Truth Magazine

By A. C. Grider

Christ said he would build His church (Matt. 16:18). That he built it is evidenced by the fact that Luke says He added people to it day by day as they were being saved, (Acts 2:47). This church is the body of Christ and He is the head of it, (Eph. 1:22-23). The church which Jesus built is essentially the “New Testament Church.”

This New Testament church was the “pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15). It had fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1: 5) and sent to have the word proclaimed (Phil. 4: 15). Thus the church fulfilled one of its main obligations by sounding out the word so sinners could be saved by the gospel, the power of God (Rom. 1:16).

This New Testament church also engaged in the work of edifying the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). The members of the church were “fed” and led by the elders as the borders of the kingdom were spread (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5: 13). Thus the church fulfilled another of its main features or obligations by teaching and admonishing the members (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

This New Testament church engaged in benevolent work among its needy members as circumstances arose which made it necessary for them to have some assistance (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35; 6:1-7; 11: 27-30). And so the church fulfilled its obligations in this field.

Aside from the work of evangelism and the work of edification and the work of benevolence, the New Testament church did nothing (Eph. 4:12). To be a New Testament church, a congregation today must engage in these three works to the extent of its ability and must not go on and do other things that might seem to be “good works.”

All of the work of the New Testament church was done under the oversight and supervision of the elders of the local congregations. Acts 20:28 and I Pet. 5:1-3. At no time did a group of elders in a local church attempt to do a work for all of the churches. And at no time did any group of local elders take possession or charge of any of the work, resources, or oversight of any work except the work they did as a local congregation. There was no pooling of resources to pay for any work in evangelism, edification or benevolence. No church planned work it could not pay for. No church solicits money to carry on a work it had planned undertaken.

At no time and under no circumstances in evangelism and edification did any congregation send any aid to a sister congregation. Only in the field of benevolence (and that when a local church had more indigent saints than it could, care for) did one congregation send help to another congregation. This help always ceased as soon as the need was met. The idea of permanent works by congregations requiring continuing assistance from sister congregation is not found in God’s word.

No congregation is a New Testament Church that is not doing all of the work of evangelism can do and that under the oversight of its own overseers. No congregation is a New Testament Church that is not doing all of the edification work it can do and that under the oversight of its own overseers. And no congregation is a New Testament Church that is not looking after its own indigent members and assisting sister congregations with their poor saints (if the latter cannot care for them themselves).

Churches pooling their resources to preach the word have “gone on and are not abiding the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). Churches sending contributions to colleges have “transgressed the doctrine of Christ.” And they “have not God” (2 John 9). Churches engaging in benevolent work among people other than needy saints are not walking in harmony with the word of God. May we strive to be New Testament Churches!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 23, p. 2
April 13, 1972

By Edward Fudge

Benjamin Lee Fudge, known to many as Bennie Lee Fudge, was born April 5, 1914, and died following a sudden but brief illness on February 5, 1972. His funeral was held at the Eastside Church of Christ, Athens, Alabama, February 7, 19 72, and his body was laid to rest in Roselawn Cemetery, Athens, Alabama, in sight of Athens Bible School, which he was instrumental in founding. The following are the reflections of his oldest son, written one week after the funeral.

So many thoughts come to mind this morning as I think about Daddy. The simple phrase “he trusted in God” seems so appropriate a summation of his life. When my 17-year-old brother Paul went to the hospital Saturday before last minutes after Daddy’s death, he was directed to the chapel where Mother was. Upon entering the room (he later said) his first thoughts were the words from Job, “The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” Paul wrote these words on our family noteboard at home, where they greeted the eye of every caller during those days that followed and gave such strength to all of us. Paul’s faith was also Daddy’s faith. He trusted in God.

“The faith of thy mother ” the apostle wrote to Timothy, and these words come to mind now. Through nearly 29 years with Daddy, Mother was in my opinion the perfect example of what a Christian wife should be and as for her role as a mother, six children and three daughters-in-law stand ready to testify. Her faith had been learned early in life, as the daughter of Brother and Sister W. N. Short in Africa. Now the Lord answered Mother’s prayer for strength to join in every song at the funeral and while the rest of us had an idea of supporting her, we often found ourselves leaning on her instead. She will carry on Daddy’s ministry of spreading the Word of God through the printed page in the C. E. I. Publishing Company and associated outlets, God being her helper. I think now of Mother’s faith.

“He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” This phrase from Scripture came to mind more than once last week, and I do not know of any word which summarized Daddy’s life-goal more than this one: service. As we stood beside his casket while hundreds and hundreds of people walked by to pay their respects and give us a word of comfort, we were impressed by the many faces we did not know-of people he had helped in one way or another during the years. Old people came by who depended on his daily greeting as he walked to work. Others could not be there because they were bedfast, but they win miss his regular visits to read the Word of God and pray with them. One badly crippled man walked over a mile through bad weather to pay his respects. He lives alone and operates a little concession stand near Daddy’s bookstore on the square. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner at our house included a trip to town with a special plate for Sam. Sam will miss Daddy.

I have no idea how many preachers remarked concerning the times they had called on him for advice, for answers to a Bible question, for simple conversation or an encouraging word. Many an evening meal at home was interrupted by the telephone ring and someone, somewhere, wanting to ask a Bible question.

“No respect of persons” comes to, mind. Daddy never had any use for those who played favorites, or exalted preachers above other Christians. He often said that his greatest aim in preaching (besides giving the pure Word of God) was to be simple. He preached for the mine people he lived for — those who lacked most of this world’s goods and often its formal education — but people rich in faith and good works. This knack for expressing great truths of the Bible in simple language served him well during eleven years of daily radio preaching, and only God knows the lives he influenced for Christ through that medium. Now he was dead. Little children hugged Mother’s neck, and said he meant a lot to them. The mayor of Athens wrote her a letter. People who misspelled words sent cards of condolences. Well-known brethren paid him tributes. People known to few others came to say they cared and would miss him too. They all mattered to him, and they all strengthened our hearts.

A Christian Only

“A Christian only” This phrase is not from Scripture, but it expresses a goal of Daddy’s life — and one he sought to instill in all whom his influence touched. He was not a “Church of Christ Christian” — if there is such a thing; he was simply a Christian who believed what he understood the Bible to teach and practiced it—and that put him with those known as churches of Christ. No party within the church could claim him, though every child of God could, His fellowship with God’s children was limited only by their acceptance of him — so long as they had obeyed Acts 2:38 and were sincerely trying to please God, to lead a holy life and to abstain from a factious spirit. If he opposed congregational support of institutions or certain organizational arrangements, if he took a certain stand on “the war question,” or “the covering question,”‘ or any other question or issue — it was only because he thought that was God’s will — never because he belonged to any kind of brotherhood or party or segment for which he waved a flag or to which he gave allegiance. No man ever stood firmer for his Biblical convictions — and no man, in our time suffered more for them. But no man, I believe, ever loved more those who differed with him, or tried harder to enjoy Christian brotherhood with all God’s children.

Christ Magnified by Death

Years ago Daddy had said that his funeral was to be so far as possible a happy event, that it was to include the song “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less,” and that it was to emphasize the grace of God. In keeping with this, there was congregational singing (700 voices strong): “Our God, He is Alive!” “We Saw Thee Not,” and “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less.”

Brother Doyle Banta spoke of what Daddy had meant to him. Brother Irven Lee read the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and pointed us to Him who died so we all might live. Brother A. J. (Jack) Rollings led our minds to the Throne as we poured out our hearts to the Father of mercies. Brother R. L. Andrews paid a tribute to Daddy out of his experiences. Those who knew Daddy could best appreciate Brother Andrews’ reflection that he was probably quite busy already greeting and visiting with Moses, David, Elijah and other saints of days gone by. Brother Sewell Hall summed up by saying that Daddy was a sinner — just like the rest of mankind. All his good works couldn’t save him, or remove his sins. But, he noted, we have great confidence and assurance, for Daddy had believed the gospel and had been joined to Christ in baptism. And by faith he had lived all his days — never intending to boast of his own righteousness or merit but always in the cross of Christ. His ambition was never to be good enough himself to be saved. His ambition was rather to be found in Christ — not having any righteousness but that which is by faith in Christ Jesus. Because this was his goal, and because his good works testified to such a faith, we have every hope that Daddy is now present with the Lord, and that he will certainly be among those saints whom Christ will bring with Him at His coming. The congregation finally joined in praise to God as we followed the body Daddy once occupied from the church building, singing together, “Blessed Be the Name of the Lord!”

With such glorious hope, with such assurance of faith, with such knowledge of God’s marvelous provisions of grace and love to us sinners, with such courage in the midst of grief and tragedy, with such praise to God in the face of Satan’s most evil work-with all this, I say, God’s saints on that day gave the devil a stunning blow, and God was magnified through His Son Jesus Christ. That, too, was Daddy’s goal, that Christ should be magnified in his body, whether by life or by death.

We look forward now to the day when we will join all God’s saints of all the ages in that final and eternal victory taunt against the devil — that day when Christ shall return, and the dead will be raised, and with our Lord we win behold the destruction of Satan and of death itself chanting together as we reunite to be with our Christ forever, “O Death, where is thy sting! O Grave, where is thy victory!”

For this we live. I Corinthians 15:58.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 22, pp. 9-11
April 6, 1972

By Luther Blackmon

The church doesn’t have as much responsibility in the field of benevolence as some think. Benevolent work of the church is limited to saints. Now, before you turn me off, pick up your new testament and begin with Acts 2, right where the church began read through to the close and see if you can find an example of church supported benevolence except among saints. There is a reason for this which we shall discuss later. But read:

(1) Acts 2:44-45  “All that believed were together . . . sold their goods … parted them … as every man had need.”

(2) Acts 4:32-34  “The multitude of them that believed … had all things common … having lands and houses sold them . . . distribution made . . .”

(3) Acts 6 — “When the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem . . .” This tells of the needy widows in the Jerusalem church, and how the church cared for them.

(4) Acts 11:27-30  “. . . then the d1scipks … determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea . . .”

(5) 1 Cor. 16:1-2  “Now concerning the collection for the saints . . .”

(6) 2 Cor. 8:1-4  “ ministering to the saints . . . “

(7) 2 Cor. 9:1 — “For as touching the ministering to the saints . . .”

(8) Rom. 15:25-26 — “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints, for it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.”

(9) 1 Timothy 5:16  “If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them and let not the church be charged, that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” Here the apostle strictly forbids the church to assume the care of widows who have children or grandchildren, who are able to care for them; If the apostle forbids the church to supply the needs of a widow who is a Christian, what about aliens? It could hardly be accidental that the benevolent work of the church is always said to be among saints.

 

Some think that Gal. 6: 10 and James 1: 27 are exceptions, but these refer to individual action. In the first 8 verses of Galatians 6, you will find the words “man,” “him,” and “such an one” ten times. This “man,” this “one,” this “him,” is the one who is to “do good unto all, men.” Jas. 1: 27 make as much room for church support of widows as for orphans. And we have shown from I Tim. 5 that church support of widows is limited to widows who are saints and who have no one to care for them. Of course obligation to a needy saint would include, those who are the legitimate dependents of that saint, and this would often include children and, widows. But I know of no scripture that authorizes the church to engage in a work of’ general benevolence. This is a shocking statement to some, and has brought no end of ridicule upon those who so teach; But until someone finds that scripture I shall try to absorb the abuse without losing my naturally sweet disposition.

If we Christians would do what benevolent work rightfully falls our duty to do, there would be very little left for the church to do. It is very convenient, and less expensive, to let the church do it. But in reality, the very nature of benevolent work makes most of it individual. Children need a home and family. Old people, after they have served their children until they have worn themselves out, deserve a better lot than to be stuck off in an “Old Folks Home.” I have heard how happy they are, there with a lot of other old people. But I have visited them too many times, to buy that. They would ‘ like to be with the children, to whom they have given the best years of their lives. That is, if their children wanted them. They don’t complain much. But they have pride and feelings too, you know, even if they are old.

Jesus healed the sick and fed the hungry, but that was incidental to His mission. He did not come to do that. He came to save men’s souls. His church has the same mission — or it is not His church.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 22, pp. 8-9
April 6, 1972

By Ray Ferris

On January 25, 19T2, at 10:00 p.m. an overflow crowd gathered at the meetinghouse of the University Church in Tampa, Florida. For approximately three hours, or until one o’clock in the morning, a lively exchange took place. For thirty minutes Carl Ketcherside set forth his views on the question of fellowship, and immediately following Robert Turner spoke for thirty minutes on the same subject. Then for about two hours the audience participated in a it question and answer session” with the two speakers, plus Harry Pickup, Jr. and Ferrell Jenkins who were added to the panel.

In subsequent articles I will plan to deal to a very limited extent with the discussion itself, but let it suffice for now to note that Carl Ketcherside now has fellowship in the worship with those who are using mechanical instruments of music as they worship, and defends the practice; that he “fellowships” the pious unimmersed as “brethren in prospect” and refers to’ them as children of God. In this paper I wish only to express some thoughts regarding the meeting and the background for it.

First, let me hasten to say that the attitude which prevailed was excellent on the part of all who participated in the effort. Then, let me marvel a bit at the interest manifested in the discussion. Most of the people present had been in attendance earlier for two hours of speeches at the Florida College Campus, and many of them had attended lectures from nine o’clock in the morning through the entire day and evening and yet they stayed patiently and orderly through this three-hour session into the early morning hours. Here are literally hundreds of people who are vitally concerned with TRUTH!

Background of the Meeting

Although I do, not have all of the details involving the reason for the meeting, these basic facts were involved. The extremely liberal views of brother Ketcherside, and others, seem to be gaining more than a pawing interest among some of the Lord’s people in the Tampa area. (The nature of these views and their liberal extent will be noted later.) To what extent these have been influenced and in what numbers have no certain knowledge, but I am concerno4 about this matter. Carl Ketcherside has had contact with some of the young people on the Florida College Campus, and even that afternoon had gone to one of the dormitories for 4 sessions with some of the student body. Then was no permission sought from the ad ministration of the school for this meeting with the students, and none had been given as I understand the situation.

Prior to this, the meeting at the meeting house of the University Church had been set up. There was, to my knowledge, no basic connection between the school and the church in this matter. Neither was there any necessary connection between the college lectures, the session in the dormitory, nor the “forum” in University Church building.

In spite of this, brother Ketcherside’s opening remarks were made as though he were on the campus of the school and speaking as a school function. The insinuation could hardly be overlooked – the school and the church were linked together in his remarks. We will have further thoughts on this in a future paper.

Was Any Useful Purpose Served?

There have been mixed reactions to meeting among those who were present. Basically the, question seems to be – was there any useful purpose served by the meeting? Or did it simply provide an occasion and a hearing for these false views? Some seem to feel brother Ketcherside had everything to pin a nothing to lose by the discussion.

At first glance that may well appear to be true. It is almost certain that most of the audience was made up of conservative Christians, many of whom would be hearing Carl Ketcherside for the first time, and most of whom would be getting their first in-person presentation of his lately-formed doctrine of fellowship. Others who may have begun to “tilt” in that direction would have a first-hand opportunity to be pushed farther in that direction.

While it is ordinarily true that a discussion of such a nature should involve opportunity for both “sides” of the controversy to be representatively involved in the participants and the audience, it seems to me some points need to be emphasized.

First, and most important, Truth will always be enhanced by the test of controversy when advocated by capable men. Anyone who thinks it was not advocated by capable men in this instance was not present!

There was doubtless some representation of the view of brother Ketcherside in the audience. To what extent I have no way to determine, but these people – including Carl himself – were surely given some thoughts with which they must wrestle.

Perhaps the most significant group present were those, however many or few their number, who were being swayed by this sweet-sounding doctrine. Surely these could not have left that building, if they listened to the exchange with open minds and questing spirits, without having reversed themselves in their tendency away from truth. At the very least they would be forced to re-think the whole matter before doing something drastic.

Would these things not have made the whole meeting a worthwhile effort? Granted that it was not ideal in every area, yet the brethren of the University Church need to be thanked for their willingness to arrange the meeting and provide the facilities.

What About The Alternative?

Though I do not know the details of how the meeting came into being, someone certainly must have desired it. Regardless of whether it was Carl Ketcherside and his following, or conservative brethren who stand fast for the truth in the matter, or Christians who are now in a state of uncertainty in the matter – how will the cause of truth be served profitably by a refusal to enter into such a discussion?

Many of us have been sure in our minds that a host of men stood ready to defend what they believed to be the truth in this, or any other matter, and to do so in the spirit of love and patience. If there was ever a doubt in the mind of brother Ketcherside and others of that persuasion that this was true, it is now completely removed. Those on the platform, those in the audience who asked questions, and the many of us who sought to be heard and could not, proved the point beyond doubt.

But, most significant of all to me, is the fact that one who goes to the extreme of defending his worship with a mechanical instrument of music in accompaniment, and who advocates fellowship of those not immersed into Christ was firmly but kindly resisted in his efforts before some fine young people who have been fascinated with his “sweet words of love.” These young minds, older ones too, must have been impressed with the willingness to study that was indicated- on every hand, and to do so in love.

But suppose the proposal to discus the matter had been refused – regardless of who made -the request – what then? Thaw things have a way of being circulated widely, and it would not have been to our credit, it seems to me. I am thankful I could be present and only wish my questions and comments could have been given opportunity to be heard.

A Final Word

There are those among us who have shunned all forms of controversy, if possible, in recent years. Such was not the way of the Lord, His apostles and Christians of the first century. As food for thought, how many people do you suppose would have been at the church building that night to hear any preacher that was in town speak in any “regular” sermon he might have chosen? Could it be that we are missing opportunities to teach in our own numbers by not using some sort of forum, panel discussion, or even debate (!) in our teaching programs?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 22, pp. 6-7
April 6, 1972