Truth Magazine

By W.R. Jones

After 59 years of preaching I am still a great believer in the power of gospel preaching. I am convinced that absolutely nothing will put God’s true message across as well as a forceful lesson from a godly preacher or teacher. I say this because I firmly believe that we not only draw from the words of those who teach us, but from their lives and character. While I was quite a young preacher I worked with an elder of the church, who I am sure, did more to shape my future than any man. This godly man taught me a great deal, and yet, strange as it may seem, I cannot remember precisely as much of what he taught me as I can remember about him, his life, his character, and his attitude. By his life and his teachings he was molding me for service to Christ.

In Acts 4:13 please notice what is said about Peter and John. “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” They took note that these men “had been with Jesus.” I am sure there were a number of things that led the observers to make the statement. This was in the infancy of the church and Jesus had been gone for sometime, but these people could tell that the men “had been with Jesus.” Everything about them pointed toward their devotion to Christ and it was very obvious to those who stood by and observed.

So, what we need today is not more gimmicks, not more novel plans, not more ingenious approaches, but more godly men who will set forth the unsearchable riches without fear or favor, and do it free of fanaticism. Today, we need men, and women as well (within their scope of teaching) who will demonstrate in word and deed that they have “been with Jesus.”

The “Social Gospel” influence upon us today has caused many to look with disdain upon “old fashioned gospel preaching.” The new idea is to get the message across with “puppet shows” and “Bible drama” and a host of other things which are designed to entertain and do some teaching at the same time. I must confess, I just don’t believe a  puppet or an actor could have much of a spiritual impact on me. But, that godly elder did! He didn’t entertain me, but he taught me, and let me freely observe that teaching in his life. I had the wonderful opportunity to see what it is really all about.

Question — How do you think the gospel was spread over this great East Texas area? Do you think it was done with “watered down” sermons designed to entertain? Do you think pioneer preachers established schools or camps that the Word might be spread? Do you think they presented messages that never offended anyone? The answer to all these questions is no! I will tell you what they did for the most part. With but few exceptions, they told listeners only those things in the Bible. They tore down the strongholds of error through preaching and debate. They preached anywhere they could get an audience and from home to home. By modern standards their presentations would be judged “crude,” but nevertheless, they were telling people what they needed to hear and not what they wanted to bear. They got the job done. Thousands left error and embraced the gospel of Christ.

So, while the denominational world and the liberal minded members of the church give the world “puppet shows” and “Bible dramas” and all kind of presentations that obscure and water down the truth, let’s get on with the real work. Let’s give the lost and dying world the forceful, but simple gospel of Christ. Let it fall from the lips of truly spiritual men who have “been with Jesus.” We may not have the most listeners and we may not have the biggest crowds, but we will prepare more people for eternity, and make them “meet for the Master’s use” (2 Tim. 2:21).

From The Messenger, Decker Prairie Church of Christ

By Larry Ray Hafley

Read the brief account of the work of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-15:35). The text does not tell us of Paul and Barnabas’ personal feelings toward one another, but they must have been deep, loving, respectful, appreciative, tender, firm, and strong. Two men could not stand, fight, and work so intimately and closely without developing a powerful, personal bond of brotherhood. It is touching to think about.

Suddenly, however, we read of their disagreement and division. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark, but Paul “thought (it) not good to take him with them . . . and the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed one from the other” (Acts 15:36-40). Paul chose Silas, and Barnabas took Mark, and their work prospered. Later evidence shows they were reconciled to one another. They did not allow bitterness and silent separation to follow them to their graves.

But in the interval, immediately after the split, I have wondered if Paul and Barnabas did not regret their estrangement. Did they lie awake at night and quietly weep and pray for one another? Did each hope that the other felt the same twinges of concern and affection that he felt? Did they often long for one another’s presence, support, advice, and counsel? While believing their judgment was correct concerning Mark, did they ever regret their strong feelings and pointed words toward one another? Did they ever wish the whole episode had not occurred, or that they had muzzled and squelched their opinion of Mark and gone along in order to avoid the rupture of their work together? Did they promise themselves that they would be extra careful to confirm their love to one another when next they met? Did they hope that it was all somehow for the best? Did each promise himself to be the first to seek the restoration of their cooperation? Oh, consider the depths of hope, fear, love, anguish, and prayer that must have flooded their broken hearts! Surely, they felt and shared similar sorrows and emotions.

If you are Paul, who is your Barnabas? If you are Barnabas, who is your Paul? If you have been in the kingdom for a num­ber of years and have earnestly contended for the faith, you prob­ably have “a Barnabas,” someone you are at odds with, but you wish you were not. You remember with gentle fondness the sweet times and sad trials you bore together. You recall the family activities, the picnics, the singings, the hugging, the tears, the closeness, the bonds of fellowship, and ties of love that were once dearer than those among some of your own family. Then came “the split,” the hard looks, the harsh words, the misunder­standings, the unexplained changes in behavior, the cold stares, the sullen avoidance, the hurt, the pain, the tears, the sorrow and regret. Yes, you have felt it all and more, and you wish to recall those former days. “It could never be the same again.” Perhaps not, but, it need not remain the way it is.

Maybe your “Barnabas” feels the very same way and would react positively to a friendly gesture of kindness. There is only one way to find out.

By Billy Moore

NIGERIA. Just hearing the word will immediately get the attention of any U.S. preacher who has ever preached there. The eagerness of the people to hear the Word, the willingness of many to study the Scripture — it was like stepping back in time in the U.S. when people of this nation were searching for truth. From the day in 1949, when two men who learned the truth via a correspondence course and baptized each other, unto the present, Nigeria has been one of the most fertile fields of work and the harvest has been great.  

I did not know either of those first two converts, but it was my privilege to meet one of their first converts, E.A. Ekanem who was baptized in 1949 and started the church in his home village of Ntan Ekere, just a few miles from the place where those first two were baptized, and for the next twenty-five years was one of the strong men in the church in eastern Nigeria. 

Leslie Diestelkamp introduced me to this work back in 1960 and encouraged me to go there in 1972 when he was preaching in a meeting in Butler, Missouri. My first trip to Nigeria was January-March 1973. A preacher friend, Robert H. (Bob) West accompanied me. It was the most fruitful six weeks of my preaching years. Our second trip was January-March 1976 when Lowell Blasingame went with me. I had known him since I was a teenager and knew he was a man suited for that work, and I was right. He has returned four times since, and I have asked him to write a few paragraphs about the work there.

Open air “street preaching” was common and gave opportunity to preach to many. On the evening of February 7, 1973 one of the churches in Uyo arranged for me to preach in “street preaching.” The crowd gathered and two men, Etim Abidiak and Johnson Obot, who were passing by, saw a “white man” preaching beside the street and turned in to listen. They were both preachers for the God’s Church denomination. Etim was the District Superintendent of that area and the featured speaker for a district meeting that very week in Uyo. He had started many churches and trained preachers for them. We studied with them till after midnight, when Etim said, “I am ready to be baptized into the church of Christ.” Then we went for E.J. Ebong and E.A. Ufot who accompanied us to the stream where these two men were baptized into Christ. We encouraged brethren Ebong and Ufot to provide the teaching and training for these men. Soon Etim had converted two other preachers from the God’s Church group, and training classes for these four men were set up in Uyo, with E.Ekanen, E.A. Ufot, E.B. Udofia, and A.I. Ituen providing daily teaching for the next five or six months in what became the Preachers’ Training Program. This program is conducted each year in the Uyo area, with twenty men as students and five or six preachers of the area teaching the classes, Monday through Friday, for six months. The classes are currently in progress for the 29th consecutive year. This work is supported by brethren who voluntarily provide support for the men. In 1974 E.J. Ebong had moved back to Uyo and was in charge of this work until his death. Since then George U. Ekong, who had worked with Ebong a number of years, has served as director of the program. Hundreds of men have been taught the Word and trained to preach the gospel to their people. Each year we call upon brethren to volunteer to help in this work. A similar program has recently been set up in western Nigeria in Ibadan, the largest black city in the world, by Sunday Ayandare and Ezekiel Akinyemi.  

Leslie Diestelkamp took four preachers from Eastern Nigeria to the Western cities of Lagos and Ibadan and began the work there in the late fifties. Ten or twelve years later the brethren of more liberal persuasion came into those areas, which has resulted in division among brethren there, as we have seen in the U.S. The preachers’ training classes will be a great boost to the work in Western Nigeria. Brethren Akinyemi and Ayandare are both strong capable men.

I asked Lowell Blasingame, who has been involved in the work there since 1976, and is a great friend to Nigerian preachers and continually works to provide help for the cause of Christ in that country, to write about the work in Nigeria.  

P.O. Box 204, Butler, Missouri 64730 bmoore2828@aol.com

The Nigerian Work
Lowell Blasingame

My interest in the Nigerian work was created by brethren Billy Moore and Leslie Diestelkamp. Through the encouragement of brother Diestelkamp, Bill and Bob West went to Nigeria in 1973 and in 1976 when brother Moore planned a second trip, he asked me to go with him as a working companion. I had heard brother Diestelkamp say, “If a person ever goes to Nigeria life is never the same.” I was to learn what this meant.

Based upon his experience in working with Nigerian preachers on his earlier trip, brother Moore suggested that we pursue a different plan and arrange classes in different areas for the benefit of these men and limit our evangelistic efforts to preaching on Sunday and at nights in the area where classes were being taught. Classes, running from Monday through Friday, were held in Lagos, Uyo, Enugu, Aba, and Owerri with short week-end stop in Ife. 

This type of program was so well received that Bob West and I followed the same plan when we returned in 1979. In the 1980s I returned with brother Albert Dabbs as a co-worker and in 1992, he and I returned with Keith Sharp and Tom Kinzel. Each time our major goal was working with native preachers to improve their knowledge of the Scriptures. Some of the earlier preachers who had pioneered evangelistic work in Nigeria were Leslie Diestelkamp, Jim Sassar, Bill and Sewell Hall, James Gay, Aude McKee, Paul Earnhart, Robert Speer, and Wayne Payne. These men were conservative in their application of biblical principles and the older native preachers with whom I worked reflected the thinking of these men. Unfortunately, many of these men who were regarded by other brethren as leaders have fallen asleep. Among these are S.J. Ebong and Sammy Awak in the Calabar area, E.J. Ebong, E.A.Ufot, and Etim Ituen in Uyo, Alozie Nwachuckwu and S.S. Barrah of Aba, Ben Chimeziri of Owerri, and D.D. Isong of Lagos. 

A new generation of preachers has arisen and it was largely with these that my last trips were spent in work. While we have taught plainly in classes against present digressive trends in the church, particularly in America, and that these will be imported into Nigerian churches it seems to me that a very large segment of these brethren have not grasped or comprehended the dangers of those problems for Nigerian churches. Liberal brethren in the eastern part of Nigeria have used a school for training preachers and now have plans for the erection of a similar one in the west near Lagos. Nigerian churches are so preacher dependent for teaching and leadership that most of them readily accept preachers trained in these schools and as a result much of the work done by American preachers who lived there in the 50s and 60s has fallen under the control of the liberal persuasion. 

To my knowledge no conservative preachers from America have gone to Nigeria since the last group which I led there in 1992. I have received many appeals from preacher brethren in different parts of the country who attended our classes for someone to return to help and encourage them. Brother E.J. Ebong, while living, began a preacher training program in Uyo and brother Moore has been instrumental in encouraging brethren here to support men who wish to prepare themselves for preaching by going through this. Since his death George Ekong has kept this program going. Recently Sunday Ayandare and Ezekiel Akinyemi have begun a similar program in Ibadan. Corruption in government has kept the Nigerian economy in shambles and theft in the mail system has caused many American churches to lose interest in supporting men, hence, Nigerian preachers have a very hard way of life. Most lack finances to educate their children, many eat but one meal a day, and most preachers are lacking in good study books to help advance their knowledge of God’s word and become better teachers of it. Nigeria remains a good field for making evangelistic investments. As brother Leslie used to say one can almost see immediate results from his work there.
 
9109 Enid, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72903,fsarcoc@juno.com

By James P. Needham

Labels are used to inform. They tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are very common in religion; there are Calvinists, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. These labels tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are not unusual in the church when divisions occur. A hundred and fifty years ago the church divided over the missionary society and instrumental music. Those who promoted these innovations called themselves “progressives.” Those who opposed them were called “non-progressives.” Then there was division over whether it is scriptural to have multiple communion containers on the Lord’s table and multi-level Bible classes. Those who held to these ideas were called “antis,” “one-cuppers,” and “no-class brethren.”

In our life time we have witnessed division over centralized control of congregational resources under the sponsoring church arrangement where the sponsoring church receives funds and their oversight from several churches to do certain works, and whether churches can scripturally subsidize human organizations to do what is thought to be the work of the church, such as colleges, orphan and old folks homes. Those who promoted these innovations are called liberals and those who oppose them are called conservatives, and a few other choice epithets I won’t mention here. 

As time has passed, the liberals have divided into other groups over what liberties could be taken with the word of God. They have now split into two opposing camps: Conservative liberals and ultra-liberals. 

Ultra-Liberals 

The ultra-liberals are the ones pushing for “a new hermeneutic,” that is, a new way of interpreting the Bible. They deny that the Bible is a pattern. They deny that we can determine authority from examples and necessary inferences. Here are some of the positions taken by this group:

1. Instrumental music in worship is not unscriptural. Some of these churches have instrumental and non-instrumental services. One of their preachers said, “I don’t go around preaching against instrumental music.”
2. The church of Christ is a denomination.
3. There are Christians in all the denominations.
4. Church is always supposed to be a party.
5. They fellowship Christian Church preachers. (The Christian Church is the result of the division 150 years ago over the missionary society and instrumental music.)
6. We are saved by grace only. 
7. Church grants to human institutions, including secular schools and colleges operated by brethren.
8. General benevolence, which looks upon the mission of the church as a sort of a sanctified Red Cross society whose mission it is to improve people’s standard of living, sometimes called the “social gospel.”
9. We need a new hermeneutic; a new way of interpreting the Bible. Which is not new at all. Their concept originated in modernism in the 19th century. It denies any pattern authority in the New Testament.

Conservative Liberals 

The conservative liberals were once with those who are now the ultra-liberals. Originally they were all in the same boat. The more conservative among the liberals broke camp with them when they carried their hermeneutic to its logical conclusion. The breaking point was the preaching of error on the Herald of Truth radio program. They abandoned the Herald of Truth, but continue to defend and practice the sponsoring church concept. Under the leadership of Ira Rice, Jr., the conservative liberals have waged a heated battle against the excesses of the ultra-liberals, but have never renounced the issues that     divided us in the first place, namely, subsidizing of human institutions from the church treasury or the unscriptural cooperation of churches, known as sponsoring churches, by which the Herald of Truth radio and TV programs are operated. They are against church-furnished recreation of all types, and the fellowshipping of the Christian church. They claim to be against church support of secular colleges and schools though they say very little on this issue. 

They have a good deal more in common with us conservatives than with the ultra-liberals, but they bear strong feelings against us and have isolated themselves from both camps. They call us “antis” and never miss an opportunity to bash us in their papers, and continue to have occasional debates with us on these issues, though these are becoming fewer and fewer. This group is undergoing a good deal of controversy at the moment over whether all service is worship and the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are having some very heated discussions in their papers. 

Conservatives 

The conservatives today can express nearly all their positions from the liberals’ writings of the 1930s and 40s. Nearly every one of them, and especially the leaders among them, used to take the exact same positions that we take on institutionalism, congregational cooperation, and church-furnished recreation, contributions to colleges, etc. If anyone doubts this I’ll be happy to document it from my files. In fact I learned much that I know about these matters as a young preacher from studying the preaching and writing of Guy N. Woods, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., G.K. Wallace, Glenn Wallace, A.C. Pullias, Charles Holt, B.C. Goodpasture, E.R. Harper, N.B. Hardeman, etc. all of whom cast their influence in the camps of the liberals. In the early days of this controversy there were several debates between conservative preachers and those who went liberal. They were confronted with quotations from their past writings. It didn’t take long for them to decide they didn’t want any more debates! They were challenged to answer themselves.

It is difficult to explain what happens to people who know the truth and then depart from it, but it happens. It happened in the first century; it happened in the 19th century, and it has happened in the 20th century, and I guess it will keep on happening. Maybe there is an answer in these two passages of scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would (no doubt) have continued with us: but (they went out), that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. When the devil gets in the church there has to be some way to get him out. Really the only right way to do that is to stand stedfastly for the truth. When that is done, the devil will flee from us, but he won’t stay gone (Jas. 4:7).

What of The Future? 

Conservative brethren are the only hope for saving a remnant today, and yet that is becoming more and more precarious day by day. There is a general wave of softness creeping over conservatives today similar to that which preceded the apostasy of the 1940s through the 1970s. This soft attitude, like in the past, cries out for only positive preaching and writing and for unity-in-diversity; you believe it your way and I’ll believe it mine, and I’ll meet you in heaven! They want to dispose of differences over things that matter to God which are plainly taught in the Scriptures by governing them by the principles stated in Romans 14, that govern things that don’t matter to God. The end result is that they claim God doesn’t care what one believes on the marriage question, etc. It’s not hard to see where this will lead them. It is a fact of history that often today’s radical is tomorrow’s liberal.

Another issue that has come to the forefront is a false interpretation of Genesis 1. There are two main positions: (1) the days of Genesis 1 are not seven literal contiguous solar days of 24 hours, but long periods of time, perhaps even millions of years. (2) The days are literal 24-hour days, but there are gaps between them, perhaps millions of years. Both are futile efforts to harmonize the Bible with the speculations of so-called modern day science. 

Discussion of this matter has been quite intense in the last year, and there is a willingness on the part of some conservative brethren to tolerate it, to slip it under the umbrella of Romans 14 like in the discussion of the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question. Some are saying they don’t believe these concepts, but they are willing to make room for those who do. This is “unity-in-diversity,” purely and simply, though some don’t like the label. If this is not a proper label, what label would be appropriate? Is it really true that we can’t see the Bible alike? The church has not seen the last of division over human wisdom and doctrines. There is a major apostasy in every generation. History will bear this out. 

Is It Wrong?

I hear by way of the grapevine that some are criticizing me for mentioning the names of people with whom I disagree and putting it on the Internet. Of course, this is nothing new. Every gospel preacher who defends the truth against error has the same result. I am told that I should have gone to these people personally. I wonder if they would give this same advice to the apostle John in the case of Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10), the apostle Paul in the cases  of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:14), in the case of the Corinthian church, and Paul’s rebuke of Peter before the whole church at Antioch (Gal. 2). Hundreds of millions more people have read these criticisms of persons by name than will ever read mine.

If a person thinks his doctrine or actions are scriptural, why would he resent having his name attached to them? Does he teach truths and commit actions of which he is ashamed, even though he feels they are scriptural? Paul warned about being ashamed of the gospel and those who defend it (Rom. 1:15; 2 Tim 1:12, 16). Or does he realize his actions are not scriptural, so wants to keep them hidden or isolated in the area where they are taught or committed? 

It is obvious that some brethren think exposing error is not part of the doctrine of Christ. If this is true, I wonder why such occupies such a large portion of divine revelation, both in the Old and New Testaments. Why did Christ spend so much of his time exposing the doctrines of the Jewish sects and the Rabbis? It was the late Cled Wallace who said we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles. Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). That’s good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone. 

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789