Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

In Nehemiah 8, the people of Israel who had returned from the captivity assembled to hear the law. They were not reluctant hearers, but attentive recipients of the word. In-deed, the text says that “the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law” as Ezra spoke from the pulpit “from early morning until midday” (v. 3). Extended periods of listening to God’s will has never been boring to those who love the Lord and his truth  it is a thrilling opportunity!

Their exemplary response to God’s law began in reverence when they stood as the book of the law was opened and concluded with the people voicing, “Amen, Amen,” to the teaching as they worshiped God. The day ended with the people being joyful “because they had understood the words that were declared unto them” (v. 12). Though the day began with many being ignorant of the law’s teaching, they understood and rejoiced by day’s end.

The book of Nehemiah goes on to record the people’s confession of sin and their vowing together “to do all the commandments of Jehovah our Lord” (Neh. 10:29). How was this great change in understanding of God’s will and the consequent uplifting of the people accomplished? What kind of teaching aided this much needed transformation of will and action? Our questions are answered as the following is revealed about the teaching of Ezra and his fellow teachers, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading” (Neh. 8:8).

This was a case of distinctive preaching which should serve as an example to us. The same things that made this distinctive preaching acceptable to God and effective in reaching honest hearts can do the same in our time. Notice the elements of this distinctive preaching: (1) It was preaching founded upon the word of God. (2) It was preaching which examined and applied the principles of truth. (3) It was preaching designed to be understood by all hearers.

Brethren, it is incumbent upon God’s people to examine the preaching of our day to see if it meets the divine criteria of such distinctiveness. Those of us who preach must honestly measure our teaching by the divine standard, not the standard of popular appeal or cultural correctness. Those of us who listen must demand distinctive preaching which fosters an understanding of truth and a proper application of its principles as we commit ourselves to total faithfulness.

Preaching the Book

Ezra preached what is sometimes called an expository sermon for half of one day. His teaching was not based on a joke or a story of what happened to him while out fishing. Those listening to Ezra went away with the words of God upon their hearts. Divinely approved, distinctive preaching has always been “book, chapter and verse” preaching.

New Testament preachers did the same. Paul said that the Scripture was given “that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Peter referred again and again to Scripture as the proof in his sermons. The Hebrew writer used Scripture to prove each point he made. Thus, Paul gave the simple instruction for all preachers of all time: “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).

In our time, many denominational preachers and “televangelists” have blazed the trail of minimizing the use of the Scriptures. Sadly, too many of our brethren seem to be following their lead. Sermons with three, two, or just one Bible passage cited during the entire sermon are be-coming far too common among us.

As the volume of cited Scripture diminishes, the dependence upon uninspired poetry, jokes, stories, and literature has increased. Though such material is sometimes good to illustrate a Bible truth, let us always show our emphasis upon the word of God by appealing predominantly to it.

Examination and Application of Bible Principles

Ezra did not merely read the law and leave the people to interpret it in any fashion they desired. He correctly recognized that a divinely inspired message instructed a right path of faith and conduct. Thus, the text says he “gave the sense” of God’s instruction. This was done as each principle was examined and applied so that the hearers might comprehend both the truth taught and how that truth had practical application in their lives.

It was this process that helped the people understand that they were not living as God had prescribed within his law. Their initial examination of that law caused the people grief as they faced the fact of their unwitting disobedience. Their past failure to keep the Feast of Tabernacles as ordained by God was then corrected as they understood “the sense” of God’s commands and applied themselves to obey the law in this matter. Distinctive preaching made this progress possible.

The New Testament requires the same kind of distinctive preaching which examines “the sense” of truth in propositional terms and shows the practical applications of that truth by calling upon the hearers to correct their actions in obedience. Whether those preaching in the first century affirmed the proposition that Jesus was the Christ, that salvation was by grace through faith, or that Christians have an obligation to holiness, they examined the doctrine of Christ to ascertain the truth and gave “the sense” of that teaching.

Such preaching demanded that they oppose false concepts which would lead people away from God and his truth. While affirming that the crucified Jesus was the Christ, they exposed and opposed the Jews and Greeks who denied that propositional truth (1 Cor. 1:18-25). While affirming that salvation was by grace through faith, they had to expose and oppose the Judiazing teachers who taught otherwise (see the book of Galatians as an example). While affirming the necessity for holiness in the life of Christians, it was also necessary to expose and oppose those who would turn the grace of God into a license to sin more abundantly (Rom. 6:1-11; 1 John 1:6; 1 Cor. 5). Preaching which accentuates the positive and eliminates the negative may please the ears of the world, but it does not please God by following his plan for distinctive preaching.

The hearers of the first century were also given responsibilities to insure that such preaching would continue in their presence. John told the hearers to “believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; be-cause many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). John then gave propositional truths to test for false teachers. When the hearers questioned a teacher regarding such specific points of truth and compared the teacher’s words to the word of God, false teachers could be identified, exposed and avoided.

It is a sad fact in our day that some label as “creedal” the attempts to so identify false teachers of today. The charge is exactly opposite of the truth. Opponents of such examination are the real perpetrators of a “creedal” mentality as they demand the acceptance of some teachers of error based upon past history of how brethren have traditionally handled such differences. That, brethren, is creedal thinking at its worst!

We face an urgent need for distinctive preaching on numerous issues of our day. The following are but a few examples: (1) “The sense” of commands regarding godliness need to be examined clearly and application made in our preaching. Among Christians, the prevalence of immodest dress, the justification of social drinking, and the incidence of immorality have risen to alarming rates. Why? In part, it is because we have failed to preach the distinctive truth on such matters without compromise. When churches hear preaching which excuses apparel revealing more of the body than it covers, justifies drinking intoxicants at so called “moderate” levels, and tolerates unlawful marriages or at least the defenders thereof, is it any wonder that more of this behavior is the result? Distinctive preaching will point people towards holiness and godliness rather than seeking tolerance for worldliness (2 Cor. 6:14-18;1 Pet. 4:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:9-10; Matt. 19:3-12).

(2) “The sense” of passages distinguishing between the Mosaic law and the gospel of Christ need to be distinctly taught in our time. There are brethren teaching that we are now under the same law as those in Old Testament times. They contend that Colossians 2:14 only affirms that sin, not the old law, was nailed to the cross. They further argue that Jeremiah 31:31-34 does not speak of a change in law, but a renewal of the old law upon Israel’s return from captivity. No, a change of law is the subject of those passages as well as every epistle written to oppose Judiazing teachers and a host of passages too plain to overlook (Heb. 7:12; 8:6; 10:1-10; Eph. 2:14-15; 2 Cor. 3:7-14). It is indeed ironic that those teaching this doctrine affirm we are under the same law to which the Hebrews wrongly sought return and were rebuked with these words, “For when by the reason of time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food” (Heb. 5:12).

(3) “The sense” of passages declaring the conditions for salvation need to be examined and applied in clear terms which show the distinctive nature of Christ’s doctrine in contrast to denominationalism. Denominationalists are called out of their error and into God’s truth by preaching which exposes the error of false doctrines such as salvation by faith only, once saved always saved, infant baptism and the like. At a time when the distinctive nature of gospel preaching needs to be heard more than ever, too many are preaching sermons which could be as easily preached in a Baptist church without a dissenting word. Some have grown weary of meetings wherein the gospel plan of salvation is explained and an invitation is extended urging hearers to obey the Lord by meeting those conditions for pardon. Such preaching is replaced by sermons on “inter-personal relationships,” “self esteem” and other topics of discussion in psychology circles.

Do we really believe this change from a distinctive message to one which copies denominational jargon will help bring those in error to the truth? Some of the strongest Christians I know were converted from denominations, my own mother among that number. Without exception, each of them have told me that distinctive preaching which drew a clear contrast between the error they believed and the truth regarding salvation was instrumental in their conversion. All have said it was difficult to hear at fast, but necessary to motivate an examination of Bible teaching to find the truth. The book of Acts confirms the need for and effectiveness of such preaching.

Passages showing that the faith which saves is the faith that obeys need to be preached with clarity and force (Jas. 2:14-26). Passages showing the demands of repentance must be examined and applied (2 Cor. 7:10-11). Passages stating the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins must be affirmed and defended against the devil’s error which denies the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-11; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Preaching To Be Understood

Finally, Ezra preached “so that they understood the reading.” New Testament preachers did the same (Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). Distinctive preaching seeks to be understood by all hearers (Isa. 35:8). Distinctive preaching does not gain itsdistinctive nature from the advanced vocabulary or oratorical ability of the preacher (1 Cor. 2:1-5). The servant of God does not seek to be remembered for his unique delivery and style, but seeks for the audience to understand and re-member the truth of God’s word.

One of the common characteristics present in false teachers is their repeated claim to have been misunderstood. When accused of teaching error, they often shift the blame to the defender of truth by saying it is all just a confusion over terminology. If these teachers truly find it too difficult to speak so that they are understood, they need to reevaluate their usefulness as gospel preachers. When someone starts to question the clarity of truth, it should serve as a warning that the “truth” they teach is not the truth of God. Those who preach the distinctive message of truth will be under-stood because that message was designed by God to be understood by hearers who could then apply the principles into a life of service to God as he clearly commands in his word. Let us unashamedly preach the distinctive truth of God so as to be understood.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 24-26
January 2, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

When Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II. As American servicemen came home from Europe and the Pacific with images of the horrors of war stamped in their minds, a new wave of evangelistic fervor surged through the hearts of many brethren. This admirable zeal was tainted by a failure to keep in focus what the New Testament taught about the work and organization of the church. That the local church was obligated to preach the gospel at home and abroad to the limit of its ability was not in doubt. But the limitations upon the oversight of local church elders was not so clearly perceived. This zeal without knowledge gave rise to the sponsoring church.

Just What Is a Sponsoring Church?

A sponsoring church is one that assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations to pro-vide the money. The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work. In this arrangement, a local church eldership assumes a work which it alone is not able to do, a work to which all congregations sustain the same relationship.

In the early part of this century, the church at Henderson, Tennessee began such a work. Under the elders there, evangelists were to be sent out into western Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, northeastern Arkansas, and southeastern Missouri. The Henderson elders offered them-selves to choose the men, send them out and see to the work, and asked other congregations to provide the funding. David Lipscomb was still editor of the Gospel Advocate and opened fire on the plan with heavy artillery. He saw it as a died-in-the-wool missionary society which was made no better for being under the elders of the Henderson church. Under such fire, the plan withered and died.

Revised Versions

After World War II, the sponsoring church was reborn. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee decided to become a sponsoring church for the work in Japan. The church in Brownsville, Texas sponsored the work in Italy and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became sponsor for the work in Germany. After the first wave of excitement and enthusiasm had faded somewhat, opposition was raised to such plans. Articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian and this opened a loud controversy taken up by the Gospel Advocate. Numerous articles began to appear on the subject of church cooperation. Those opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement were soon dubbed “anti-cooperation.” The Preceptor which began in 1951, also took aim on this subject and opposed the sponsoring church. It became commonplace for men who wanted to go overseas to preach, to find a sponsoring church. That practice persists to the present hour.

The signature sponsoring church effort began in 1951 when two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James D. Willeford, brought a plan which they had used on a more limited scale in the Midwest, to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. It was a plan for a nationwide network radio program. The elders agreed to accept the sponsorship of this program. I heard the first broadcast in the home of one of the elders of the West End church in Atlanta, Georgia. As the program expanded to television and monetary demands became greater, the solicitations became more fervent. Soon one of the elders devoted full time to traveling the country seeking funding for the work. Area representatives were chosen over the nation.

Truth Magazine and the Controversy

When Truth Magazine began, it was nearly a year be-fore direct reference was made to a sponsoring church and even longer before Herald of Truth was singled out. Early issues of the paper carried articles on a variety of subjects, many of them aimed at modernism which was a real threat in the Chicago area where the paper was born. But there were early articles on Bible authority and on controversy and attitudes which ought to prevail in the wake of it. In December 1956 there was a reprint of an article on “Church Cooperation” by H. Leo Boles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1932. Ray Ferris followed with an article in February 1957 on “What Is Autonomy?” In March 1957, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had an editorial on “Our Level of Discussion” in which he mentioned that Herald of Truth (and some other subjects) were being defended on an emotional level rather than a studied scriptural investigation. In 1958 various articles appeared which mentioned the sponsoring church along with church supported benevolent institutions.

In April 1959, Morris W.R. Bailey of Canada, wrote on “When Is a Practice Unscriptural?” In it he dealt with the sponsoring church and the Herald of Truth in particular. In October 1959, Harry Pickup, Jr. wrote on “The Oversight of Elders.” In 1959-60 Cecil Willis wrote a series on “All-Sufficiency” which dealt with this subject. During these years there were reports of several debates among brethren on this subject. These included both of the Cogdill-Woods debates (Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee), the Flannery-Inman debate in Columbus, Ohio, and the Grider-Woods debate in Louisville, Kentucky.

Perhaps the best article of all to that time, was the one by Bryan Vinson, Sr. in November 1961 (“Some Basic Facts Considered”) in which he cited arguments made against the sponsoring church by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Among them, Wallace had argued that the sponsoring church violated the scriptural limitations placed on elders in 1 Peter 5:2 where they are charged to oversee “the flock among you.” He charged that the sponsoring church created an inequality among churches, sort of a system of religious feudalism. He said it made brotherhood elders of these men and argued that was a step in the direction of Rome. He further argued that this practice created an interdependence of churches without scriptural warrant.

In June 1963, editor Cecil Willis unleased heavy bombardment on the practice with an article on “Brotherhood Elders.” In 1966 Cecil Willis debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia and thoroughly exploded the argument usually made for the Herald of Truth that it was an “expedient” way to preach the gospel. Willis showed not only that the practice violated scriptural teaching on the work and oversight of elders, but he produced several charts showing from financial reports from the Highland church that it was costing huge sums of money just to “grease the machinery.” He showed how many gospel preachers could be supported at current levels by the funds used to solicit more support. He further questioned the expediency of any-thing which had produced so much tension and division among brethren.

Effectiveness

There can be no doubt that the material published in the paper had a telling effect in helping to salvage scores of congregations and hundreds of brethren, particularly in the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest who otherwise would have followed the multitude to do evil. The influence of Cecil Willis, Earl Robertson, William Wallace, James P. Needham, and the earlier work of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and Sr., Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and others, made a great difference. There are many faithful churches now in these areas where men are laboring today due to the hard work and unrelenting teaching of these good men and those who assisted them. When the history of the work is written, if it is accurately done, the effect this paper and its writers had on the study and thinking of brethren during these turbulent years will be profound. The abuse they suffered in the process was beyond imagination for those who did not experience it.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 3-4January 2, 1997

By Don Willis

The church of the New Testament era was a growing church! About 3,000 individuals obeyed the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). As truth was preached, the Lord added additional souls on a daily basis (Acts 2:47). Multitudes were added to the Lord (Acts 5:14). Later, “the number of the disciples was multiplied” (Acts 6:1).

Jewish persecution brought havoc to the church; thus, disciples were scattered. Everywhere they went, they carried the message of salvation (Acts 8:4). This is reminiscent of the scattering of the nations at the tower of Babel. In order to accomplish God’s purposes, mankind needed to scatter across the continents of the world. Thus, God con-fused their language. In order for Christians to go carry the message, persecution drove them from Jerusalem. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord” (Acts 11:19-21).

Jesus commanded the apostles to go preach the gospel to every creature (Matt.28:19; Mark 16:15-16), with the further command to teach them to observe that which Jesus commanded the apostles (Matt.28:20). “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers…” (Heb. 5:12).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Rom.1:16). We are not to be ashamed of this gospel, and are debtors to share this great truth with others (Romans I context). Christians are to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). We are to seek individuals to teach and turn to the Lord.

Christians live in cities, communities, and subdivisions. We are here for a purpose: that Christ may be seen living in us! Early Christians were “praising God, and having favor with all the people” (Acts 2:47). “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” (2 Cor. 3:2). In our communities, Christians are a “sweet savour of Christ,” an example of godliness, a beacon of the Lord’s light. Truly, we are the “savour of death to death, and life unto life” (2 Cor. 2:14-17). We dare not fail!

Ezekiel was God’s “watchman” unto Israel. “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand” (Ezek. 33:6, my emphasis, DW). The only way God’s word can be taken unto the lost is by God’s people! We are “debtors” to the lost.

The diminishing number of baptisms must be laid at our feet! The gospel is still powerful. There are growing numbers of people in our communities. All of these have souls. These can and must be reached with the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. God does not save people by miraculous intervention! His only means to reach the lost is by his people  you and me!

Nehemiah told his people to be ready to fight and work (Neh. 4:17)! We must fight the good fight of faith, we must content earnestly for the faith, we must stand like men. And, we need to commend those who are able and ready to publicly defend the truth of God. This is a time in which work must be done! One cannot fight with his brethren and work at the same time. We cannot fight among our-selves! We are workers “together.” As each individual performs the work of Christ as he is capable, the church will be built up (Eph. 4:16). The church is not one member, but many. Each member has different talents to be utilized for the growth of the Lord’s work (read 1 Cor.12).

For the church to grow now and in the 21st century, we need to renew some attitudes.

A Desire to Grow

We cannot be satisfied with the status-quo! A church may have 100-500 members and think of the great work that is being done; when in reality all we are doing is meeting to worship (and meeting for worship is required of God). In order to please God, the lost must hear the truth! We are the instrument!

A Plan To Grow

Nothing planned, nothing accomplished! First, the attitude within the congregation will need to be fine tuned to the lost. Paul said he became all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:19-23) and so must we. We must provide the atmosphere in which to learn: love that cares, patience and long suffering in reaching out to the lost. One is not seeking to “skin the sectarians,” but to win souls to Jesus Christ! “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God…. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:18, 23-25).

Second, pettiness must be put aside. The Devil raises internal issues that will consume all the time of the elders and preachers. The Devil will win  because he will divert us from the task of God: converting lost individuals unto the Lord. “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15).

An Effort To Grow

Invite people! An attitude must be born within the congregation of mutual love and appreciation. When this love is present, and brethren enjoy the assembling, effort will be expanded to invite the lost into the midst. As long as we are bickering, biting, fussing, and fighting one another, it is useless to invite the lost.

Give challenges to the membership to grow! Set some goals! Try a little harder! Each new individual that is encouraged to attend represents one very precious soul, worth more than all the treasures of the earth (Matt. 16:26).

You invite people! Canvas your own street, subdivision, office staff, fellow workers! Talk about Jesus when you fill the auto gas tank. Direct the discussion at the grocery store. Always tell others that you are a Christian, and offer to pick them up and bring them to worship.

Set up a Bible study in your home or in the home of a friend. Invite others about the same age. Enjoy the study and point people to the Lord! Possibly, use the Jule Miller video series. These have been used (when they were only slides) most of my preaching life with tremendous success! Carry gospel tracts in your purse. Some churches are using a first principle tape a month. Carry one in your possession at all times, and offer to let some have it. Do something, quit bellyaching!

A Recognition of Growth

Introduce new members, restored members, plus those who are new in the congregation. Plan sermons that will strengthen new Christians (the older members have forgot-ten some of that same material). Stabilize faith. It would be practical to think back to sermons preached in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Do not be deceived into “Dale Carnegie” soft preaching. Our duty is to “preach the truth” (2 Tim. 4:2). We need to get excited with baptizing people, and quit complaining that no one will listen anymore!

A Maturing and Training of Christians

Jesus sent disciples out in two’s. Training takes place by doing. Work with one another! Be patient in going over points again and again. Be careful that “older” Christians not discourage what is being done. They will often complain: “Too much first principle preaching; not enough meat.” Most of-ten this is done by members who only frequently attend, are not involved, are not teaching other individuals.

Conclusion

Brethren, if we are not reaching the lost with the gospel, we are failing in the Great Commission! Why are denominational churches growing  if no one is interested?! “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6-7). God’s word will not return void, but will accomplish its purpose (Isa. 55:11; Acts 11:21). But, it must be taught.

If we fail to “sound the warning” (Ezek. 33:6), God will hold us responsible. The people of the world is our goal!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 20-21
January 2, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

When Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II. As American servicemen came home from Europe and the Pacific with images of the horrors of war stamped in their minds, a new wave of evangelistic fervor surged through the hearts of many brethren. This admirable zeal was tainted by a failure to keep in focus what the New Testament taught about the work and organization of the church. That the local church was obligated to preach the gospel at home and abroad to the limit of its ability was not in doubt. But the limitations upon the oversight of local church elders was not so clearly perceived. This zeal without knowledge gave rise to the sponsoring church.

Just What Is a Sponsoring Church?

A sponsoring church is one that assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations to pro-vide the money. The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work. In this arrangement, a local church eldership assumes a work which it alone is not able to do, a work to which all congregations sustain the same relationship.

In the early part of this century, the church at Henderson, Tennessee began such a work. Under the elders there, evangelists were to be sent out into western Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, northeastern Arkansas, and southeastern Missouri. The Henderson elders offered them-selves to choose the men, send them out and see to the work, and asked other congregations to provide the funding. David Lipscomb was still editor of the Gospel Advocate and opened fire on the plan with heavy artillery. He saw it as a died-in-the-wool missionary society which was made no better for being under the elders of the Henderson church. Under such fire, the plan withered and died.

Revised Versions

After World War II, the sponsoring church was reborn. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee decided to become a sponsoring church for the work in Japan. The church in Brownsville, Texas sponsored the work in Italy and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became sponsor for the work in Germany. After the first wave of excitement and enthusiasm had faded somewhat, opposition was raised to such plans. Articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian and this opened a loud controversy taken up by the Gospel Advocate. Numerous articles began to appear on the subject of church cooperation. Those opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement were soon dubbed “anti-cooperation.” The Preceptor which began in 1951, also took aim on this subject and opposed the sponsoring church. It became commonplace for men who wanted to go overseas to preach, to find a sponsoring church. That practice persists to the present hour.

The signature sponsoring church effort began in 1951 when two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James D. Willeford, brought a plan which they had used on a more limited scale in the Midwest, to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. It was a plan for a nationwide network radio program. The elders agreed to accept the sponsorship of this program. I heard the first broadcast in the home of one of the elders of the West End church in Atlanta, Georgia. As the program expanded to television and monetary demands became greater, the solicitations became more fervent. Soon one of the elders devoted full time to traveling the country seeking funding for the work. Area representatives were chosen over the nation.

Truth Magazine and the Controversy

When Truth Magazine began, it was nearly a year be-fore direct reference was made to a sponsoring church and even longer before Herald of Truth was singled out. Early issues of the paper carried articles on a variety of subjects, many of them aimed at modernism which was a real threat in the Chicago area where the paper was born. But there were early articles on Bible authority and on controversy and attitudes which ought to prevail in the wake of it. In December 1956 there was a reprint of an article on “Church Cooperation” by H. Leo Boles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1932. Ray Ferris followed with an article in February 1957 on “What Is Autonomy?” In March 1957, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had an editorial on “Our Level of Discussion” in which he mentioned that Herald of Truth (and some other subjects) were being defended on an emotional level rather than a studied scriptural investigation. In 1958 various articles appeared which mentioned the sponsoring church along with church supported benevolent institutions.

In April 1959, Morris W.R. Bailey of Canada, wrote on “When Is a Practice Unscriptural?” In it he dealt with the sponsoring church and the Herald of Truth in particular. In October 1959, Harry Pickup, Jr. wrote on “The Oversight of Elders.” In 1959-60 Cecil Willis wrote a series on “All-Sufficiency” which dealt with this subject. During these years there were reports of several debates among brethren on this subject. These included both of the Cogdill-Woods debates (Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee), the Flannery-Inman debate in Columbus, Ohio, and the Grider-Woods debate in Louisville, Kentucky.

Perhaps the best article of all to that time, was the one by Bryan Vinson, Sr. in November 1961 (“Some Basic Facts Considered”) in which he cited arguments made against the sponsoring church by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Among them, Wallace had argued that the sponsoring church violated the scriptural limitations placed on elders in 1 Peter 5:2 where they are charged to oversee “the flock among you.” He charged that the sponsoring church created an inequality among churches, sort of a system of religious feudalism. He said it made brotherhood elders of these men and argued that was a step in the direction of Rome. He further argued that this practice created an interdependence of churches without scriptural warrant.

In June 1963, editor Cecil Willis unleased heavy bombardment on the practice with an article on “Brotherhood Elders.” In 1966 Cecil Willis debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia and thoroughly exploded the argument usually made for the Herald of Truth that it was an “expedient” way to preach the gospel. Willis showed not only that the practice violated scriptural teaching on the work and oversight of elders, but he produced several charts showing from financial reports from the Highland church that it was costing huge sums of money just to “grease the machinery.” He showed how many gospel preachers could be supported at current levels by the funds used to solicit more support. He further questioned the expediency of any-thing which had produced so much tension and division among brethren.

Effectiveness

There can be no doubt that the material published in the paper had a telling effect in helping to salvage scores of congregations and hundreds of brethren, particularly in the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest who otherwise would have followed the multitude to do evil. The influence of Cecil Willis, Earl Robertson, William Wallace, James P. Needham, and the earlier work of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and Sr., Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and others, made a great difference. There are many faithful churches now in these areas where men are laboring today due to the hard work and unrelenting teaching of these good men and those who assisted them. When the history of the work is written, if it is accurately done, the effect this paper and its writers had on the study and thinking of brethren during these turbulent years will be profound. The abuse they suffered in the process was beyond imagination for those who did not experience it.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 3-4
January 2, 1997