Truth Magazine

By Bill J. Humble

Ever since the earliest days of the restoration movement journals have exerted a great influence in molding brotherhood thought. Entering thousands of homes over widespread areas, these papers have served to acquaint brethren with the progress of the church elsewhere, draw brethren together, and crystallize thinking on brotherhood problems.

The influence of brotherhood papers is well illustrated by such journals as the Christian Baptist, Gospel Advocate and many others. Established in 1823, the Christian Baptist was published by Alexander Campbell while he was still preaching among the Baptist churches, and its influence was so great that when Campbell finally withdrew from the Baptists, thousands joined him in the work of restoring New Testament Christianity. A half-century later, David Lipscomb published the Gospel Advocate, and almost singlehandedly, he stayed the tide of digression in the South. Let no one doubt the influence of religious journals!

Good or Bad?

The question is often asked, “Has the influence of these papers been good or bad? Have they been guardians or disturbers of the faith?” Unfortunately, the answer must be: both! The influence of the papers, as with men, has been both good and bad. The papers have done much to advocate the restoration of the New Testament church; they have converted thousands to this plea; they have drawn the brethren together and encouraged them to greater zeal and activity. This is the positive good side, but the bad is also there. The papers have sometimes abandoned and opposed the restoration ideal, promoted unsriptural ideas, and brought controversy and division to the brotherhood. There have been some who have exclaimed disgustedly, “The church would have been far better off had these papers never existed.” Of some papers, but not all, this is true!

Surprisingly, the same paper has sometimes been both a guardian and disturber of the faith at various periods in its history. The restoration movement would never have grown so rapidly during the decade of the 1830s had it not been for the Millennial Harbinger, but after congregations had been established in many areas, Campbell became the champion of a national missionary society, through which these congregations might cooperate in evangelism. For nearly ten years before the American Christian Missionary Society was established in 1849, Campbell wrote article after article pleading for such “cooperation.” Had it not been for the influence of Campbell and the Harbinger, the society would not have been established in 1849. Now, was the Harbinger a guardian or disturber of the faith? It was both; for upon the society question, at least Campbell abandoned the very principles which had given birth to the paper.

The American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin in the decades after the Civil War, was at one time the most influential paper in the entire brotherhood, and it opposed the missionary society vigorously. Franklin’s Review was undoubtedly a staunch guardian of the faith. Yet, in later years the Review fell into the hands of brethren who used it to oppose “located preachers” and colleges operated by Christians. The Review thus became a disturber of the faith, promoting views which cannot be defended by God’s word, sowing discord and division among brethren.

Since papers have been, and will probably continue to be, both guardians and disturbers of the faith, how may we determine whether the influence of any particular paper is good or bad, whether it is defending truth or disturbing brethren? The following general principles should help us to answer this question.

Guardian of the Faith

If a religious journal is to be a guardian of the faith: 

1. It must stand for the faith! This is actually the fundamental test, and all else is secondary. If a paper is teaching the truth, it is a guardian of the faith. The paper may not be large and influential; it may not be popular. (David Lipscomb was always pictured as a “mean ill-tempered little man” by the majority who favored the society.) But only truth, not circulation or influence, can determine whether any journal is defending the faith.

If a paper has a scriptural attitude toward truth, its writers will admit, “This paper is fallible, but the New Testament is infallible.” The readers will be admonished to search for a “thus saith the Lord,” not for a “thus saith the paper.”

2. It must allow brethren to discuss questions and problems freely. This spirit of free inquiry lies at the very heart of the restoration ideal. The idea of “restoring” New Testament Christianity implies a search for long-lost truth, and this necessitates study, inquiry, and discussion. Our brethren have always believed that as they study scriptural questions and weigh controversial issues, they draw nearer the truth, and the religious papers have always served as a medium through which these discussions should be conducted.

The willingness of such great editors as Campbell, Franklin, and Lipscomb to open their columns to those of opposing views is an index to their greatness. Searching for truth, they encouraged frank discussions of controversial issues.

3. It must be interested in presenting truth in love, not in crucifying some brother or group of brethren. The paper must be an instrument of truth, not a weapon of character assassination. Let the brethren ponder their problems, but let them do it in love and understanding.

Disturber of the Faith

On the other hand, a religious journal becomes a disturber of the faith whenever:

1. It teaches false doctrine. Again, this is the basic test. When a paper defends a teaching not in harmony with the New Testament, when it “rides some hobby” (as brethren often put it), the paper becomes a disturber of the brethren. The paper need not be small to be guilty. It could be a large and influential journal, even supported by a majority of the brotherhood; but when it teaches false doctrine, it is disturbing the faith. Just after the Civil War, it was the small and unpopular Advocate which said, “Each local congregation is sufficient to do the work God has given it,” while the larger papers favored the society.

Today, there are some papers which disturb the faith by teaching that it is wrong for brethren to operate Christian schools. They charge that the school is doing the work of the church, but these papers err in failing to distinguish between congregational and individual responsibilities. On the other hand, some brethren go to the opposite extreme and insist that the churches may subsidize the colleges out of the church treasury. But if the college is not doing the work of the church, what right does it have to be supported out of the churches’ treasuries? None! When a paper teaches that the college may be included in the church budget, it is a disturber of the faith, just as certainly as if it went to the opposite extreme.

2. The paper becomes “the” authority. There is nothing more dangerous than for a paper to become so influential with a segment of brethren that they say, “I have such confidence in that paper and its editor that I’d believe nearly anything I read in it.” When brethren become that loyal to any paper, the seeds of disaster have been sown. Unwittingly perhaps, that authority of men has been substituted for revelation.

This is exactly what happened in the decade of the 1840s, when the way was being prepared for the society. When Campbell began to plead for a means by which the churches might work together, the majority of brethren said, “We have such confidence in Bro. Campbell and the Harbinger that we just don’t see how he could be wrong.” And disaster struck!

3. The paper abandons the “sound doctrine” for which it once contended. We do not preach “once safe, always safe” and the fact that a paper once was sound in teaching does not guarantee it perpetual soundness. The American Christian Review, once an effective instrument for good, later became a disturber of the faith.

Even today, brethren who once preached the autonomy and all sufficiency of the local congregation shudder when some preacher announces that he will discuss these same themes; for they fear that some “pet institution” may be criticized. Could it be that principles are being abandoned?

4. The paper refuses to allow brethren to study vital problems. When any paper stifles free discussion of current issues, it assumes an omniscience which Campbell, Lard, and Lipscomb dared not assume. When thousands of sincere brethren conscientiously question some practice and ask that it be studied in the light of the New Testament, and when some paper defends the practice by saying, “We are teaching the truth on this question, and no hobbyist on the other side has any right to be heard,” that paper is treading the brink of disaster. Let brethren discuss the questions which confront the church! Truth will prevail! But let no  paper become so arrogant that it says, “What we teach is the end of truth. No further discussion is necessary.”

Let all papers say, “Our quest is for truth; our spirit is brotherly kindness; our aim is to present all views fairly.” And a grateful brotherhood will rise up and say, “These papers are all guardians of the gospel.”

(Taken from The Preceptor, July 1956)
Truth Magazine II:5, February 1958, 10-11, 15

Slouching Toward Gomorrah 
by Robert Bork 
Price: $14.00 (paperback)

This 1996 publication by the man rejected as Supreme Court justice because of the liberal’s litmus test on abortion demonstrates the conservative values that made him so repulsive to the media and congressional elite. Bork emphasizes the radical social changes that have occurred in American society as the 1960s hippies have moved into leadership positions in universities, judiciary, and politics to impose their radical view of society on the American public. He writes as a professor from Yale University who witnessed its administration’s capitulation to the demands of the radical students of the 1960s. 

Bork writes, not as a preacher measuring society by the standard of the Bible, but as a judicial expert concerned about modern trends in American society away from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Nevertheless, he appreciates Western values based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic.

Included in this book is Bork’s assessment that the universities are propagandists for (89) and the courts are enforcers of the liberal social view (114). He demonstrates the latter by the court’s refusal to allow the populace view of abortion or euthanasia to be legislated through the enactment of law, choosing rather to impose their minority moral values on the majority by enforcing their values as the law of the land through judicial decisions. In this he develops his theme that liberalism ultimately leads to coercion (5-6). 

Bork also notices the changes that have occurred in American churches during this period. He writes:

. . . Religion, morality, and law do that (that is, have an impatience with anything that interferes with personal convenience, mw), which accounts for the tendency of modern religion to eschew proscriptions and commandments and turn to counseling and therapeutic sermons; of morality to be relativized; and of law, particularly criminal law, to be soft and uncertain. Religion tends to be strongest when life is hard, and the same may be said of morality and law. A person whose main difficulty is not crop failure but video breakdown has less need of the consolations and promises of religion (9).
He also noticed the changes in preaching.

It is not helpful that the ideas of salvation and damnation, of sin and virtue, which once played major roles in Christian belief, are now almost never heard of in the mainline churches. The sermons and homilies are now almost exclusively about love, kindness, and eternal life. That may be regarded, particularly by the sentimental, as an improvement in humaneness, indeed in civility, but it also means an alteration in the teaching of Christianity that makes the religion less powerful as a moral force. The carrot alone has never been a wholly adequate incentive to desired behavior (293). Progressing through the significant social conflicts since the 1960s, Bork demonstrates the liberal agenda and its impact on modern society.

The book is particularly interesting to my generation because it discusses the events that we have witnessed in our lives and what impact they have had on this present generation. The book is not enjoyable reading, because the triumph of paganism in American values is depressing, but it is enlightening. 

Mike Willis,6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Walton Weaver

Paul had a great desire to go to Rome. He knew however that if such an opportunity presented itself, God would have to open up the way. His prayer that God might do this for him is given to us in Romans 1:10: “Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.” He often shows his awareness of God’s involvement in the everyday affairs of his life by the use of the expression “if the Lord (God) wills” (Acts 18:21; 1 Cor. 4:19; 16:7). We have to be careful lest we find ourselves living on the basis of human willfulness rather than the Divine will.

God’s providential will is not always according to our own wishes or desires. When Paul prayed that he might have a prosperous journey to Rome he likely had in mind a pleasant and comfortable journey. But let’s notice how God answered Paul’s prayer.

Many Hardships Endured on the Way

All was not easy. Things did not prove to be as pleasant and comfortable as Paul might have liked. After he prayed this prayer notice the kind of things that happened to him.

1. He was persecuted by the Jews. After Paul had come to Jerusalem for the last time, upon seeing him in the temple certain Jews from Asia “stirred up all the people and laid hands on him” (Acts 21:27). They accused him of teaching against the people, the law, and the temple. They also accused him of desecrating the temple by taking Gentiles into it, which they “supposed” he had done. After seizing Paul and dragging him out of the temple, they began beating him, and they set out to kill him, and would have done so, had it not been for the fact that word came to the chief captain of the band of soldiers that all of Jerusalem was in an uproar. They stopped beating Paul when they saw the chief captain and his soldiers. After he had been taken into custody by the chief captain (Acts 21:33), Paul asked to speak to the people and he was given permission to do so (Acts 21:39-40).

The Jews gave a receptive ear to Paul’s message until he spoke of his work among the Gentiles (Acts 22:21-22). “And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air” (Acts 22:22-23). This led the chief captain to command that Paul be brought into the castle where he had planned to examine Paul by scourging. But this plan was abandoned when Paul informed him that he was a Roman. The next day the chief captain allowed him to present his case before the chief priests and their council. This permission was granted to Paul for his own personal benefit. The chief captain wanted to know “the certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews.”

In his speech before the council Paul intentionally turned the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other by making reference to the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees sided with Paul since they believed in a resurrection from the dead (Acts 23:9). The dissension between the two groups became so severe that “the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle” (v. 10). The following night the Lord stood by Paul and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome” (v. 11). The next day Paul barely escaped a plot to kill him. He would not have escaped had it not been for a nephew who informed him of the plot. Paul sent him to the chief captain, who, upon learning of the plot, put together a large number of soldiers, horsemen, and spearmen to safely transport Paul to Caesarea.

2. He was brought before various Roman officials.  In Caesarea Paul first appeared before Felix the governor. A letter had been sent by Claudius Lysias to the governor informing him of his rescue of Paul from the Jews and his knowledge of the nature of the charges brought against  him which he had learned by Paul’s appearance before the Jewish council. He told the governor that their charges had to do with their law, and therefore Paul had “nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds” (Acts 23:29). When Felix learned that Paul was of the province of Cilicia he agreed to have Paul and his accusers brought before him to hear his case (Acts 23:34-35). Luke gives an account of Paul’s defense before Felix in Acts 24. The last verse of this chapter tells us that Paul remained in prison in Caesarea for a period of two years, and at the end of this period Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus.

Only three days after succeeding Felix, Festus made a trip to Jerusalem. Upon his arrival at Jerusalem the Jews immediately made request of him that he would send for Paul to bring him to Jerusalem, “laying wait in the way to kill him” (Acts 25:3). Festus refused to give in to their request, but he did agree to allow their leaders to go to Caesarea and told them he would hear their case against Paul there. After hearing the charges against Paul and Paul’s answer, Festus would have allowed Paul to go to Jerusalem and be tried before the Jews there, but Paul refused, saying, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews I have done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I am an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar” (Acts 25:10-11). In a matter of only a few days Agrippa came to Caesarea to visit Festus. After Festus had fully informed the king about Paul’s case, and the request Paul had made to appear before Caesar Augustus, Agrippa told Festus he would also hear Paul himself (Acts 25:22). Paul’s defense before Agrippa is reported by Luke in Acts 26. After hearing Paul’s case, Agrippa said to Festus, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (Acts 26:32).

3. He suffered shipwreck. Acts 27 gives a full account of Paul’s trip by ship from Caesarea to Italy, and all the troubles encountered along the way. Not long after setting sail they began to encounter contrary winds. After some days of hard sailing and it had become certain that “sailing was now dangerous,” Paul warned them not to proceed (Acts 27:10), but “the centurion believed the master and owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul” (Acts 27:11). So they set sail hoping to get to Phenice and winter there. But shortly after they had sailed by Crete there arose a “tempestuous wind, called Eurocyldon” (Acts 27:14), and from that point onward shipwreck was inevitable. Luke gives a detailed account of all the attempts that were made to avoid it, but eventually everything was lost except that no life was taken, just as Paul had been promised by the angel of God (Acts 27:21-26). After coming onto the island Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake, but he “shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm” (Acts 28:5).

Was Paul’s Journey a Prosperous One?

With all these hardships being encountered before he finally arrived in Rome — persecution by the Jews; arrest by the Romans, and imprisoned in Caesarea for two years; trials before Felix, Festus and Agrippa; suffering a shipwreck; being bitten by a viper — was Paul’s journey to Rome a prosperous journey? This was what he had prayed for when he said, “Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you” (Rom. 1:10).

There are several reasons why we may say that Paul’s journey to Rome was indeed a prosperous journey.

1. It was a journey made “by the will of God.” Notice that on two occasions in particular the divine record tells us that the Lord stood by Paul to reassure him. After the chief captain rescued Paul from the hands of the Jews and took him into custody, the very next night “the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome” (Acts 23:11). Also, after Paul had been opposed by the centurion (Acts 27:11) and it was certain to Paul that the ship was going to be lost, Paul says, “There stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul: thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee” (Acts 27:23-24). The Lord stands by those who stay close to him, so that their journey may be prosperous even though not free from adversity.

2. It was a journey that opened up doors of opportunity to testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before Felix Paul “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). Festus heard him speak of “one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive” (Acts 25:19). Paul was able to affirm before both Festus and Agrippa all the work he had done among both the Jews and Gentiles: “Whereupon, O king Agrippa,” he said, “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:19-20). He also preached Christ from the prophets and Moses, “that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). On the island of Melita Paul healed many people of diseases, and as a result these barbarous people loaded them with such things as were necessary for them to make their voyage on to Rome (Acts 28:1-10).

3. In Rome the same opportunities were afforded him. As Paul drew near to Rome his journey was prosperous because the brethren had heard about his coming and came out to meet him. When Paul saw them, he “thanked God and took courage” (Acts 28:15). Even while imprisoned at Rome he appears to have been given private quarters (Acts 28:16). During this two years imprisonment he had “his own hired house, and received all that come unto him. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him” (Acts 28:30-31). During this two years period of imprisonment Paul wrote four of his letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. To the Philippians he said, “But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel” (Phil. 1:12), and, “All the saints salute you, chiefly they that of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22) — meaning that he had had much success in reaching some in Caesar’s household with the gospel.

A prosperous journey indeed!

By Dick Blackford

Does the Bible teach that if one is truly trying to find God that God will make it possible for him to do so? I am firmly convinced that it does.

The Old Testament

The children of Israel were told, “But if . . . thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all they heart and with all thy soul” (Deut. 4:29).

David told Solomon, “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee . . .” (1 Chron. 28:9). He was also told that if he forsook the Lord “he will cast thee off forever.” However, we learn that the “Lord hath not forsaken them that seek thee” (Ps. 9:10). “Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord and his strength, seek his face continually” (1 Chron. 16:11). Jehovah says in Proverbs 8:17, “I love them that love me; and those who seek me early shall find me.” 

The New Testament

Jesus says, “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (John 7:17). He also said, “he that seeketh findeth” (Matt. 7:7, 8).

Cornelius sought to do the will of God and to please him in every way he knew. God made it possible for Cornelius to hear the truth. We don’t know what Cornelius prayed for, but God’s answer was to send an “earthen vessel” (Simon Peter) to preach unto him the truth that would save him (Acts 10:4, 5; 11:18).

The Ethiopian eunuch was a man seeking to know God’s will (Acts 8). God’s answer to him was to send Philip who taught and baptized him.

Saul of Tarsus was a sincere seeker after God. He had a “conscience void of offense toward God and man always” (Acts 24:16). God knew that about Saul and he sent Ananias to tell him what he must do. Saul did it and became a Christian (Acts 22:16).

Conclusion

Where is the sincere seeker after truth whom God turned down? God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34, 35). If he allows some sincere seekers to find him but not others then his love is arbitrary. These Scriptures help us to learn better. God is “a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).

P.O. Box 30321, State University, Arkansas 72467