust lets-go-back defeatism.” Brother Hunter says that we must be freed from the past. He says that Biblical fundamentalism “is based on the premise that one can escape from the twentieth century by harking back to some golden age of the past.” Brother Hunter says that following the New Testament precisely as though it is a divine pattern “leads to biblical fundamentalism.”

It has been my understanding that nearly all brethren would have considered themselves Biblical fundamentalists, but Brother Hunter writes as though “biblical fundamentalism” is something to be avoided at all costs. If Brother Hunter is not a “biblical fundamentalist,” would he admit to being a Biblical liberal? As I said before, sometime, somewhere, I hope to meet a liberal who will admit to being one.

In the same March, 1972 issue of Mission, another liberal brother challenged the pattern concept of the New Testament. On page 22 and 23, Robert L. Duncan said: “Perhaps the most prolific cause of division among us has been the fallacious assumption that the New Testament provides a detailed pattern for the church … I am not suggesting an anarchical approach to Christianity which disregards the authority of Scripture. What I am arguing is that the New Testament cannot legitimately be used as a book of specific rules covering, every aspect of the work, worship, and government of the church.”

Mission magazine, with its coterie of Abilene Christian College and George Pepperdine College professors, is the vanguard of liberalism among Churches of Christ today. This liberalism is not even of the mitigated variety, as is that about which I will he writing in next weeks article. It is pure stuff! It is the 11 classical liberalism” that Brother Roy Bowen Ward seems to think we are talking about when we say that B. C. Goodpasture is a liberal, or that Guy N. Woods is a liberal. Woods and Goodpasture are not liberals to the same degree that the liberals of Mission are digressive. But Woods, Goodpasture and the others like them among those who are institutional liberals accept, at least partially, the basic tenet of liberalism. Classical liberalism denies the New Testament was ever intended to constitute a binding pattern. The institutional liberals just deny that the pattern in some particulars has to be followed. But we will pursue this point further in an article to appear next week.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, pp. 3-5
June 22, 1972

By William R. John

Truth certainly has no foes that are very powerful or awesome. When truth is uttered, man either accepts it or rejects it, but seldom does he actually oppose it.

Man, without realizing what truth is, will sometimes make a feeble attempt to oppose it, but truth is so overwhelming that it makes “short work” of its opponents. In debate, for example, an individual may stand night after night “beating around the bush” so as to avoid direct confrontation with truth or he may even strike personally at the one proclaiming truth, but wage war directly against truth; hardly. Of course, in the above mentioned example, what has actually happened is that the one in error has refused to accept truth, will not admit his rejection of it, and so he runs from it the best he can.

The same holds true, at times, when Gods word is proclaimed from the pulpit. How do the opponents run? They simply use such “behind the back” declarations as “John Doe put him up to that” or “no preacher is going to tell me what to do.” However, those that wish to be true to God will go to the one who has delivered the message and make his disagreement known so that the matter can be clearly discussed in the light of the scriptures. Never will an attempt be made by one interested in truth to belittle the proclaimer behind his back. Nevertheless, those not interested in truth will usually reject it, seldom will admit rejection, and most assuredly will run from it cowardly which may mean using any number of satanic tactics available at the time.

Christians must strive diligently to be on the side of truth. May we never even unintentionally be an opponent of truth because, you see, truth has no formidable foes. Ali yes, how lovely the scripture, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, p. 12
June 15, 1972

By Edward Fudge

Several months ago I was downtown Saint Louis on routine business. On the way back to my car, there in the heart of the city, I came upon a man with his hand out. He was poorly dressed … dirty … and needed a shave. A first impulse said to pass him by (“hes probably going to blow it on liquor anyway”) but something inside (no, God didnt whisper in my ear) said “wait.” I asked what he needed. “Something to eat.” I asked when he last ate. He said the day before.

There was a Burger Chef just around the comer and it was lunchtime. So we two enjoyed cheeseburgers and milk shakes. While we ate, we talked. Some about Christ. Some about my new-found friend, Mr. Barr. His story went something like this.

Mr. Barr was once a successful small-business man in St. Louis — ran a catering service, I believe. He became involved in problems and turned to alcohol. This led to more problems. In the end his wife left him, his business broke and he landed on the streets. He now had a new set of problems. There were – as he told it – cruel children the “elements” . . . unkind policemen … plus finding food to stay alive each day. He bad an appointment for a job interview the day before, but it is hard to make it to a morning appointment on time with no alarm clock but the sun, no transportation but feet, and no friends or family to help. So he was late and missed the job.

Mr. Barr gave me some advice. Sin, he said, is gradual and deceptive. As he put it, there are three steps to the bottom. First you tolerate sin. Next you endure it. Finally you embrace it. (I couldnt help thinking of Psalm one in this connection.) Then Mr. Barr produced a thick, stubby pencil from a pocket and wrote those, words very slowly and carefully for me on a paper sack: “Weave carefully the threads of habit, lest they become a cable too strong to break.” His mother had taught him the saying many years ago.

Preacher talk? Hardly. This was experience speaking. This was the man they dont show on the commercials. He worked hard for sin, for several years. Sin had finally paid off. One last thought: I can imagine Jesus concluding this story by beginning another. “Two men went up into the temple to pray . . .”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, p. 11
June 15, 1972

By Colly Caldwell

We have seen that the obligations of each individual Christian to the local church of which he is a member are: (1) to be free from divisiveness (I Cor. 1); (2) to stand firmly upon the word of God (I Cor. 2); (3) to labor for the building up of the body of Christ in teaching others (I Cor. 3-4); and (4) to lead a righteously moral life (I Cor. 5-7). Continuing that line of thought, other responsibilities appear evident from the book of First Corinthians.

5. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be genuinely concerned about the consciences of others (I Cor. 8: 1 – I 1: 16). The greater portion of this section of the book deals with the customs of the day which exhibit not only the character of the participant but also the attitude he has toward others who might be weaker in faith than he. In the matter of eating meat, some brethren were evidently taking their liberty at the expense of other brethren. In chapter eleven, the admonition is that each should respect his proper Place in God’s order of authority. Those who do not do this exhibit an improper influence upon their brethren.

I cannot be so selfish as to be unconcerned. If that which I do causes another to lose faith in God, in some part of His word, or in me as an example, I have sinned. If what I do causes him to sin in some way, I have also erred. Even though my action may be right in itself, I have no right to hurt my brother.

Children of God are sometimes heard to say, “Well, it isn’t wrong and I am going to do it. I do not really care what he thinks about it.” Or some might say, “If I worried about that I never could do anything.” My friend, if it is a matter of jeopardizing the soul of your brother, you do not need to do anything (Matt. 18:1-7)!

Christianity is a religion of giving. It started with giving when God delivered over his Son to a cruel world. To gain from the religion of Christ, I must first give. I must give over a few things and I must give up a few things.

6. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to join with the other brethren in proper worship (I Cor. 11: 17-34). The brethren at Corinth were destroying themselves because of improprieties in their worship, especially as they concerned irregularity in their partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Some would not come when the others did, some worshipped improperly when they did come. The very life of any congregation of God’s people depends upon its worship. We must all be there every time we possibly can and we must be dedicated to proper worship while we are there.

One very important purpose of worship is the edifying of the people who worship with us (Col. 3:16). Those who are constantly arguing that the Christian does not need to be present for worship at any service, forget the essential responsibility each of us has to all the other saints to edify them and build them up through worship. I refuse the church a needed part of its fife when I refuse to come or when I take lightly the worship when I am present.

7. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to respect each member in his place (I Cor. 12).

At Corinth, many became worried that someone else had a more prominent place in the church than they. Men refused to serve because of jealously. Paul warned them to use what they had been given in service to Christ and to remember that it is God who had given these gifts to men. Each Christian’s part in the family of God is of equal importance with that of every other Christian, regardless of the prominence it appears to have. All cannot do the same things and each should be happy to see others working and fulfilling the mission of the Lord’s body.

I owe the local church my best efforts. I owe the local church my recognition of the value of the position occupied by each of the others. I am obligated to bold up the hands of the others in their work as much as they are responsible for encouraging me in my work. This is true of my feelings toward the elders, the deacons, the preacher, the song-leader, or any other saint. When I do not support the functioning of other parts, I hurt the church.

8. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be filled with love (I Cor. 13-14). The church will only grow as its members are full of love … for each other, for the lost, and for the Lord. Love evidences itself. A church full of hatred is not happy and will not prosper. A church full of love has to grow.

Even visitors can tell that we are full of love. Visitors to our assemblies will not love us if we do not love ourselves and show love for them. Our guests will turn away, shuddering from the coldness of our attitudes. I owe it to the church to exude love toward everyone every time I appear with others.

9. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be filled with hope (I Cor. 15). Paid wrote that the greatest thing going for the church at Corinth was their belief in the resurrection of Christ and thus in their own. Christians know that they will be immortal and incorruptible. What an advantage it is to be filled with hope for the future. What a powerful influence it is in the community when a congregation of people really believes in that hope. Doubting the ability of God to care for us and showing a lack of concern for eternity can only deteriorate the church.

You have, no doubt, seen people who almost appear anxious to go to God, people whose very lives show the preparation for heaven and whose speech is filled with the expectation. That person is a most valuable asset to the local church. He helps to keep us in mind of our goals. It is the heavenly goal that so many churches are forgetting when they turn to recreation and entertainment as the means of securing members. Only the worldly are fooled by such.

10. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to sacrifice freely in support of its work (I Cor. 16:1-4). The local church has financial obligations which must be met regularly and other responsibilities which come up unexpectedly. They must be met whether I give or do not give, or whether I am present or away. If it is right for the congregation to pay its obligations, it is obligatory that I do my part. Even if I must be away at times, I should make arrangement for my contributions to find their way into the treasury where they are depended on. The elders and others cannot carry on a consistent program of work if I fly here and there and do not dig in as an integral part of every aspect of the congregation’s life.

Conclusion: My place in the local church is one of great importance, whoever I may be. For the church to properly function, every member must be working zealously and be filled with the’ proper spirit. Paul stuns up his epistle to Corinth saying, “Finally, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (I Cor. 15:58).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, pp. 8-9
June 15, 1972