Truth Magazine

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

By Cecil Willis

With this issue of Truth Magazine, some minor changes are being made in the format of the paper in order to give you more for your money. It is possible that you would not even detect these changes, if we were not to call them to your attention.

I became the Editor of the paper in August, 1962. The paper already had been published six years, under the editorship of Bryan Vinson, Jr. Brother Vinson and his associates had designed what I thought was a very attractive format. Truth Magazine, in my opinion, was the most attractive paper published by any of the brethren, liberal or conservative.

Therefore, over the years, we have done very little to change the make-up of the paper. It has been our opinion that when you have a good thing, you should stick with it. Several times, during the approximately ten years that I have been associated with Truth Magazine, some economy-minded brethren have suggested that we eliminate the scenic photograph on the front cover and that we eliminate also the additional color in the paper. It has been my opinion that Truth Magazine has been somewhat stylized by the color printing and photograph on the cover, and by the more expensive materials in the make-up of the paper, such as the glossy paper stock. As designed, the paper has enjoyed some modest success. Since 1962, the subscription list has quadrupled. In 1969 the paper became a weekly publication.

One time I investigated the possibility of eliminating the photograph from the cover, and found out that doing so would only save $14 per week. It was my opinion then and now that if the $14 front page sank the paper, let her sink as is. I think most of our readers have appreciated the appearance and content of the paper.

Whether you have detected it or not, we mainly use advertisements to fill out a page. We do not publish Truth Magazine primarily as an advertising medium. Primarily we intend it to be a teaching medium. Since we usually lose the back cover for advertising, and since we lose the front page with a cover photograph, and especially since we have inaugurated the church ads on pages 14 and 15, we have felt pressed for space.

Consequently, our minor format changes are designed to try to give a little extra space for teaching materials. Here is what we are going to do: we are going to lengthen the fine of each column line slightly, and then add about two additional lines to the column. Our margins are such that we think we can do this without detracting from the appearance of the paper.

Presently our lines are 16 picas long. That means that the lines are slightly over 21h inches long. We are going to lengthen them to about two and three-fourths inches long. We have unnecessarily wide margins at the top and bottom of the page. So we plan to add about two lines of type per column.

You probably are thinking that these are infinitesimal changes, but really they are not. By making these minor alterations, we can give you about 10 per cent more reading material per year. At all times now, we have 600 or 800 pages of manuscripts on hand that we think deserve to be printed. Of course, some manuscripts we receive (and probably some we write) do not deserve publication. These find their way into the famous “File Thirteen.” But there is much deserving material that we simply have been unable to publish. By enlarging our printed page, we can gradually publish more of this good material. The trimmed size of paper will remain the same.

An increase of 10 per cent may not seem to a significant increase. However, we publish 800 pages of material a year. A 10 per cent increase in article content means that you will receive the equivalent of an additional 80 pages per year. Measured another way, it is equivalent to receiving an additional five sixteen pages per year, at no extra cost to you. An issue Truth Magazine now costs us well over $400 to publish. By getting the equivalent of five issues, you subscribers are receiving the equivalent of $2000 a year worth of additional teaching materials.

We continue to have as a primary objective to print an attractive and informative paper. If we should find that these very minor changes make the paper look cluttered and unattractive, will revert to our former format. But if we can get away with these minor changes without seriously impairing the appearance of the paper, we can significantly increase the amount teaching material we can bring into your home in a year. And after all, that is our primary purpose in publishing a paper like this.

If you find the paper to be profitable useful in your home, wouldn’t it also be good have it going into homes of other Christians whom you know? For just $5.00 a month, you can send Truth Magazine every week into the home of twelve of your friends. We will bill you monthly, quarterly, or however you prefer to be billed for the subscriptions. At all times, approximately one-third of our subscribers come through the generosity of a friend. Quite frankly, had it not been for the generosity of readers, Truth Magazine would have folded several years ago. Would you now like to help us further increase our subscription list?

If there are friends to whom you would like to give a sample copy or copies of Truth Magazine, write us for a free bundle of sample copies. We publish a few hundred extra copies every week for free distribution as sample copies. We would be glad to send you a free package of this sample copies.

We hope to make Truth Magazine bigger and better than ever. We want you to get substantially more than your money’s worth. We want to make it one of the few, remaining bargains that you get the privilege of purchasing. Would you now help us to share this bargain with some of your friends? If you would do so, it substantially would help us, and we think you also would be doing your Christian friend a favor.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 22, pp. 3-5
April 6, 1972

By Connie W. Adams

In the October 14, 1971.Truth Magazine, I reported excerpts from a letter which Kenneth J. Wilkey, President of Philippine Bible College, wrote to a gospel preacher on the island of Palawan. Near the close of that article I stated that he “is bolder at a distance than he cares to be in person. He was in M’lang, Cotabato the week before the debate between J. T. Smith and Eusebio Lacuata and came back the day after we left, but for some strange reason could not be there the week of the debate to encourage his Filipino brother in the debate.”

It has been called to my attention by brother Lacuata that brother Wilkey was not with the American brethren who came to M’lang the week before the debate. My statement on this is therefore in error and I hereby offer my apologies to brother Wilkey. I should have verified the matter rather than relying on impressions which were not correct. Also, to set the record straight, the American missionaries from Luzon did not return to Mlang the day after we did as implied in this article and stated by me in two articles in other papers. I have sent corrections to both of them. Here is what happened. These men were in M’lang the week before the debate to preach in the plaza. They had obtained permission to conduct services there beginning the day after we left. It was common knowledge in M’lahg that they had such permission. Brother Lacuata writes that he suggested they return to Luzon because of the rain. There were there the weeks before the debate. They were not at the debate to encourage Lacuata. They did not use their permit to return and preach the day after we left. I have never intentionally misrepresented anyone. My apologies to all concerned. I hope this puts the record straight. My thanks to brother Lacuata for calling this to my attention

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 22, p. 2
April 6, 1972