Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Many years ago, in rural Missouri, an elderly man operated a country store. One customer wanted to buy a whole case of “Pork and Beans” or some such item. But the store-keeper objected. He said, “I cant sell the whole case, for then I would have to buy more.” And some Christians seem to have that kind of attitude toward gospel work. They seem to feel that when we spend money to support gospel preachers around the world, we are making a sacrifice. But the farmer who sows does not sacrifice the price of the seed. Rather, the one who fails to sow sacrifices a potential harvest.

Today Gods people need to become fully aware of the great opportunities for evangelism everywhere. Then, seeing the fields, recognizing the needs and identifying the varying advantages, we must engage the churches in work that will please the Lord and help some souls to be saved. And when we do this with enthusiasm, even the giving churches will also be greatly benefited. Many congregations that had grown stale and lukewarm in local activities have been invigorated, and have become enthused for local work after learning the joy of participation in world evangelism. The money spent in supporting a faithful preacher in a distant place is not a sacrifice, it is an investment. And it will even “pay” locally if the preacher who is supported and the supporting church become bonded together in significant partnership and happy mutual respect and concern.

Central America

Evidently there is a great opportunity open right now in our neighboring countries “south of the border.” Any preacher who speaks Spanish should surely want to hear the thrilling story of great fruitfulness in Honduras. Write or call or see Dan. C. Coker, Rt. 1, Box 211 SS, Lake Pagett Estates, Land OLakes, Fla. 33539. Brother Coker, who is on the faculty of South Florida University, has, with his wife spent some years in Honduras. Obviously the door is open there now and perhaps in other Central American countries.

The Eastern Sea-Board

While we look to other fruitful fields, we must not forget our own land and the destitute fields it provides. Get yourself a map of the U.S. Draw a circle with a radius of 200 miles and with New York city as the center. Now discard almost half the circle for it is in the Atlantic Ocean and there are no people there. Yet in the remaining half circle you keep which reaches from Washington, D.C. to Boston, you have about 47,000,000 (forty seven million) people. That is almost one fourth of the entire population of this country. The relatively small area thus described has a population that is greater than the combined population of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

But what about the Lords church in the, teeming megalopolis along our eastern coast? There are indeed a few faithful churches scattered through the area, but the need is obvious and terrifying. Some Christians drive 80 miles (one way) to attend services that are scripturally conducted. Who will go into this densely settled area of our own country and help establish some new congregations and encourage some lonely brethren? And what churches will support workers in this amazing field right here at our own front door?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 25, p. 9
April 27, 1972

By James Sanders

The anti-class and women teachers position is usually thought of as ultraconservatism. Brethren who have doubts about either women teachers or Bible classes often think of themselves as moderate. They say, “Id rather be safe and not do it.” To their way of thinking, they are acting unassumingly and are trodding the certain path. But such is not the case. It is never safe or conservative to bind where God has not bound.

Recently I attended a discussion in the panhandle of Texas which aptly illustrates this very point. The debate was between David Bonner of Dumas, Texas, and Ralph Gage of El Dorado, Arkansas. It lasted four nights1 and two main propositions were disputed. The first point of controversy dealt with Bible classes. Bonner affirmed they were Scriptural and Gage denied. The second half of the debate, however, is what made the series rather unique. Here Gage (anti-class) affirmed universal benevolence by the church, i.e. “The local church has the obligation to help all the needy in the world as it has ability and opportunity to do SO.” Bonner, Of course, denied. The result was that Gage was at once both ultraconservative and liberal. You ask, “How can that possibly be?” And we reply, “Because anti-class is not conservatism!” Brethren are not being safe when they bind where the Lord has not bound.

Gage, consequently, was in a very awkward position. He had bound (anti-class) when God had not done so and had loosed (universal benevolence) where the Lord had not loosed. Even the Apostles themselves could not do this. The Christ had said to Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19b, NASB).2

The Debate Itself

The conduct of both disputants during the debate was superb. F. W. Robertson once remarked, “Disagreement is refreshing when two men lovingly desire to compare their views to find out truth.” Such was the Bonner-Gage debate.

David Bonner was excellent in his defense of truth. His conduct was that of a gentleman and his pursuit for Scripture was that of a warrior. It was the twenty-fifth debate on classes for Ralph Gage. I believe he was honest. Gage attempted to reply to every argument submitted by Bonner. Not once did he call names, knowingly misrepresent, or dodge a point.

The real crux of the discussion, however, was neither classes nor benevolence. The central theme was Biblical authority and how to establish it. Gage literally had no concept of doing all in the name of the Lord.

Bonners basic arguments on classes were mimeographed and distributed. He has extra copies. Write him: Church of Christ, 6th & Meredith, Dumas, Texas 79029.

Footnotes

1 February 28-29; March 2-3, 1972. Four propositions were debated. The writer was only able to attend the first two nights. A written report on the remaining two nights provides the source for comments given on the benevolent issue.

2 The verb form is a perfect passive participle and expresses a thing in a state of having been already forbidden. It is accurately translated by the New American Standard Bible.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 25, p. 8
April 27, 1972

By Connie W. Adams

Silence from the Crusader

Readers of Truth Magazine may be wondering what we have heard from Vernon M. Newland, editor of The Crusader, in response to our acceptance of the challenges he has been offering in that paper about instrumental music. Absolutely nothing! Editor Newland is as silent as the tomb. We wrote him a personal letter, sent him a copy of the article which was carried in Truth Magazine on January 13, 1972, before it appeared and offered him space to reply. We offered to discuss the matter with him in written or oral debate or both. On top of that I sent money for a years subscription to his paper and have not received a single copy or my money back. We will inform the readers of future developments, if there are any to report.

The March 3, 1972 issue of Religion at Vanderbilt gives a report from the dean of the

Divinity School which says “students are rejecting rigorous analysis, as evidenced in the decreased enrollment in Bible courses, and instead stress a more free-flowing approach to understanding.” He said students want to “grasp a hunk of material and gets its smell and feel.” He sees this attitude as similar to the “Jesus Freak phenomenon” which he describes as a “premature fixing on the penultimate as ultimate.” All of which makes me glad I am just a gospel preacher at liberty to teach the truth of Gods word without all the jargon emanating from divinity schools.

Church Youth Organizations

For years gospel preachers have defended Bible classes as systematic arrangements under elders of a congregation to carry out the generic command to teach. It has been said that these are not separate organizations like the Christian Endeavor or the BYPU. Gospel preachers have also correctly preached that the largest and smallest unit for church action is the congregation. But we are seeing an increase in structured organizations within some of the more liberal churches of Christ. These have officers, treasuries, make and execute plans and have all the necessary elements of organizational structure. For instance, the weekly church news of the Streets Run Road and Brownsville Road church in Pittsburg, Pa. carried this item in the October 25, 1971 issue:

“A Teenage Organization was formed at a meeting of all of the teenagers at ________s house last Sunday afternoon. The following were elected officers. . .”

Then there were listed the names of the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer followed by this note:

“We are looking forward to a lot of good to come out of this new teenage organization in the way of Christian fellowship among the teenagers and MORE ACTIVE WORK FOR CHRIST IN THE CHURCH (My emphasis, CWA).”

 

The January 16, 1972 Broadway Bulletin of Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas carried the following:

“At their meeting Sunday evening the junior high nominated members for the youth cabinet. This list was then combined with the nominations presented by the junior high Sunday morning class teachers … The cabinet will help direct Broadways YOUTHREACH on the junior high level.”

The January 30, 1972 bulletin of the same church reported on a “ski retreat” and then said “The Youth Council and the Youth Cabinet have functioned so well.” So, they have a “Youth Council” and a “Youth Cabinet” which will help “direct” the “youthreach” and they are already functioning. I can read in my New Testament of elders overseeing the flock but I cannot find anything about such intra-congregational organizations.

Nursery Authority

The nursery of the church in Elizabethtown, Kentucky is not just a room where mothers take their babies, tend to their needs and then bring them back into the assembly. It is staffed by some young women who keep them throughout the service and attempt to do a little teaching. This gave rise to some question by some as to whether or not these young women did not need to be in worship with the rest. The preacher responded with this note in the January 27 1972 Caller:

“MAYBE I HAVE HAD THIS NOTE IN THE CALLER BEFORE, but I just thought you would want to know where scriptural authority for having a nursery in the church building is found. I Cor. 15:51 reads, we shall not all sleep but we shall ALL BE CHANGED. Enough said.”

I can appreciate his sense of humor if not his exegesis.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 25, pp. 6-7
April 27, 1972

By Robert C. Welch

Readers of religious papers among the brotherhood are aware of the fact that some of the leading lights among the churches which have espoused the union of church and human institutions have also been having some meetings with the conservative wing of the Christian Church. These meetings seem to have been for the purpose of discussing possibilities of, and hindrances to, union. These brethren seem to envision the universal church being composed of all of those groups which they catalog in the “Restoration Movement.” Question: Are people, who formerly went in the direction of restoration but have now turned back, still in a restoration movement? If so, then this writer does not know the difference between forward and backward. But the ecumenicalism which pervades the denominational field is growing in the attitudes and actions, expressed and manifested, of many brethren today.

You will perhaps remember that the editor of the Firm Foundation was in some of those “Restoration” meetings. This tendency is a growing thing. Its ecumenical yearning will not stay limited to those whom they call “Restoration” groups. It soon reaches out to all sorts of sects, movements and social groupings. If you think I am “judging motives,” as one of my good brethren recently charged me, read the following revealing item from the pen of the Firm Foundation editor (January 18, 1972, issue) :

“We feel that there are some areas in which we can, and should, cooperate with religious and even secular groups. We cooperate with law enforcement officers, with P.T.A.s, and with groups opposing the use of alcohol. We can lock arms with religious groups on moral issues, census taking, attempts to strengthen the home, respect for government, sharing of radio time or a joint religious directory in the Sunday paper. In fact, we can cooperate with anyone in the forwarding of any truth. But we cannot compromise with anyone.”

That theory which he has expressed will permit the churches to cooperate with the denominations in a joint evangelistic campaign just so long as it is left to each group to teach the respondent who has chosen that group the plan of salvation as each sees it. The theory places the church on a par with the denomination. The theory actually makes the church a denomination among denominations. It suggests union, with each participating member group retaining its own peculiar characteristics; in that way there is no “compromise with anyone.”

There was the time only a few years ago when brethren in general found it repulsive that a preacher here and there would join the ministerial association of his town. Now, of course he made it clear that he was not compromising anything! (?). But that is precisely the kind of thing which our ecumenical editor is advocating. “Lock arms with religious groups”? When the churches were making their greatest strides of steadfast growth, they locked horns with the religious groups. And we ought not to allow the teachings of such men as Reuel Lemmons lead us to forget it. If we accomplish anything for the Lord we are going to have to “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17).

In a recent article (Truth Magazine, March 9, 1972) I called attention to a meeting designed by A. C. C. for discussion of differences of more recent origin than those involved with the Christian Church. Brother Lemmons thought it good that no tape recordings of the meetings were being permitted. I suggested the possibility of, some who were engaged in the discussions being afraid to have what they said on permanent record. Brother James Adams suggested that I was judging motives. Actually I did not think it necessary to document my reason for such a suggestion. But Brother Adams has given us the proof of my suggestion. He tells us that Brother Thomas “said there were men of exceedingly unorthodox views who were sensitive about their presentations being tape recorded . . . in deference to their feelings and to induce them to appear and speak, it was considered advisable to ban tape recorders from the meeting” (Truth Magazine, March 9, 1972). Now that is just what I was suggesting all along. It still is “disconcerting” to me that brethren will agree to go into the lions den operating on the lions rules; it is downright dangerous; no impugning of or judging the motives of my brethren; but from a sense of concern for them, I expressed my observations.

For many years the proponents of premillennialism among brethren were not willing to have their views tested in the open. They averred that they did not preach on it from the pulpit, and most did not wish to engage in public debate. They wanted to do their work in private. It is now clear that some of the proponents of “exceedingly Unorthodox” views of today want to do their work under the cloak of privacy or at least, of limited publicity.

There is a difference in a discussion with no arrangements made for publicizing it, and in planning that it cannot be publicized. Certainly, this writer has engaged in many discussions with no publicity given them, but he does not intend willingly to walk into a trap where he agrees that a discussion of public doctrinal differences cannot be made public. Once again, I neither impugned nor judged the motives of my brethren who were engaged in these discussions; I did express concern and warning. Brother Adams documentation of the reason for the rule against recording the meetings is appreciated by me, for it shows the very thing I questioned.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 25, pp. 5-6
April 27, 1972