“Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that “Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt theit may be displayed because of truth.“-(Psalm 60:4.) voice unto them.“-(Isa. 13:2.)

[ No. X Devoted To The Defense Of The Church Against All Errors And Innovations MAY 191

PUT,,:UP THY . FIST, ‘BROTHERCLED E.

A brother of ours in the flesh and in the Lord has writ-ten a personal letter to the man who heaped personal abuseon the editor of the Bible Banner in an article which ex-ceeds in bitterness anything that has come under my ob-servation. The guilty wretch, of course, published the let-ter, assumed a grotesque air of injured innocence and pious-ly proclaimed to his readers that he was being persecutedjust like his Lord was. Now, as to the letter, I have someobservations of my own to make about it, inasmuch as ithas been published, even if it does involve a rebuke to a be-loved brother. The letter was of that kind which we all feellike writing at times, but should never mail. He called themisguided and soured author of the article “a liar” andexpressed an unmistakable and fervent desire to twist hisnose and otherwise mess up his countenance. Now, I can-not agree to that. The feeling, under the circumstances, isno doubt a natural one, especially in a magnificient giantwho has had army training, but remember, son, that we arenot in that sort of a fight. We have become partakers ofthe divine nature and fists and clubs and abusive languageare definitely out. If any literal blood is shed in this con-flict it will be ours; not theirs. A lot of our friends are like-ly to feel some applause rising within them for the person-al sentiments expressed by this brother of ours and whatI am saying is for their benefit as well as his.

In the first place, you should not have called him a liar.It was bad strategy and so unnecessary. I am not pre-pared to attack the accuracy of your remarks along thatparticular line, but then, why tell him? He knows the factsas well as you do and your telling him what he alreadyknew added nothing constructive to the controversy. A manof his type of thinking would not even resent the insult, butbe filled with glee over the fact that you were mad enoughto “match adjectives” with him. It gives him a feeling ofimportance to know that he was able to get under your skinlike that. Your letter reveals a loss of poise on your partwhich is unlike you, and which I do not like to see, as muchas I appreciate your natural feeling and affection for us.Another thing, you are old enough to know, and have been

WALLACE

around enough to know, that when a man gets as mad asthe fellow is you wrote that letter to, you just naturallycan’t expect too much of him in the way of telling thetruth. He just couldn’t if he wanted to, and he just natural-ly can’t want to in that explosive frame of mind. So yourfirst mistake was in calling him a liar. You are entitledto your personal opinion, but you should have kept it to your-self, or at least a little closer home.

In the next place you are clearly wrong in your ex-pressed desire to twist or mash some blood from his pro-boscis. Remember what happened to Peter when he slicedthat fellow’s ear off. Peter possibly didn’t aim to. Thereis a suspicion that he aimed to cut his head off and the fel-low dodged. Anyhow the affair didn’t tickle the Lord a lit-tle bit. He put that fellow’s ear right back on. We don’twant anybody, much less somebody in the family, goingaround knocking somebody’s face out of plumb because ofanything he says about us. If I could be there and hadthe power to straighten it back up, it might not be so bad,but then I can’t do that you know.

Another thing, your judgment has not kept apace withyour anger. Just think a little son. You’ve got sense. Di-agnose his trouble, the man you wrote that letter to, andincidentally gave him a cue for a martyr act. The firstthing that ought to occur to you, being a man of judgmentwhen you are not writing a fool letter like that, is thatblood-letting is not even a remedy, much less a cure, forthe trouble he has. You can’t reach it with your fist ortwist it out of him. Even a chiropractor couldn’t cure him.There is nothing I know of that could help him except “thelove of God shed abroad in our hearts through the HolyGhost” and he has been repeatedly exposed to that and itdidn’t take. Of course your letter didn’t do any good ei-ther. So unfold those doubled up hams of yours, stick themin your pockets, clear the cob-webs from your brain, liftyour chin and smile, even disdainful like will be pardonable,and abuse won’t hurt you, even as it is not hurting us. Weare not afraid of what our friends will think, and we don’tcare what our enemies do.

2 THE BIBLE BANNER

THE INFIDELITY OF GOD’SPEOPLE

Jeremiah’s condemnation of the evils of God’s peoplewas the editorial caption in the former issue of the BibleBanner. His condemnation of their infidelity is the presentsubject.

The conduct of Israel toward God had become as a gad-ding bride. Jeremiah rebuked her fickleness. ‘Why gad-dest thou about so much as to change thy ways?” (Jer.2:36). One of the most forbidding things a woman can do isto gad about. It is the outward sign of an inward incon-stancy, of changing desires, of a capricious attitude, inshort a seeking of interest other than in the palace of herown home and in the contement of her husband’s love.

THAT WAS Jeremiah’s diagnosis of Israel’s trouble. Shewas gadding about. She had gone after strange lovers. Shesaid, “I have loved strangers and after them will I go.”(Jer. 2:25) In Israel’s folly God’s people had “changed theirglory for that which doth not profit” and in their unexampledbacksliding the prophet’s only hope for them in their ex-tremes was that “thine own wickedness shall correct theeand thy backsliding shall reprove thee.” (Jer. 2:19)

Has the church, like Israel, gone gadding about? Ts itnot possible that some of the trouble we are having withcertain issues is due to a general attitude of softness to-ward all questions of doctrine? Any weakness in the at-titude of the church toward sound doctrine, or a let-up inits defense of the truth, is but a repetition of Israel’s folly.It is going after strange lovers. “Hath a nation changed itsgods, which yet are no gods? But my people have changedtheir glory for that which doth not profit.” (Jer. 2:ll).

Israel’s improbity was compared to the bride’s infidel-ity. “Can the maid forget her ornaments or the bride herattire? Yet my people have forgotten me days withoutnumber. How trimmest thou thy way to seek love! There-fore even the wicked woman has thou taught thy ways.”(Jer. 2:32, 33) No virgin forgets the ornaments that adornher; a bride, no matter how long married, never forgetsher wedding attire. But in her conduct Israel had cast offand forgotten the righteous ways that adorned her as God’sbride.

To the extent that the church forgets New Testamentprinciples, the bride is forgetting her attire. Let us con-duct an introspection-look into the thingswhich the churchof Christ should not forget.

I. AUTONOMY-TBE CHURCH AS A DIVINEORGANIZATION

The provisional organization of the New Testamentchurch was the order of super-naturally endowed men, forthe guidance and edification of the church while the will ofGod was in the process of revelation and completion. Thisorder of apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, teachers,was designed to safeguard the church against error in theabsence of the revealed word, that the church be not “toss-ed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of er-ror. ” These endowments were to continue only until thechurch should “attain unto the unity of the faith and of theknowledge of the Son of God.” (Eph. 4:1-16) The word ofGod was then in the man-the supernaturally endowed man-and not in the book; and being in the man was what Paulcalled “knowing in part,” as no inspired teacher gave the

MAY 1941

which is perfect” (1 Cor. 13) was come, that is, when all theparts and fragments of God’s revelation were put into thewhole of God’s word; it was fragmentary. But when “thatwhich is perfect” (1 Cor. 131 was come, that is, when all theparts and fragments of God’s Revelation were put into’one perfect whole-the New Testament-then that whichwas “in part” ceased-the supernatural provisional orderended.

The permanent organization of the church is that of eld-ers, deacons and members. Elders, with the qualifications .set forth by Paul to Timothy and Titus, to rule by enforcingthe teaching of the word of God; deacons, as assistants tothe elders, to serve the church in benevolent ministries:members, subservient to the divine arrangement to workout their salvation, God working in us “to will and to do”as we keep ourselves useful. As for preachers, their hum-ble god-fearing task is to faithfully proclaim the gospel ofChrist, leaving the executive administration of the affairsof the church with the elders where God put it. If this divineplan fails to function, the fault is not with the plan, butwith our failure to respect it and work it. The plan is per-fect because it is God’s and any substitute will prove a fail-ure because it is man’s.

The organization argument has been concisely statedin one sentence, which is eminently true, and is a safe ruleof action, namely: Any organization larger than the localchurch or smaller than the local church is an unscripturalorganization through which to do the work of the church.Indeed, there are methods of doing what is commanded,but they must be the church’s methods and within the scopeof the thing commanded. The church has no right to doanything, as a church, that God has not commanded thechurch to do. Nor does a Christian have the right to dothrough another organization that which God has command-ed the church, as such, to do. Organizations are not meth-ods. The missionary society is not a method: it is an in-stitution. A Sunday School, a class or classes on Sunday,may be a very effective arrangement for teaching; but theyoften extend into organizations. It seems that nothing canbe done these days without being overdone. It is not in-frequent now that we find classes in the churches organiz-ed; children’s classes, young people’s classes, women’sclasses, men’s classes, all with their presidents, secretar-ies, treasurers, operating as organized grouns in perform-ing the precise functions of the church. This perverts thevery purpose of a class from that of teaching to a financialauxiliary; a miniature organization. It becomes an in-fringement upon the divine arrangement. As a matter offact, if one group has a right to so function. every grouphas the same right, which if exercised would destroy theoneness of the church and its unified work. For the samereason that there can be no outside organizations to viewith the church, there should be no inside auxiliaries oflike nature to function in the same way from within. Thechurch, like the human body directed by its head, shouldfunction in unison.

The autonomy of the local church-its fret, independent,self-government-is opposed to all forms of ecclesiasticalcontrol. Nor can congregations be scripturally tied togeth-er by inter-organization. If churches of Christ were so tiedtogether, the mistakes and errors of one would affect thewhole body. But in the autonomy of the local church, themistakes and errors of one church affect only that church,and the others remain free. The wisdom of God so orderedit. The fallacy of man changes it.

-THE BIBLE BANNER is published the first of each month at 101 S. Second St., Guthrie, Okla. Entered as second classmatter February 24, 1939, at Post Office in Guthrie, Okla., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Subscription rate $1.00 per yearIn advance. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publisher and Editor. Cled E. Wallace, John T. Lewis, Austin Taylor, Associate Editors.NOTICE: Address all matter for publication or notice of change of address to P. 0. Box 1804, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

MAY 1941

II. TEACHING-THE CHURCH AS THE PILLARANH GROUND OF THE TRUTH

Being the pillar and support of the truth (2 Tim. 3:15)the church cannot be too careful to maintain soundnessin doctrine. So important is sound doctrine that Paul toldTimothy to preach it “in season; out of season.” That evi-denly means all of he time for it is either in season or itis out of season all of the time. There is doctrine, or teach-ing, that fits every occasion, and while its application shouldbe made according to the fitness of things, the preacher whopreaches on baptism at a funeral is to be preferred to theone who does not preach on it when he should.

Indifferentism is the order of the day. People are un-concerned about doctrine. They think that gospel preach-ing is only “questions about words and names” (Acts 18:14, 17) and like Gallio who “cared for none of these things”they are indifferent. This sentiment not only prevails inthe world, it gains currency in the church. When Paulsaid “the time will come when they will not endure sounddoctrine” he did not refer to the world; but to those who“having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers af-ter their own lusts.” Who heaps the teachers? That is evi-dently the church. Then Paul forecast conditions in thechurch, when the ears of the members would itch for some-thing other than sound doctrine, who would seek teacherswhose teaching would have the same soothing effect ontheir desires that scratching has on the spot that itches.

The strength of the churches of Christ has been in thefact that all error to us has looked alike, from infidelity toevery false way. Owen, the infidel; Purcell, the Catho-lic; Rice, the Denominationalist, all looked alike to Alex-ander Campbell. And he took them all in their turn. D O

we unchristianize people? We cannot if they be Christiansnor can we make Christians of those who are not by mere-ly recognizing them. To recognize as Christians those whohave not obeyed the gospel is but to break down the verybarrier that exists between the church and the world. Thechurch is undenominational, because it is not a denomina-tion; it is non-denominational, because it is not of them;and it is anti-denominational because it is against them. Theidea of Christian unity implies that those united are Chris-tans. Imagine one becoming a Christian and entering a de-nomination at the same time by the same act-and it willbe no more than a mere imagination!

It requires the same thing to become a Christian nowthat it required in the New Testament era-the same faith,the same confession, the same baptism, by which one isadded to the same church. Denominations are not back-doors nor side entrances into the church of Christ. Shallthe church go gadding about so much as to change her waysin doctrine?

III. ORDINANCES-THE CHURCH AS A TEMPLEOF WORSHIP

Contrary to the general idea, worship is divine, not hu-man. The object of all ‘true worship is God; its purpose isto please God; its acts are the commandments of God.To the woman at the well Jesus announced the two elementsof acceptable worship. “God is a spirit: and they that wor-ship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)There must be first, the right manner-in spirt; there mustbe second, the right act-in truth. Neither without the oth-er is acceptable to God. The wrong act in the right manneris void. The right act in the wrong manner is vain. Toworship truly, one must perform the right act in the rightmanner.

Ask an innovator,, Why do you want instrumental musicin the worship? Did one ever reply, Because it pleasesGod? They have said everything except that. Some say

THE BIBLE BANNER

that it is enjoyed at home, why not in the church?

3

Butthere are any number of things that are morally right, tobe utilized at home, which would be religiously wrong. Any-body can name them. And some have not quit saying thatthere are instruments of music in heaven. They are unin-formed not only on the nature of the church but also on thenature of the place called heaven, that it is a spiritualrealm. What could a spiritual being do with a materialharp? Really, does any one think that there are, or evershall be, actual mechanical instruments of music in heaven?The argument is too far-fetched to even be interesting. Stillit is urged that the use of them was permitted in the OldTestament, which can only be taken as an admission thatproof for them in the New Testament is lacking. Occas-ionally yet, some will turn so visionary as to find its use

foreordained in the prophecies, another admission of thelack of a single plain pre,cept or example. If it is thoughtto be only an expedient, it must first be shown to be lawful;then expedient. Nothing is expedient that is unlawful andsome things that are lawful are not expedient. If it is tobe adopted as an aid, let it be known that God’s commandsare not crippled and need no crutches. If an attempt ismade to class it with lights, seats, and song books, be advis-ed that in those articles of equipment no element is addedto any item of worship, but in the use of an instrument an-other element of music exists; they are, therefore, not par-allel. And, if the final effort is made to “psallo” the instru-ment into the church, the fatal question is why the one hun-dred and forty-eight translators, the world’s ripest schol-ars, did not know that the word had any such meaning.

Who wants the instruments-and why? Those whohave gone gadding about so much as to “change their gloryfor that which doth not profit.”

Instrumental music in the worship in the relic of anabrogated age. The Catholics borrowed it from theJews; the Protestants borrowed it from the Catholics; theChristian church borrowed it from the Protestants-butthe New Testament church did not use it.

IV. NAMES-DESIGNATIONS OF THENEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

In the religious nomenclature of the day one hears avolume of terms and titles which are wholly foreign to Bibleparlance. There is every sort of a church-Catholic, Episco-pal, Methodist, Presbyteri’an, Baptist, Evangelical, Reform-ed, Ad Infinitum-the world most surely wonder whetherJesus Christ ever had a church or not. While making andtaking names for the church-why not call it after theHead of it? Some will say that it sectarianizes the churchto call it “church of Christ”-but can it be sectarian to callthe church what it is? It would not help that problem anyto call it “Christian Church.” Besides, the term Christianis used only as a noun in the New Testament, applied to theindividual ,and never as an adjective, applied to thechurch. That fact alone should restrain its use as a propername for the church. If it be asserted that the expression“church of Christ” is not in the New Testament, try Rom.16: 16 on any other name. For instance, the “Baptistchurches salute you.” Or, “The Christian Churches salutesyou.” Would that constitute a designation? It is a weak at-titude that assumes it to be sectarian to designate thechurch as the church of Christ, and it indicates a fear ofunchristianizing somebody who is not a Christian.

If Christ is jealous of the church’s purity (2 Cor. 11:2, 3)and if he is solicitous of her unblemished glory (Eph. 5:25,261, the unspotted life must be worth attaining. If, then,the church has been gadding about, seeking strange lovers,“Go and proclaim these words to the north, and say, Re-turn, thou backsliding Israel, saith Jehovah; I will not lookin anger upon you; for I am merciful, saith Jehovah.”

.

I

4 THE BIBLE BANNER IhAY 1941

BROTHER ROBERSON’S“A-MILLENNIUM”

In a recent issue of the Firm Foundation, under thecaption of “The Millennium Controversy,” Brother C. H.Roberson, Head of Bible in Abilene Christian College, makesanother labored attempt to set forth his views on Premil-lennialism. He states that he is not a post-millennialist,nor a pre-millennialist, but an “a-millennialist.”

It will be remembered by the readers that BrotherRoberson’s book, “What Jesus Taught,” has been shownvery definitely to teach Premillennialism. Brother Rober-son’s friends have admitted that the statements in hisbook are premillennialism-no more, no less. Brother DonMorris, the president, admits this. But their attitude isthat the statements should be classed as “unfortunate” andthat Brother Roberson should be allowed to withdraw them,and to restate his views more clearly. When a man ofeducation and scholarship has so much difficulty in mak-ing clear his views it is the proof that his views are notclear. Most people, whether educated or not, can under-stand plain language. When a man who puts himself up asa teacher cannot use plain language to set forth his viewsthere is something wrong with what he is trying to set forth.Lawyers sometimes use language to keep from saying athing directly and to keep certain parties from seeing whatis actually said. I do not at all make such a charge againstBrother Roberson, for I regard him as a man of fine char-acter, but this is nevertheless the effect of his several ef-forts to clear himself when, as a matter of fact, a simplerepudiation of the teaching in his book, and a forthrightdeclaration -on the issues involved would have settled the“controversy” so far as he is concerned. As it stands, hehas withdrawn the remaining copies of his book from themarket in order to delete the Premillennial teaching that itcontains. But while doing so he yet attempts to justifythe objectionable teaching by affirming in each “explan-ation” what he has “always” believed and taught“throughout his entire religious life.” Then, he simply fail-ed to write what he believed in his book, but wrote whathe does not believe and is still failing in each and evervattempt to explain what he believes, as both the statementsof his book and of his explanations express exactly the op-posite of what he avows pro and con.

In his book entitled “What Jesus Taught,” BrotherRoberson says :

1. “There is a time to come when the knowledge of theLord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea,hence, it must be that our dispensation is not the last, forthe effects stated in that are not contemplated in the in-structions and results of this. So there is no millenniumprior to the second advent of Jesus.

2. “A millennium of universal righteousness and knowl-edge of the Lord is impossible until the separation takesplace at the harvest” (“the end of the world,” or “theend of the age”).

3. The scripture warrants the belief that there will bethe blessedness of universal righteousness and prosperitythat shall fill the earth, and if so, it must be after Jesus re-turns to this earth.”

4. “From the day this parable was spoken to the hourof his coming again, He offers no place for a thousand yearsof blessedness for men on earth.”

That the above statements are premillennialism, every-body who knows premillennialism will admit. The presi-dent of Abilene Christian College has admitted that it is:other teachers in the school have admitted as much. Butthey tell US that Brother Roberson stoutly disavows believ-ing the doctrine and has withdrawn his statements. This

would be fine, indeed, and we should all rejoice. But Broth-er Roberson continues to make and repeat the same thingsin all of his explanations, and he has withdrawn his state-ments only to repeat them again, and then again.

His first published explanation reads as follows:1. “The doctrine of a future era of righteous govern-

ment upon the earth, to last a thousand years, is nowheretaught in the Scripture.”

“At no time have I ever believed or taught :”2. “That the Jews will be delivered from all their ene-

mies, recover Palestine, and reign literally there with theirMessiah in equaled splendor.”

3. “That the Jewish conception stated above is cor-rect with the exception that Jesus is the Messiah;”

4. “That there will be two resurrections, the first separ-ated from the second by a period of a thousand years;”

5. “That Jesus Christ will reign literally on earth for aperiod of a thousand years;”

6. “That the preaching of the gospel will result in theconversion of the world and usher in a golden era of right-eousness and a government of justice and peace to last athousand years, after which the Lord will return for a‘general’ judgment’ and introduction of an eternal state.”

According to the above statement, Brother Robersondoes not believe in a literal millennium of a one thousandyears reign of Christ on earth, But he does say, and evi-dently believes, that the thing which cannot be accomplish-ed by the preaching of the gospel in this dispensation, mustbe accomplished after the return of Christ-that somethingis, as expressed by himself, “the universal knowledge ofthe Lord.” Brother Roberson says plainly that this time ofuniversal knowledge and blessedness is future, and further-more that it is “impossible” in this age and “must be afterJesus returns to this earth.” In his book and in his sub-sequent statements Brother Roberson declares that there isno time for this era of “the universal knowledge of God”until after Jesus returns’to the earth. Herein is his hold-over from the premillennial essay in his book.

Now comes his latest explanation in the Firm Founda-tion. In reiterating much that he said in his book, and inhis former explanations, he tells us now that he is not a“pre”. nor a “post” millennialist but that he is an “a-mil-lennialist.” Notice some of these latest statements.

First: “The coming of the Lord and the judgment arecontemporaneous.” That means that the second coming ofChrist and the judgment will occur at the same time.

Second : : “The harvest is the end of the world; of thegood and the bad. Jesus said: ‘Let both grow togetheruntil the harvest’; under such conditions, a millennium ofuniversal righteousness and knowledge of the Lord is im-possible until the separation takes place at the harvest.”

Can you not see the conclusion? ,Here it is-in BrotherRoberson’s own explanations: He says there is an “a-mil-lennium;” he says that this “a-millennium” is impossibleuntil the separation takes place at the judgment; but hesays that the judgment and the second coming of Christare contemporaneous; it follows therefore that this “a-millennium” cannot take place until the second coming ofChrist. Then the second coming of Christ will take placebefore Brother Roberson’s “A-Millennium,” therefore thesecond coming of Christ is “pre-millennial” in BrotherRoberson’s theory, or pre-a-millennial. Since Broth&r Ro-berson insists that the second coming of Christ and thejudgment will occur before this “a-millennium” of hisexplanation begins, what keeps him from being a premil-lennialist of the “a-millennium” variety? There is an “a-millennium,” he says; but this “a-millennium” is impos-sible until the second coming of Christ and the judgment,which are contemporaneous ; so Christ must come beforehis “a-millennium”-but he is not a premillennialist! ! If

MAY 1941 ’ THE BIBLE BANNER 5\

R. H. Boll should write the same thing, we would all under- brand. These are not misrepresentations, but the actualstand that he would be teaching premillennialism. ‘teaching of these brethren in the record of their own words.

It is evident that the battle to make the church safe forsound doctrine must continue.

But again Brother Roberson says that “is not thatspace-time continuum which some men have espoused.” Inother words he has a theory of an “a-millennium” without“space” or “time” for it to fill, still it is an “era” of “uni-versal knowledge of the Lord” which is ‘impossible” be-

WOMEN ELDERS WHEN?Brother C. C. Morgan sends us the Committee an-

nouncement of the Broadway Church of Christ, Lubbock,Texas. It is quite a multiple committee set-up. The wom-en are given the lead over the men on these committees.It begins by stating that “The elders and G. C. Brewer, theminister, are members of all committees.”

lore he comes, and must occur after he “returns to theearth,’ yet there is no “space-time continuum” for it tooccur! And this is the language of scholarship, friends!Brother floberson is not a premillennial&, and he is not apostmlllenmalist-he only believes in an “a-millennium-contmuum,” without space or time 1or it to occur or con-tinue.

it is now in order for Brother Roberson to give thescripLures that teach his “a-millennium” theory. rie can-not. go to flev. 20 because he has already sald “the bghsymt.)olism in Revelation, and the uniform absence of theiaea OI tne millenmum rrom the teachmg on last things else-wnere in the new covenant should make one extremely cau-LIOUY belore armming its presence m Rev. 20:1-6.” l\ot only1S "tie millennium” not taught in Revelation, but the idea01 “me mulenmum” is absent tram “the teaching on lastuungs” everywhere else in the New Testament, accordmgto Brother tioberson. But while the idea of the “the mll-lenmum” IS absent, the teachmg of the New Testament“on last things” incluaes the idea of an “a-millennium”because Brother Hoberson says there will be an “a-millen-mum,” but without that “space-time continuum that somemen have espoused.” What we want now, and have theright LO demand, is the scripture either “m Revelation” orelsewhere “in the new covenant” that teaches this “a-mil-lennium’ ’ aiter the second coming 01 Christ. feev. 20 is theonly passage that mentions the thousand years, and fromTHIS passage they get their word “millennium,” a word no-where used in the New Testament. Smce Brother Rober-son admits that Rev. 20 does not teach it, we should likevery much to see the passage that does teach it. And’whilehe 1s turnishing the passage that does teach his “a-millen-nium” we should like to have his explanation as to how an“a-millennium” could take place even after the coming ofChrist and the judgment without “space” or “time” or “con-tinutim” for it.

The theory that Brother Roberson so blundering seeksto set forth sounds very much like the school of ScofieldPremillennialists who hold that the Judgment is a Dispen-sation, that is, the “day of judgment” is a dispensationalday. We are made to wonder if Brother Roberson uses theScofield Reference Bible. It contains these very doctrines.

Brother J. N. Armstrong says that he does not believe“Bollism”-but he does believe and teach premillennialism.He has his own brand of premillennialism-but it is pre-millennilaism just the same. Brother Roberson likewisedisavows the premillennialism “which some men haveespoused” but his “a-millennium” is, as we have shown,premillennialism-his own brand of it, if not the Scofield

But it leaves the other minister, E. Gaston Collins, out.On the letterhead it lists “G. C. Brewer and E. Gaston Col-lins, ministers.” But on this anouncement it states thatG. C. Brewer, the minister, is on “all committees.”

On the finance committee there are thirty-six womenand twenty-one men. It is stated that the deacons are“members” of the finance committee. That is remarkable,and deserves special mention, that deacons of the churchshould be “members” of the church’s finance committee.

But that thirty-six women and twepty-one men of thefinance committee-what Brother Morgan wants to knowis “When will they start having women elders?” Ask “G. C.Brewer, the minister” Brother Morgan. He can answer itin the Gospel Advocate in a series of articles, if they willgive him two or three pages to each article. It takes thatmuch time and space ior him to answer questions that usplain gospel preachers can answer on a post card.

“IN THE EVANGELISTIC FIELD”A staff writer for the Gospel Advocate in a recent

issue of that paper relates some incidents that occurred lastyear during “the seven months” that he spent “in theevangelistic field.” Wonder what “field” this writer andpreacher was in the other five months? Some more loosetalk. If a preacher is doing the work of a preacher he is“in the evangelistic field” all of the time. Is not the “local”preacher an evangelist? Does he cease to be an evangelistwhen he accepts “local work?” Paul said to Timothy: “Dothe work of a nevangelist; fulfill thy ministry.” Was Paultelling Timothy to leave “local work” for awhile and spenda few months “in the evangelistic field?” Or rather was notPaul telling Timothy what to do locally-where he was-that is, do the work of an evangelist where you are. All ofthe evangelistic work that I have ever done has been local-in some local place. At least, I was local, and tried to makethe preaching local in some effective spot on the hearer.

The distinction that is being made between “local work”and “evangelistic work” is a false distinction if the preacherwho lives and labors with ,.a congregation does what theNew Testament teaches: “Do the work of an evangelist.”If he is not doing the work of an evangelist, then he is not :doing the work of a preacher.

Travelling on the highways we frequently enter the cor-porate limits of a town where there is a highway sign thatreads : “State Miiintenance Ends.” Then on other side ofthe town, leaving the corporate limits, another sign is seen,which reads: “State Maintenance Begins.”

Since the brethren are putting up signs for the churchesat the approach to the towns, suppose we add: “EvangelisticField Ends-Local Work Begins!” The same apostle whotold the preacher Timothy to “Do the work of an evangeilist” also said to the same preacher: “Speak thou the thingsthat befit sound doctrine” and “sound speech that cannotbe condemned.”

6 THE BIBLE BANNER MAY 1941

-

CON-IXIB~JTORIAL

SHALL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?HOMER HAILEY

History is replete with accounts of valourous andheroic deeds; with stories of mighty wars waged and bat-tles fought; of victories glorious and wonderful. Butthese same histories also tell of periods of relapse andweakness, stagnation and decay, which so often followed.

This is not simply the history of civil and secular af-fairs, but of religious as well. Under the leadership ofJoshua, Israel possessed the land of Canaan by a SUC-cession of brilliant and heated campaigns. In theseGod was with them, because they were trusting in Him;they were fighting as He directed. But tragedy followedsuccess. “And the people served Jehovah all the days ofJoshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua,who had seen all the great work of Jehovah that he hadwrought for Israel. . . And also all that generation weregathered unto their fathers: and there arose anothergeneration after them, that knew not Jehovah, nor yetthe work which he had wrought for Israel.” (Judges2:7, 10) Ii

Here was the tragedy, “there arose another genera-tion after them, that knew not Jehovah.” Then began thedecline, the worship of the Baalim, which ended in de-generation and apostasy.

This has been the history of religious movementsfrom that time onward. The apostles waged mighty bat-tles against heathenism and Judaism in their day, plant-ing the church in all sections of the known world; onlyto be followed by a generation, or generations, who for-got or knew not God and His truth. This ignorance open-ed the way for innovations and errors which culminatedin the Roman Catholic apostasy.

Then came Savanarola, Martin Luther, Zwingli, JohnKnox, and others, who dared lift their voice against thecorruptions of Catholicism and its papal heirarchy. Wecannot but admire the valor of these men, although weagree not with their doctrinal positions. They, too, werefollowed by a generation who knew not the fight theyhad made, and the object they had had in view, only toend in new sects closely akin to that which they had fought,and from which they had sprung.

These men were followed by Joshuas and Jeremiahsof a new reformatory movement, who sought restora-tion, not mere reformation. Wonderful and mighty bat-tles were waged by Campbell, Stone, the Sewells, Lips-combs, and hundreds of others. Sectarianism and deno-minationalism bowed beneath the mighty onslaughts oftruth. That generation, converted under such preachingand debating served Jehovah faithfully. But now “anoth-er generation” is arising, unfamiliar with heated debates,brush-arbor preaching, and stirring discussions of Biblethemes. Shall history repeat itself? Or are we sufficient-ly acquainted with the cause of Christ Jesus and the fun-damentals of Christianity to stem a tide of digression andapostasy in this day?

Standing beside a tree, one can easily determine theway the wind is blowing by the direction the leaves arefalling. We are rather anxiously watching a few leaveshere and there today, seeking an answer to our question.

A rather thorough discussion is at present being con-ducted among us regarding the so-called “pastor sys-tem.” I shall leave that for others to discuss; but I frank-ly admit I would find it hard to defend the present set-up with a New Testament before me. And if it can’t bedefended from it, it can’t be defended. Is our presentsystem an indication of the direction of the spiritualbreeze?

Recently an article appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, with the following announcement : “Grape-vine, Feb. 27.Grapevine churches will unite in a day ofprayer for the world at 10 a. m. Friday at the MethodistChurch, with Rev. A. W. Franklin as host pastor.

“The sermon, ‘The Kingdom Is Coming,’ will be giv-en by Rev. E. A. Zund, Baptist minister, and Rev. Wil-lard Morrow of the Church of Christ and Rev. J. Eldridgeof the Pentecostal Church also will take part in the pro-gram.

“The Church of Christ will furnish a program consist-ing of a solo by Mrs. John Hemley and a poem read byMrs. Loyd Fuller. . .”

A latter issue of the paper stated that Brother Mor-row did not participate in the affair. In this I rejoice.We all had more confidence in brother Morrow than toimagine him in such a meeting. But some of us wonder-ed if the sisters participated in it? If these two did not“render a solo” and “read a poem,” we can take cour-age. Yet, we cannot but wonder how their names appear-ed on the program in the first place. Was it withouttheir knowledge? against their will? Let us trust thatit was. Still, where a truly militant and aggressivechurch exists such reports seldom if ever get circulatedconcerning the church.

The complete apostasy of the digressive church insuch a short time cannot but warn of the rapidity withwhich “another generation” that “knows not Jehovah”can arise, and be led into idolatry. I say “idolatry,” forthat is about where the digression has led the ChristianChurch. The March 2nd issue of the Star-Telegram car-ried an entire colored page of scenes from the “VarsityShow” being put on by the T. C. U., featuring next tonude costumes, and vaudeville dances of various kinds.What a disgrace to the name “Christian”!

The present day pre-millennial departure from thetruth, and the general aversion to strong uncompromisingpreaching as a fruit of the movement, along with theappearance of women of the church on sectarian pro-grams, and the tendency of preachers to join about every-thing in a community, rather suggests the direction ofthe present day breeze.

MAY 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 7

STUPIDITY AND NEUTRALITY CRUCIFIED CHRIST-THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN

FANNING YATER TANT

One man could have saved him. As the fierce rays ofthe noon-day heat beat down mercilessly on the bowed headof that writhing figure on the cross, as the indifferent sol-diers were throwing dice to while the time away until theend should come, as the awful tragedy of the ages slowlydragged its way on to the denouement, what must havebeen the feelings of that man? Did he wish he had beenfirmer? Did he revile himself for his weakness that hadcaused him to wash his hands of the entire affair, and SO

side-step his responsibility? Or was he somewhere in adrunken orgy trying to drown his memory of the humili-ation that had been forced upon him by the bigotry ofthese fanatical Jews?

No one knows where Pilate was, or what he was doing.And no one particularly cares. His part had been played;as far as he was concerned the script called for no furtherappearance. But how terrible had been his role when hewas the center of the stage! And how true to character hehad acted! For Pilate’s character called for exactly thesort of thing he did-the side-stepping of responsibility.He had noble impulses at first; he desired to release Christ;he even went out of his way to do so. But when the realpressure was put on him he called for water and washedhis hands. This row wasn’t of his making, and he wouldget out of it the easiest way he could!

There is bitter irony in the fact that Christ was doneto death by the very sin which he had so often and so force-fully warned against. It was the sin of side-stepping re-sponsibility. In the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10)Christ had no words of condemnation for the thieves androbbers who beat the traveler. Anybody would de-nounce them; Christ saved his censure for the priest andthe Levite-men who side-stepped their responsibility. Inthe parable of the talents (Matthew 25) Christ made nocharge of embezzlement or dishonest use of money. Any-body would recognize those things as wrong; Christ savedhis blame for the man who merely did nothing-who side-stepped his responsibility. And in that enigmatic miracleof the cursing of the fig tree (Matthew 21) there is no chargethat the tree brought forth rotten or poisonous fruit. Thetrouble was simply that there was no fruit at all, the treehad “side-stepped” its moral obligation.

And Christ was crucified by a man who committed theidentical sin.

But that isn’t all. There was another evil working sideby side with Pilate’s failure. And that was the ignoranceand stupidity of the people. They were wicked and sinful,to be sure. But they were also fools. They were enactingthe most horrible chapter in human history, and weren’teven aware of what was happening. Christ prayed, ‘Fath-er forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke23:34).

A close study of the words of Christ will reveal howoften he was forced to speak out, not against open rebel-lion and deliberate transgression, but against folly, stupid-ity, ignorance. The man who heard his sayings and didthem not was likened, not to a sinful or wicked man, butto a fool. (Matt. 7:26). The people who make no prepara-tion for the coming of Christ are likened unto foolish vir-gins. (Matt. 25:2). The rich man (Luke 12) who sought tolay up treasurers for himself, but was not rich twoard Godis typical of a large class of humanity; and the word usedto describe that class is “fool.” Christ preached against sin,

but how much of his teaching was directed against follyand stupidity-against blind, blundering ignorance!

And that brings us down to date. For just as surelyas Christ was crucified physically by stupidity and irres-ponsibility working together two thousand years ago,just that surely can he be crucified spiritually by the sameforces today.

Consider, for example, the working of the first of thesetwin evils, stupidity, in a certain case in point-the ques-tion of premillennialism. If the published and spoken state-ments of gospel preachers are to be believed, at least 95per cent of them (to use the percentage figure made fam-iliar by the famous ‘questionnaire’) are opposed to premil-lennialism in any form. They do not believe it; they donot preach it; they believe it is injurious to the cause ofChrist; and they are categorically opposed to every phaseand form of the whole doctrine. They agree absolutelyand in toto, so far as the doctrine is concerned, with theposition of the Bible Banner and that group of faithful gos-pel preachers who have taken the lead in exposing the er-rors of this heresy.

Then enters stupidity.And a goodly number of this 95 per cent, because they

disagree with the method used in the fight against premil-lennialism will oppose the men who teach what they be-lieve, and defend the men who teach what they deny-thusgiving their influence to tearing down what they say istrue and building up what they say is false. Can there beany doubt that somewhere there is some muddled thinking?-or maybe it’s just a muddle without any thinking.

If the body of Christ is not to be crucified again, theremust, somehow, be developed that sort of Christian charitywhich is tolerant enough to permit a wide divergence in themethods of work-an allowance for the individual differ-ences which are not only inevitable but desirable.

Surely the church of our Lord is great enough to finda use and a place for every conceivable type of personal-ity-so long as there is no compromise of the truth. Somemen are temperamentally unfitted for the militant and ag-gressive fight which comes natural to others. Will theyseek, therefore, to curtail all controversy with error, andtry to conform all Christians to their own particular typeof non-aggressive, non-militant, but mild and gentle preach-ing of the truth? To do so would be an act of stupidity ona par with that which once crucified God’s son, They mustrecognize that while God can use their sympathetic andgenial personalities for certain kinds of work, he has otherand sterner tasks which call for more aggressive and lessyielding types of men. !

And the militant, hard-hitting gospel preacher must re-alize that God has a place and a work for his milder bro-ther. It is neither possible nor desirable that all come fromthe same mould. As long as there is no compromise oftruth the differences in temperament must be subordinatedto the need for unity. The folly of any other course shouldbe apparent.

The Bible Banner stands, as all realize, in the fore-front among those who are militant and aggressive in thepropagation of the gospel and in its defense against error.Most of the men who write for it are men who are vigor-ous and unrelenting in their efforts to defeat false teachingeither in the church or in the world. But so far as thiswriter knows there has never been the least hint or sugges-

8 THE BIBLE BANNER

tion on the part of any of these men that every gospelpreacher should copy all their methods. Let the mild-mannered individual oppose error and advance truth in hisown way-as long as he really opposes error and advancestruth. For such a one the writers of the Bible Banner havenothing but the deepest respect. He is a faithful brotherin Christ and is honored and loved as such.

The strictures in the Bible Banner against “soft” preach-ing and compromising are aimed more often than notagainst the man who side-steps his responsibility-the manwho is guilty of the sin of Pilate. The stupidity of the peopleand the irresolution of Pilate brought tragedy on that far-off day; the stupidity and irresolution of gospel preacherscan achieve the same result today. Stupidity in. attackingthose who teach the truth and defending those who teacherror, and in opposing their brothers in Christ becausethey disapprove of their methods of work cannot but bringdisaster.

But, perhaps, an even greater danger than stupidity liesin irresolution-neutrality. How easily can Christ be cruci-fied by his servants merely doing nothing! When respon-sibility comes knocking at the door, demanding action, in-stant, decisive, and uncompromising action, how tragic forone to stand irresolute and do nothing-like Pilate. Canthere any longer be any doubt (if there ever was any)that thousands of churches throughout the northern part orour nation were swept into digression merely because someof the preachers in those sections stood halting and irreao-lute-holding their peace when they should have been firmand unyielding in their opposition to error? Is not the greatcleavage between the church and the Disciples today trace-able in large part to the fact that these brethren of a pastgeneration side-stepped their responsibility? The situationwasn’t of their making, they declared, and they wouldtake neither side. And the result was sheer tragedy.

There are serious problems before the church today.They .cannot be solved by being “let alone.” That was theway Pilate tried to solve his problem. The result of suchan attitude today will be the same as the result then-crucifixion of the Savior. The questions facing us today callfor tolerance, wisdom, and resolution on the part of everyChristian. Petty likes and dislikes for style or method mustbe forgotten in the overwhelming need for unanimity ofaction. Those who believe the truth must stand together;there must be no compromise with error. To oppose a faith-ful and godly preacher of the gospel just because his styleor method may be “distasteful” to one is folly of the rank-est sort. This sort of attitude, coupled with a disposition toside-step responsibility and leave the settling of these ques-tions to others can have one, and only one, result-a spirit-ual re-enactment of Cavalry.

MAY 1941

KING IN FACT AND ACTC. B. DOUTHITT

Jesus has all authority and is exercising it now. “Allauthority hath been given unto me in heaven and onearth” said he to the apostles in Galilee. He is King inboth “fact and act.”

The teachers of premillennialism agree that Jesus isKing in fact, but deny that he is King in act; they agreehe has all authority, but. deny that he is exercising itnow; they claim he will not exercise it until he returns toJerusalem to rule for a thousand years on David’s throne.

There are three departments of authority (and onlythree) in every government-legislative, judicial and ex-ecutive. Is Jesus exercising legislative, judicial and ex-ecutive authority now?

Is Jesus exercising legislative authority now? He 1s

the author of every legislative enactment in the New Test-ament, and his law-the new Testament-is in force n o w(Heb. 9:16, 17). If Jesus is not exercising legislativeauthority now, one of two things is true: either he isnot the author of the New Testament, or the New Testa-ment is not in force now, and will not be in force tillJesus returns to Jerusalem. To contend that the NewTestament is not in force now, or to contend that Jesusis not the author of the statutes in it is to vitiate everylegislative enactment in it. And yet some claim that thetheories of premillennialism do not vitiate the gospel ofChrist!

Is Jesus exercising judicial authority in his kingdomnow? The Father “hath given all judgment unto theSon” (Jno. 5:22). Jesus is the author of the New Testa-ment. The New Testament contains many decisions andjudicial decrees for the kingdom of God now. Are thesejudicial decrees and decisions in force now? If so, Jesusis exercising judicial authority in his kingdom now. Ifnot, then every decree of the divine court contained inthe New Testament is null and void, and will be untilJesus returns to Jerusalem. And yet some claim thatthe theories of permillennialism do not vitiate the gospelof Christ.

Is Jesus exercising executive authority now? It is thepower. of the executive authority to enforce the law-to in-flict punishment on the violater. Somebody executed Anan-ias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and old King Herod (Acts12:23). Who did it? Pardoning power belongs to theexecutive branch of government. Any one who is exer-cising pardoning power now i s exercising executiveauthority now. Is Jesus exercising the authority to par-don now? If so, he is exercising executive authority now.If not, then we will be compelled to wait until he returnsto Jerusalem before we can receive pardon from oursins. The theory that Jesus is not King in ACT-that heis not exercising authority now-strikes at the pardon-ing power of the Christ. And yet some claim that pre-millennialism does not vitiate the gospel of Christ!!

WALLACE-TAYLOR CAMP MEETING

FOY E. WALLACE, JR., Evangelist AUSTIN TAYLOR, Song Director

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO July 20-31TWO SERVICES DAILY

Help Firmly Establish the Cause of Christ and Sound Doctrine in Colorado. Take your vacation in theRockies and enjoy a Spiritual Feast with your physical relaxation.

Further information about the meeting or the scenic country around Colorado Springs will be furnishedby Tew W. McElroy, minister, Pikes Peak Avenue church of Christ, 1402 W. Pikes Peak Avenue, ColoradoSprings, Colrado.

MAP 1941

DOCTRINAL PREACHING;FRANK VAN DYKE

The author of a recognized textbook on speech-makingtenders some advise on pulpit speaking, pointing out that“purely doctrinal sermons are not much desired in thisage, for most people are impatient with quibblings ofcreed.” This advice comes with poor grace from a personwhose interest in religion, I venture, is only nominal, rfnot nil. It is doubtful that he would know a gospel sermonif he heard one; yet he feels that his position as an author-ity on secular speaking qualifies him to tell preachers notonly how the sermon should be delivered, but also whatthe content of the sermon should be. Preachers should notspeak on doctrine, because people in this advanced (? 1age do not desire that type of sermon, is his advice.

The eminent authority makes two blunders. First, heventures into a field where he is not qualified, and second,he makes the mistake of telling preachers that the con-

tent of their sermons should be what the people desire in-stead of what the Lord commands. This is not so astonish-ing, coming, as it does, from a modernistic college pro-fessor who is also a denominationalist. Of course, hewould hardly be expected to know-and probably wouldnot care if he did know-that Paul said that the preacherwho tried to please men (that is, preach the type of ser-mons which are desired in this age) could not be the ser-vant of Christ. Perhaps, his admonition was intended pri-marily for denominational preachers who are in the busi-ness as men-pleasers, and think that much of the advicein the New Testament is not modernistic enough for astreamlined, twentieth century sermon. To them the doc-tor’s advice may be a pearl of great price, but to a gospelpreacher it is abominable.

It would be difficult to think of a thing any more ridi-culous than the doctor’s suggestion. Nothing can hardlyequal his stupidity, unless it is an insurance salesman whoknow nothing about religious journalism, yet thinks thathis financial success and prestige will qualify him to tellour religious editors how to run their papers. Even theyoungest of us feel that we know a little more than theprofessor of speech when it comes to what a gospel ser-mon should contain. He can tell people how to make thehalls of Congress reverberate with gems of political ora-tory, but we think he needs a few lessons on the funda-mentals of the gospel before he starts telling us what toinclude and what to exclude in our sermons. In the samevein, it seems that the competent religious editor wouldfeel that a cracker jack insurance salesman ought to takea course in the A B C’s of religious journalism before hebegins an effort to revolutionize our papers. People arenot led to live lives of faith and obedience in the sameway that they are led to invest their money in bonds andinsurance policies. A man may be without an equal intelling US how to compose and deliver a political speech ora speech given purely for entertainment, and yet be a dis-mal failure when it comes to telling us how to preach thegospel. Even so, a man may make a million dollars sell-ing insurance, and then make a complete failure in re-ligious journalism. Indeed, it seems that we have livingexamples to prove both of these statements.

The cases of the speech instructor and the insurancesalesman are parallel. Both have just about the same con-

THE BIBLE BANNER 9

ception of the gospel; one says that we should preach whatis desired in this age, while the other makes a brotherhoodsurvey to determine what type of religious journalism isdesired today. However, it does seem that the speechteacher has one advantage; he knew what people desiredwithout sending out a questionnaire. If the insurance sales-man had been a close observer of human nature, and couldhave sensed the trend of modern thought as well as thespeech instructor did, he might have been spared the trou-ble (and shall we now say the humilatation? ) of the survey.

What about doctrinal preaching? Every gospel preach-er must choose between what is desired in this age andthe kind of preaching that the Bible says for US to do. Theearly Christians continued in the apostles’ doctrine. Acts2~42. It is obvious that the apostles must have preacheddoctrine. People obey a form of doctrine in becoming chil-dren of righteousness. Rom. 6 : 17. How can preaching savepeople, unless it presents the doctrine, and shows peoplehow to obey “that form of doctrine?” Paul warned againstpreaching any other doctrine. I Tim. 1:3. This impliesthat there is a doctrine to be preached. Timothy was toldto give attendance to doctrine. I Tim. 4:13, 16, Maybe, Pauland others knew that in this age people would not desiredoctrine, and hence gospel preachers would have to give ita little emphasis. Paul must have had something likethat in mind when he told Timothy to preach with doc-trine, for the time would come when people would not en-dure-would not desire-sound doctrine. (2 Tim. 4~2, 3.)Those who have so much free information on how to preachought to get together with Paul, or show us mat ram waswrong. Paul said ror us to preacn doctrine, because peoplewould not desire it; man tells us to omit doctrine when itis not desired. One ot the‘two has given the wrong advice,and personally I thmb that Paul IS not the one.

What about doctrinal preaching? The afore mention-ed speech teacher makes a distinction between a doctrinalsermon and a gospel sermon. After discrediting doctrinalsermons, he speaks with approval of “the gospel sermon-or sermons intended to draw inspiration and encourage-ment from the great religious truths of the gospel, andthrough this inspiration to lead audiences to apply thesetruths to their own lives.” How ridiculous is such a dis-tinction! Doctrine is nothing but “the great religiqus truthsof the gospel.” Imagine a man drawing inspiration from“great religious truths” without preaching those truths.How can a preacher lead people “to apply these truths totheir own lives” without preaching the truths-the doctrine--so people can know what the truths are?

What about doctrinal preaching? It is a common thingto hear someone say, “We ought not to preach doctrine somuch; we should exhort people more.” Not so long ago adenominational preacher visited one of our services, andat the close he favored us with this comment: “That is justthe trouble; we have too much doctrinal preaching and notenough convincing preaching.” This reminds one of thelittle boy who went out to shoot the birds, but didn’t takehis shooter along. Nobody denies that we should exhortand convince people. Too many preachers, however, goout to exhort without the exhorter. They go out to con-vince without the convincer. Paul said that elders shouldexhort and convince the gainsayers, but that they shouldbe able to do it with sound doctrine. Titus 1:9. It takesdoctrine to exhort and convince people in the right way.

10 THE BiBLE BANNEH MAY 1941

IN CULLING%COMMENTSAND

CORRESPONDENCE

THE SUBVERSIVE CHARACTER OF THEMURCH-WITTY MEETINGS

-, (Editorial)

There has never been a movement in the history of thechurch on this continent with more sinister designs than themuch publicised Witty-Murch Unity Meetings. The BibleBanner made this charge at the beginning, when these so-called “national unity meetings” were annonnced. We havebeen told not to judge men’s motives nor impugn theirpurposes, because-the Lord only knows whether men aresincere or hypocritical. But Jesus said “by their fruits yeshall know them”-he did not say that by their fruits heshould know them, he said “ye’‘-and by their fruits wedo know them. With the history of digressive designs backof us, in the virtual theft of meetinghouses all over the land,divided churches and misplaced confidences, brethren whohave seen or read the past to any profit will repose noconfidence in Witty and Murch.

The letter which appears below in the article by Broth-er B. C. Goodpasture, which is copied from the Gospel Ad-vocate, furnishes a clear case of the designing character ofthese meetings. Brother Goodpasture makes some excel-lent remarks, containing timely truths. One point, however,is being overlooked. The proponents and opponents ofthese Unity Meetings are all speaking of the desire forChristian Unity. The Lord’s prayer for unity is repeatedlyreferred to as not having been answered. We hear prayersfor God to answer the prayer of his Son. That sounds likethese “unity meeting” preachers have a better standingwith God now than his own Son had then, for they are pray-ing for God to answer the prayer of his Son! For their in-formation, the prayer of Jesus has long been answered. Heprayed that the apostles should be one. They were one. Heprayed that all who believed on Him ‘.‘through their word.”might also be one. All that believed on him “through theirword” were one. They are still one. Christian Unity ex-ists wherever Christians are, whether few or many, who be-lieve on Him through the word of the apostles. We simp-ly mean to say that Christian Unity does not depend on whatthe digressive Christian Church is going to do about any-thing. Does Christian Unity depend on what the Methodistsare going to do about sprinkling for baptism? Neitherdoes it depend on what the digressives are going to do aboutinst.rumental music. missionary societies, delegate conven-tions, open membership, women preachers, women pas-tors, women elders, vested choirs, union meetings, Thurs-day’observance of the Lord’s Supper, Junior churches, con-secration of infants, modernism, and a thousand things thatwould separate them from simple New Testament churchesif instrumental music in the worship had never been heardof. If they, like Ephraim, are joined to their idols-stillChristian Unity exists in the church, large or small, whereChristians follow Christ and His apostles, “through theirword.” The Lord’s prayer for unity was answered beforethe Witty-Murch meetings were born, and the best that canbe said for the Christian Church is that it is a digressionfrom that unity-an apostasy from the New Testament or-der of things.

In this department also appears an article from BrotherJohn Allen Hudson, of Los Angeles, California, under thetitle “Unity Meeting Decline.” Brother Hudson says somegood things. I have personally seen him in action with afew digressive preachers when he made “the fur fly” andI know he can do it, But it occurs to me that in the lettersent to these digressive leaders over his signature there isa super-abundance of love making. The gobs of love withwhich these digressive “brethren” are being anointed ev-erywhere seems to me to be rather superfluous and gra-tutitous. It is fine to love when it is the time to love. But

a dose of love is not the medicine these Witty-Murch Meet-ings need now. Jesus loved the Pharisees but there were oc-casions upon which he did not take any time out to tell themso-the occasion required something else.

Brother Hudson states that we regard the ChristianChurches as our brethren in Christ. I will venture the as-sertion here that three-fourths of the members of the Wil-shire Boulevard Christian Church in Los Angeles have nev-er obeyed the gospel. Large numbers of them came oneway or another from the denominations without obedienceto the gospel; many of them went into the Christian Churchon marriage compromises. In my home city, OklahomaCity, the pastor of the First Christian Church stood in thebaptistery and apologized for immersing a man by sayingthat there were members of that church who had neverbeen immersed, and some who had not received baptismin anv form. and thev were all welcome. but that he im-mersed those who wanted to be! That is the situation inall of the large Christian Churches and most of the smallones. On what basis then can the blanket statement bemade that we regard them as our brethren in Christ?”

Suppose the organs in the worship should be removed.What of the other innovations? And what of that majority inthe Christian Churches who have never been converted tothe gospel and have never obeyed it? Suppose the “twogroups” united-there would be an incompatibility as greatas if a union should be formed with any other protestantdenomination. Union is not unity, and Christ did not askthe Father for union. He asked for the unity of all who be-lieved on Him through the apostles-and He got what Heasked-Unity. It is automatic. When individuals in thedenomination called the Christian Church, or any other de-nomination, believe the word of the apostles and obey it,their unity $th the New. Testament church will be imme-fzz. Why Unity Meetings.7” The idea is itself unscrip-

Back to the designs of the digressives, including ClaudF. Witty, in these mush meetings. Read the letter fromthe brother C. R. Elerich of Columbus, Ohio. Brother Wittyclaims to represent churches of Christ. These meetings arewidely publicised as getting the two groups”-ChristianChurches and Churches of Christ-together. yet BrotherWitty did not even consult any loyal church in Columbus.“The Church Of Christ” mentioned in the announcement isa digressive church wearing that name! Brother Wittyknew this. He went to Columbus and consulted with thedigressives about this “Unity Meeting” but did not goaround the loyal brethren at all to even find out whetherthey wanted such a meeting or not. It is in this high-hand-ed! arbitrary manner that the Witty-Murch Meetings arebeing forced upon brethren in various sections by ClaudF. Witty. He is the one that is responsible, led around bythe nose by James DeForest Murch and W. R. Walker ofthe Christian Standard.

The Columbus case is an example of the sinister de-signs of this group of men upon the churches of Christ.Brother Witty has proved himself a traitor to the church.He is not going to the digressives, he is already with them,and our prediction is that he will not long be identified withchurches of Christ at all, unless someone can show him hissin, or something happens to check his course.

It is more and more evident that churches of Christhave nothing to gain by these love-making meetings, andChristian Churches have nothing to lose. Loyal brethren _everywhere are being more and more convinced of this.

MAY 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 11

The digressives went out-let them repent and return. “They Satan, if divided, would suffer the inevitable results ofwent out from us because they were not of us; if they hadbeen of us they would not have gone out from us; but they

strife. The opposing parties, in any division, neutralize the

went out” (Jno. 2:).power of each other and tend to be mutually destructive ofeach other.

James DeForest Murch and W. R. Walker will not suc-“But if ye bite and devour one another, take

teed in their designs on churches of Christ. Claud F. Wittyheed that ye be not consumed one of another.” (Gal. 5:15.)

will not succeed in victimizing the loyal churches and sell-Even brethren in Christ, by bitter strife and contention,

ing them down the river.” The battle against digressioncan destroy each other. The forbidding spectacle of a divid-

has been too long and hard to surrender it to Witty, Walkered church discredits the teaching of Jesus in the eyes of the

and Murch. The ational Unity Meetings will not succeed.world. It nullifies our Lord’s claims to the divinity of hismission.

-They Shall Not Pass!-F. E. W.In the night before Calvary, Jesus prayed fer-

vently “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, artin me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the

THE COLUMBUS (OHIO) UNITY MEETING world may believe that thou didst send me . . . . that the

Another “unity meeting” has been announced. Thisworld may know that thou didst send me.” (John 17:21-23.)

one is to be held on May 13 and 14 at Indianola Church .ofAnything that prevents or mars the unity for which Jesus

Christ,:’This

Norwich and Indianola Avenues,, Columbus, Ohlo.prayed is a sin against the world, the church, the Son, andGod the Father.

“Indianola Church of Christ” 1s the “ChristianChurch” where W. R. Walker serves as “pastor.”

No one should fail to encourage any scriptural effort

The following letter from Brother Elerich will throwtoward unity among brethren, but it should be remembered

some light on local Columbus conditions as related to thethat any unity attained on grounds other than those revealedin the sacred oracles is not worth the time involved in its

“unity meeting” : attainment. Any scheme of union which ignores the causes1373 East Hudson Street, Columbus, Ohio, of division is foredoomed to failure. We cannot get rid of

April 30, 1941.effects without removing causes. If the Christian Churcheswish to be united with the churches of Christ, they will have

In view of the publicity which has been given to give up the innovations which have brought about theby the Witty-Murch forces to the “unity meeting” division. The churches of Christ occupy the ground uponto be held in Columbus on May 13 and 14, I wish which they stood before the division came. If unity is notto make the following statement in behalf of the con- desired to the extent that there is a willingness to give upgregations of the church of Christ in this city, locat- instrumental music, the societies, open membership, anded at 28 East Seventh Avenue, 1290 West Broad other suchlike Romish and denominational practices, allStreet, and Mount Vernon Avenue, near Taylor hope of success is out of the question. If they are willing to(colored) : do this, it will not take long to let it be known. If they are

Brother Witty’s announcements through various not willing, why the waste of time? Why not get down topapers that the sessions were to be held at the business, or quit? Much as we desire unity, we cannot sur-Church of Christ on Indianola Avenue may be misin- render principle to have it. We cannot be found seekingterpreted by some brethren as meaning that peace at any price.this is a loyal congregation adhering to the So far we have been unable to see any “visible results”New Testament doctrine, without additions, instru- of the “unity meetings” which would justify their existence.mental music, societies, etc., which is not the case. We believe that the same effort and time used in preachingThe “pastor” of the Indlanola Church is W. R. Walk- the primitive gospel would be productive of a great dealer, who is prominent in the columns of the Chris- more good. Besides, it seems likely that these meetingstian Standard, published at Cincinnati, Ohio. are producing more problems among us than they are solv-

No loyal congregation of the church in Colum- ing.-B. C. Goodpasture, in Gospel Advocate.bus was consulted relative to this “unity meeting,”and none of the local preachers of the gospel wereinvited to have part in the discussions. COMMON GROUND REJECTED

C. R. Elerich. As we hear much these days about socalled “UnityAssuming the correctness of the foregoing statement, it Meetingsj ” I thought you might like to read an account of

seems that the loyal churches in Columbus have not been such a meeting attended by my brother, M. C. Kurfees, indealt with fairly in making the arrangements for the “unity Nashville, Tenn., February- 18, 1909. I just happened tomeeting.” They have had a problem thrust upon them with- notice this in one of this memorandum books, in which heout their consultation or consent. If Our memory is not

made notes and comments on various matters, and the fol-at fault, about the same thing was done to the loyal con- lowing is a copy of what he wrote concerning that confer-gregation in Lexington, Ky., last year. Evidently the Chris- ence :tian Church on Indianola Avenue was consulted about the “I received a call from Nashville, Tenn., to attend amatter. Are the local churches of Christ to be dealt with as conference with ‘some brethren favoring societies and or-inferiors? Are they to be ignored in the matter? Are they ga.ns,’ which they had requested of those opposing theseto have these meetings brought to their midst regardless things ; and boarding the 8:24 A. M. train Wednesday, Feb-of their local problems or wishes? We are not even suggest- ruary 1’7, 1909, I arrived in Nashville at 3:15 P. M. the sameing that they had the remotest desire to cooperate in these day. The conference was held at Dr. Cowden’s residence onmeetings. We do not know. But pn the basis of common West Broadway, beginning at 10 A. M. Thursday, Februaryfairness it would have been just and proper to have consult- 18th, and continuing till 4 P. M. the same day.ed them. As it is, these loyal congregations in Columbushave been laid under the necessity of making an explanation

Of those favoring the divisive things in question therewere present Brethren R. Lin Cave, Pendleton, McKissick

to keep the record clear. If unity of the Christian Churches and J. B. Biney, accompanied by R. R. Hamlin of Ft.and the churches of Christ in Columbus is even a remote Worth, Texas, and J. B. Cowden of McMinnville, Tenn.-purpose of the proposed meeting, we utterly fail to see even these beside Dr. Cowden himself.the slightest evidence of tact and brotherly consideration in Of those opposing these things there were presentthe “approach” that has been made. Brethren E. G. Sewell, E. A. Elam, J. C. McQuiddy, W. T.

We have never been enthusiastic about these “unity Boaz and myself-these besides Miss Emma Page, the steno-meetings.” We have never expected much good to come grapher.from them. This does not mean that we are opposed to The purpose of the conference was ‘to see if we cmldChristian unity. That unity ainong those who profess to find a common ground on which all can work and worship.’be the followers of Christ is highly desirable, no one ac-quainted with the Scriptures will deny. “Behold, how good

All present expressed themselves freely and the con-ference took on the form of an informal and at times de-

and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in sultory discussion of our differences.unity! ” (Ps. 133:l.) Some things are good that are not

It was not a ques-tion whether either side was right or wrong in its position

pleasant, and some things are pleasant that are not good; on any matter, but whether there was a common groundbut unity possesses the rare quality of being, at the same accepted by all and on which all could work and worship intime, both good and pleasant. It is “like the dew of Her- harmony.mon, that cometh down upon the mountains of Zion.”

There is great power in unity. The early church was ofAfter much discussion, Brother J. B. Briney made a

“one heart and soul,” and it was able to meet all opposi-speech suggesting a common ground and used Bro. Pendle-ton and myself to illustrate his point. He said in substance

tion; ancient Israel divided, and fell before her enemies.“Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

that Bro. Pendleton might be preaching with a church on,

(Matt. 12:15.) Rome divided, and fell. The kingdom ofone street using an organ, and I might be preaching withanother on another street not using an organ but here in .

12 THE BIBLE BANNER MAY 1941

another part of the city a work is needed and it is proposedto start up the work at that new point. Bro. Pendletongoes over there to work and Bro. Km-fees goes there towork, both with the understanding that the organ and so-cieties are not to be used in that work at that place. ‘NowI maintain,’ said he, ‘that there is common ground and thatboth can work in harmony on that ground.’

No sooner did he take his seat than I was on the floorwith a prompt acceptance of the common ground suggest-ed. heartilv mdorsed the sunsestion and agreed to co-ooer-ate at any-time and any place on that gro&d.

Several speeches followed and they claimed that theywould still have the right to retain the organ and societiesback at Bro. Pendleton’s regular place of worship, but wereplied that that had nothing whatever to do with the coldfact now admitted by their side that leaving the organ andsocieties out removes the barrier to union and co-operationand leaves us with a common ground where all can workand worship in harmony.

They gave evident signs of disturbance and restlessnessunder their own suggestion of a common ground and theiradmission that all could stand in harmony on that ground,but we pressed the point with increasing emphasis andwould not permit them to lead us away from the issue, norfrom the fact that a common ground had been found andhad been suggested by them.

Bro. Briney attempted to rally from the effects of theturn of things by charging that I was not accepting the pro-posed common grouna, except to work there ‘in that tenreet square,’ where Bro. Pendleton and I had been suppos-ed to go to the common ground, but I promptly replied thathe was mistaken-that I was willing to accept that ground,which he, himself, had suggested, anywhere and every-where; not simply there ‘in that ten reet square,’ but mLouisville, in Nashville, in Vine Street, or anywhere, wheth-er ‘ten feet square’ or a thousand or a million miles square.At this point Bro. McQuiddy said: ‘Brother Kurfees, youwould be willing to spread that ground all over the earth,would you not?’ to which I gave a prompt affirmative reply.

We carried the point triumphantly in accepting tneirown suggested ground, but they refused to abide by it andinsisted on holding on to the uncommon or divisive groundand building it up, too.

The conference adjourned with their rejecting the com-mon ground suggested by themselves, and with our heartyaccentance of it.”

That is the record of that “Unity Meeting,” as record-ed by M. C. Kurfees.

-Fraternally, J. F. Kurfees, Louisville, Ky.

“UNITY MEETING DECLINED”

The followins letter sneaks for itself.Mr. Merle Applegate,-Figueroa Christian Church, Los

Angeles, California. Dear Brother Applegate:Pursuant to the meeting between certain preachers of

the Christian Churches of Southern California and certainpreachers of the churches of Christ of this area on Wed-nesday, January 27,. 1941, it was at that time decided by thepreachers of the churches of Christ that they would notconsider entering a meeting in California with the Chris-tian Church folk until they had first met among themselvesand gone over the whole matter. This was done, as weclearly stated to you in the January meeting, that we mightpresent a united front to your approach toward us. We didnot want to do anything that would cause disagreementamong our own group. In the January meeting we declineda unity meeting, but we did agree to a full and frank dis-cussion of the issues.

In a meeting attended by several preachers and lead-ers of the churches of Christ of Los Angeles on March 14.1941, the matter of the. proposed unity- meet& with- theChristian Church people was discussed and the consensus ofopinion was as follows:

That we should show every kindness and considerationto these brethren and that we should welcome the oppor-tunity to discuss our differences with them, but we shouldinform them with firmness that we could not enter into ameeting with a view to compromise of the issues that separ-ate us.

That the contemplated meeting should not be called a“Unity Meeting” or conducted along the lines similar tomeetings held in the East. A real unity meeting could notbe held until the dividing elements have been removed sothat the churches of Christ and Christian Churches couldall become one group.

That in such a proposed meeting we take it for grant-

ed that brotherlv love exists on both sides: that we all de-sire unity; that-we all appreciate the value of the unitedfront to the cause of Christ; therefore, the occasion shouldnot be a fellowship dinner or goodwill meeting for the pur-pose of promoting union by overriding the differences, butthe meeting should be a serious-minded affair for the pur-pose of determining what is right and what is wrong withreference to the issues involved.

That the leaders of the Christian Churches should un-derstand before such a meeting that the purpose is not totry to persuade people of the churches of Christ to fellow-shin them in state of the innovations. Either innovationsmust be removed or else it must be proved to our satisfac-tion that they are not sinful. They should not try to per-suade us to -compromise principles which are vital to-us.If they were entering such a meeting with representativesof the Methodist Church, they would not want the Methodistpeople to try to persuade the Christian Church people thatthev should fellowshin each other in soite of their differ-ences on the subject-of baptism. -

That both sides should enter the meeting with the re-alization that the issues dividing us are either right o rwrong. There can be no half-way position or compromise.If they are definitely proved to be right, they should be im-mediately adopted by both groups. If they are definitelyproved to be wrong, they should be immediately droppedby those who tolerate them, then there would be immediateunity automatically.

The question of respect for the authority of the NewTestament Scriptures in matters of worship, doctrine andpractices in religion is the question at issue. The innova-tions that are now a curse to the Christian Churches areonly symptoms or results of the disease that has existedfor man years. Large portions of that body have been car-ried away into liberalism of theological infidelity. Theyhave sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. The un-informed masses of lawmen and the remaining leaderswho still have faith in the Word of God should return allthe way to the New Testament position before they too areswept away by the current of modernism and disrepectfor God’s authority which breeds first innovations, thenbrings liberalism.

Since we do decline a unity meeting, but are willingto discuss the differences that divide us, I think the nextstep toward a practical meeting on the subject would befor a few representative men on each side to get togetherand decide what type of discussion may be had strictly onthe points in question, whether a public debate or infor-mal discussion by representative men. There probablyshould be a series of meetings, either in the form of publicdiscussions or informal proceedings relative to the vitalpoints at issue.

We regard the people of the Christian Churches as abrethren, but they are brethren who are being led astraybv a serious error which nrevents their churches from be-ing loyal New Testament churches. Therefore, we feelvery kindly toward the individuals, we love them but wedo not love their error. Although we love such brethren weare not expected to love them to the extent of fellowship-ping them in their error any more than people of the Chris-tian Churches would be expected to fellowship .people of;l;yi;zations who refuse to obey the simple ordinances of

We are hopeful that continued prayerful study and dis-cussion of the matters involved will be beneficial to all con-cerned.

Fraternally yours,-John Allen Hudson.

“WHAT IS THE UNITY MOVEMENT?”

I received by mail a leaflet bearing the above caption,purportedly prepared by Brethren Claud F. Witty and JamesBeForrest Murch. I suppose the leaflet has been prettywell distributed throughout the country. Its avowed pur-pose is to explain what they mean by “The Unity Move-ment.” They quotetion,” and

“Lockhart’s principles of interpreta-“Dungan’s Hermeneutics” to establish an auth-

or’s right to explain the purpose of his movement, as he issupposed to know better than others what his purpose is. No Aone need dispute their claim regarding the purpose of TheUnity Movement, but any one has a right to question itsfeasibility, its expediency, its consistency, its possible re-sults: also, its scripturalness. They claim “friends” whoapprove the movement as “a good thing:” they also admit“enemies” who regard it as “a dangerous e%periment.‘* An“experiment” is the proper name for it, for there is n o

MAY 1941 THE EIBLE BANNER 13

scriptural precedent for such “conferences” to decide anddetermine what rules shall govern churches of Christ.

They “examine” such scriptures as: 1 Cor. 1:lO; 3:4;Isa. 1:18; Prov. 11:14; 6:16-19; Matt. 59; 2 Cor. 13:ll; Eph.4:3, to establish the doctrine of unity and peace: all of whichare acceptable. But they did not examine 1 Cor. 4:6,_“Thatye might learn not to think above that which is written;”nor 2 John 9, “Whosoever goeth onward, and abideth not inthe doctrine of Christ, hath not God”; nor 1 John 4:6. “Hethat knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God. hear-eth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and thespirit of error”; nor 2 Tim. 4:3, “The time will come whenthev will not endure sound doctrine.” “If thev sneak n o taccording to this word, it is because there is” no- light inthem.” (Isa. 8:20.1 “The prophet that shall presume tnspeak a word in my name, which I have not commandedhim to sneak.-even that nroohet shall die.” (Deut. 18:20.)gty did-they ignore these scriptures in their ‘study of uni-

Paul warned the elders of Ephesus: “After my depart-ing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparingthe flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speak-ing perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”(Acts 20:29-30.) “There are many unruly and vain talkersand deceivers-teaching things which they ought not, forfilthy lucre’s sake.” (Titus l:lO,ll). “There were falseprophets among the people, even as there shall be falseteachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnableheresies-and many shall follow their pernicious ways.”(2 Pet. 2:1-2.) With these warnings, Paul prescribes thefortification: “Take heed unto thyself, and to the doctrine,continue in them.” (1 Tim. 4:16.) “‘Hold the traditions whichthou has been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”(2 Thess. 2:15.) “Holding fast the faithful word, as he hasbeen taught.” (Titus 1:9.) “Hold fast the form of soundwords, which thou hast heard of me.” (2 Tim. 1:13.) “Thethings which ye have learned, and received, and heard, andseen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with thee.”(Phil. 4:9.)

The leaflet sunaests that the scriotures dealing with uni-ty and peace are ‘being ignored by them who are-taking nostock in their Unity Movement: but are thev not tacitly ig-noring these other scriptures bearing unon “sound doctrine,abiding in the doctrine of Christ, not thinking above what iswritten?” “All scripture” is necessary to make the man ofGod perfect. God surely desires that his children “live inpeace,_” but not in peace with error and infractions uvonhis prmciples of doctrine. I auote from the pamvhlet: “Instudying this scripture in the light of the Restoration Move-ment as inaugurated by Thomas and Alexander Campbelland their co-laborers, we saw plainly that something waswrong.” Is that their manner of testing the virtue of doc-trine? Is that what Paul taught? Did any inspired writerrecommend “The Restoration Movement” as a criterion toguide Christians in their work and worship? Is not “TheReformation Movement” of Luther, et al. as authoritativeas Camvbell’s “Movement?” Were Campbell, Scott. Stone,Smith, inspired men any more than were Luther, Zwingh,Huss. Calvin? Such an anpeal to “The Restoration Move-ment” by disciples is disgusting.

The Campbells were “men,” and made errors as do allmen. They were just emerging from the depths of denom-inational errors. and spoke and wrote many things in theearlv davs of their studv that thev later revudiated. Noone knows how much more they would have rejected if theyhad continued to live and studv. They were farther advanc-ed in studv than were the reformers in Luther’s time. butthey were” far from -being complete in knowledge. Ourbret.hren reveal their foolishness every time they appealto “The Restoration Movement” for any sort of bolster foritems of faith and practice. Christians should have enoughsense to zo over the heads of Campbell, Luther, Jerome,and all other great teachers. and not stop short of the placeTimothy was instructed to tie his faith: on the teachings ofPaul and his associate apostles. Also, a great play is madeunon “Our Plea.” That means no more than the “Plea”of sectarianism. The discioles of Christ have no “plea”exceot “That which is written.”

All Christians should deplore the divisions that are nowin the Lord’s church, and thev do. But the warnings ofChrist and his apostles lead us to expect such difficultiesbecause of the ever present evil men, who “Creev in un-awares” to teach things they ought not. Paul said: “Theirmouths must be stopned” : and when faithful men essay todo that “mouth storming,” the cry is raised of “oersecu-tion: rights of conscience ; causing division :” and timid eld-ers just back away and let them have it. Some continue to

“fight the good fight of faith” as arrayed against “opin-ions. traditions. exvediencv.” Then who is guilty of caus-ing division? This ‘leaflet correctly says : “When-one fightsagainst what God teaches in his Word, he fights againstGod.” That is fine. How.is this? “When one fights againstwh;tz;$,bas not taught m his Word, he 1-s fighting for and

The leaflet proceeds from this important thoughtto “consider conditions as they are known to exist among USin the world todav.”

I give this quotation from the leaflet:‘In the state of Illinois there are three towns of five or

six hundred inhabitants each, some six miles apart on thesame railroad. In each of these, besides two or three den-ominational churches, there are a ‘Church of Christ’ anda ‘Christian Church,’ meeting a few blocks apart. At thehour of worship thirty or forty people sit .down at the Lord’sTable in each of the buildings, two preachers stand beforetwo audiences and vreach two sermons of equal merit, etc.”Then they ask: “Why is this? Do they worship differentgods? Do they read different Bibles?” Why do these twomen who are apparently striving to bring those two groupsof worshippers together ask such questions? They both knowvery well why. They know, and we all know, that those twogroups of peole would be worshipping together in peace andunity if one of them did not insist on the use of unauthorizedequipment in their worship which the other group is afraidto use without God’s sanction.

One group “fights against the things God has nottaught in his Word,” and are accused as trouble makers.when there would be no trouble at all if all were satisfied to“not think above that which is written.” The group which“goeth onward. and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ”does not have God with them, sowhy should the other groupor any one desire to worship with them? If they wish toworship where God will be in their midst, they shouldleave the added equivment, and PO worship with the oneswho are satisfied with what the Word has authorized. Ifthese two self-appointed “reformers” really desire thatthose two groups become one, why do they not properly diag-nose the case asthe remedy of

“unscrivtural practice,” and prescribe“cutting off” the offending appendixes so

the “body” could get well? The only way to heal a sore isto “remove all foreign substances,” then avply the healingbalm, and all will be well. A sore will not heal while for-eign substances remain. I am confident that Brethren Wit-tv-and Murch both know just where the trouble lies: .butWitty is too timid to assert his “scientific findings,” andMurch cannot afford to retract his previous diagnosis.

They present a “five point avvroach to unity” forconsideration. The first point is, “Prayer,” which sectar-ians prescribe to the alien sinner as an antidote for sins,disregarding obedience. Second: “Survey. Seeking to de-termine how much we have in common in faith and.prac-tice.” That also is a sectarian tactic used in all their“union meetinss.” and fits in verv nicelv into this “UnitvMovement.” The. sects will spend weeks in a union meeting.being careful to not mention controverted doctrines, andthen return to their several places of worshiv just as faravart as ever. That will verv likelv be the final result ofthis “Unity Movement,” or they will both be with the in-novators. If they exnect to remove the difficulties, theywill have to bring them out into the open, discuss them, mea-sure them bv the Word of God, agree to discard from bothsides everv thing unscriptural.

But will they do that? Have they been doing it? Whencertain brethren with good intentions. attempted to pullthose skeletons from the closets and dissect their prover-ties. thev have met with stern rebuke, and were not invitedagain. If those two groups of worshippers, not only in Il-linois, but in almost every hamlet. are ever to iron out theirdifficulties, they will have to apply the iron to those pointswherein the trouble lies, and not continue to boast of thethings wherein thev agree. Christians can fraternize withCatholics, ews. Mohammedans. by such a policy. “Friend-liness” is the third point, which needs no comment, exceptthat “The friendshin of the world is enmity with God.”Fourth : “Co-operation: In enterprises which will not doviolence to our personal or proup convictions.” Why, Iwould ask, should hrethren in Christ harbor “personal andsronn convictions?” All “convictions” should emanate fromthe Word of Truth. and that will not produce “persona1 andgrnup convictions.” The introduction of those things that“The Word of God has not spoken” is all that works suchdivisive convictions. Leave those things off and you willnot have unscriptural “convictions.”

“Study and discussion,” is the fifth point. What yjAli$discussed, if not the differences? They are already

14 THE BIBLE BANNER

on undisputed points. Murch is afraid to discued ooints with one who will stand for Truth.

MAY 1941

afr&d to insist on such a discussion.divisive ideas, and then thebefore. Who was to blame? Was it heagainst what God has not taughtanswer that query in the judgment, and you-James T. Amis, Springfield, MO.”

ings of Christ make for -humility and meekness and tender-ness of Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, tem-perence, all of which grow out of the Spirit and make forpeace among the people of God. Division comes as a re-sult of a wrong Spirit and may be classed among the lustsof the flesh. We are to walk after the Spirit and not afterthe flesh. When we walk after the Snirit. then will the Godof all peace comfort us and keep us ever in his peace.

Follow after things that make for peace. By doing this,division cannot invade the Body of Christ. All too often,trouble comes to us because we do not “follow the thingsthat make for peace.” Many times, locally in congregations,where matters of judgment and policy are the only issuesunder discussion, many times we do not follow things thatmake for peace. We become stubborn and self-willed, de-termined to have our way in the matter. The result is divi-sion. Then too, had brethren who comprise the “Disciplesof Christ,” the “Christian Church,” followed the thingsthat make for oeace. and endeavored to keen that unitv ofSpirit in the bonds of peace, they would today be enjo$ingthat peace and unity in Christ. To follow the things thatmake for neace would have ruled out the manv innovationswhich invaded the church and divided brethren. There isbut one thing left to be done, if they would enjoy unityamong God’s people, and that is for them to return to that&ace and to those oremises from whence thev denarted.and where alone unity and peace in Christ can”be ~found. ’

“DEPARTING FROM UNITY”/

/ /We hear much today about the subject of unity amongthe neoole of God. That God hates division amons his neo-ple one-cannot deny, in view of his revealed wilLV D&ionis listed among the lusts of the flesh and, therefore, is car-nal. The apostle says, “For to be carnal minded is death,”while to be spiritually minded is “life and peace.” Anyonewho teaches a doctrine, or advocates a theory, or conductshimself in his or her personal life in such a way as to causedivision and offenses contrary to the teaching of Christ, isguilty of the terrible sin of division. We are taught thatwe are to “all speak the same thing” and “be of the samemind and the same judgment.” We are to “mark themwhich cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doc-trine which ye have learned and avoid them.” But thereare certain things which are essential to maintaining peace.We must observe those principles that make for peace.

Jesus made peace. The angels, who announced thebirth of Christ heralded him as “The Prince of Peace.”They said of him, “Peace on Earth, good will toward men.”Jesus is the author of peace, he purchased it and left itwith men. He said, “My peace, I leave with you.” “In theworld, you have trouble,” he further said, “And I, if I belifted UKI. I will draw all men unto me.” At the time, Jesusuttered-these words, men were divided into warring groups,religiously as well as in social and civil life. From all thesevarious groups men would be drawn unto Christ, who is thePrince of Peace. In him thev would have neace andhave unity. To this agrees the- testimony of the ApostlePaul in these words, “But now, in Christ Jesus, ye whosometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the blood ofChrist. For he is our neace. who hath made both one. andhath broken down the -middle wall of partition between us.Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law ofcommandments contained in ordinances; for to make in him-self of twain, one new man, so making peace ; and that hemight reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, hav-ing slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peaceto YOU which were afar off. and to them that were night.”This language is so plain, that one would need help to-mis-understand it. There is but one place, where men mayfind unity in matters religious, and that is in Christ; in hisbody, which is the church. This peace and unity was pur-chased with the blood of Christ in his death upon the Cross.Jesus said, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold,them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and oneshepherd.”

In Jesus’ prayer for unity, when he uttered these words,“That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and Iin thee, that they may be one in us,” was a prayer offered inview of his death and the unity and one-ness that wouldcome as a result of that death. Paul says, “To wit, thatGod was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,”God was in the death of our Savior. and in that death. hewas “reconciling the world unto himself,” “in one body bythe cross.” If men are reconciled to God in that body, thenthey are one. and therein is the unitv for which Jesus orav-ed.- We so ‘often hear comments from pulpit and ,Jres&which would lead one to think that Jesus prayer, in the17th Chapter of John, for unity, is still un-answered. Hisprayer was answered long ago, and is answered todap. Ifmen depart from that unity in Christ, then the only th’ingthey can do to again enjoy that unity is to return to thatplace, where it is found.

f

Brethren talk and write about the “Unity Movement”as though in this movement was the first and only attemptat unity. Jesus bought unity with his blood. It is in theBody of Christ, based upon the teaching of Christ. It hasnever been a “lost art,” it is not something to be created.It is uossible to all neoale. Everv man. who oreaches theGospel in its purity- and entirety,” pleads for people to beone in Christ Jesus. The “Unity Movement” was begunsome 1900 years ago and has never stopped in its workings.I believe in it. and I am anxious to have all neoole cometo that unity of the Spirit and to that bond of peace, whichcan be found only in Christ. Because one is not personallya party to the “Unity Movement,” as carried on by breth-ren Witty and Murch, does not mean that they are opposedto unity or that they are not working for unity. All trueGospel preachers have been working for it in every sermonthey oreach. and meetings that thev hold. I am inclinedto think, it is that cons&t, personal, continuous effort inpreaching and living the Gospel of Christ, that will effectunity. The call of the Gospel is a call to peace and unityin Christ. When brethren are divided and alienated, it isbecause someone has departed from that unity in Christ.May God ever help us to be humble, earnest and ever fol-

Announcement of this meeting, the fourth of its kind inas many years, has come to me, and along with the an-nouncement, a four page folder explaining the aims andpurposes of the meeting, which is to be a two-day meetingin which “twelve men from the Christian Church and twelvefrom the Church of Christ will take part in these meetings.”In this meeting “a panel discussion” will be held on Mon-day “in a quiet room alone-and freely discuss such ques-tions as the use of instrumental music in the public wor-ship of the church, the missionary society, and such otherquestions as we may see fit.” Just who the twenty-four menselected are and the purpose of the discussion behind clos-ed doors, we are not told; nor are we told who made theselection or formulated the course of procedure. But fromthe explanatory folder enclosed with the announcement, Itake it that Brethren Witty and Murch arranged the pro-gram.Maintaining Unity. Since Jesus brought oeace and uni-

ty in His death, and since we are all one in Christ, then wemust maintain that one-ness and unity. The Apostle says.“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the boundof peace.” This is a challenge to disciples of Christ to main-tain that peace. We must endeavor to keep that unity and

How may we do it? By first maintaining these sev-

i

:peace.

The explanatory folder reveals that in the minds ofthe sponsors of this unity movement, there lingers two sus-picions : (1) That there are those among the opposition totheir program, and the uninformed of the nature of it,. whoare suspicious that their explanation does not explain intruth. and to allay this supposed suspicion, some authorities

en points of unity, which follow the apostles exhortation for are quoted to prove that they know better than anybodypeace. We must sneak the same thing in teaching and dottrine. The preaching of the Gosnel makes for peace. It i

what they mean by what they say. (2) There are some in

known as the Gospel of peace. The Gosnel of Christ neveone or both churches who do not believe in unity of chris-

has, or never will, divide Christians. Division comes as atians, and to remove this disbelief, a number of scrip-

result of preaching things, apart from, in addition to, andtures from the New Testament bearing on that question, arecited. All of which, I affirm, every Christian in the land be-.

MAY 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 15

Iieves whole-heartedly. This scribe does not object in theleast to brethren meeting together to discuss their differ-ences. anv where. anv time. He would make it evenbroader than that ‘by including any who are not brethrendoing so. He would gladly accept an invitation to take partin such a discussion, if it were possible. And his sole effortwould be to learn the will of the Lord on the question dis-cussed.

When quite a young preacher I was invited to appearon a wrorzram swonsored bs the Christian Church. wurwort-ably, ‘for-the same purpose as this one. I accepted.-To- thisday I have been unable to see how I could have been moreconsiderate of the feelings and aims of those who were anx-ious to teach me. Of the speech itself, I kept well inside thelimits of facts and scripture statement. I know I did. TheChairman’s wife replied to it publicly enough to be heardall over the house, in one sentence. She said, with em-phasis, “That man is a self-made ignoramus.” On severalother occasions, I have had similar invitations to speakto paper-reading audiences, and have always accepted. Onrof such came from as a good a friend as I have ever had.He said he did it in the hope that he could teach me thetruth. When it was over, we were still good friends-andI was still ignorant! But none of these meetings were heldbehind closed doors.

h&e greater appeal now? But that prayer&went unheeded

After nearly a century of prayerful study of the ques-tions to be “studied” in this meeting, which have been opento the public, how may we expect better things to come

and unanswered for the sake of the very things now to be

from a discussion behind closed doors? My belief that in-

’ studied prayerfully.

strumental music in the worship, and missionary organiza-tions are unscriptural is not based on the wisdom of man,

Brethren, the road of broken fellow-

but upon the word of God. Am I now expected to surren-

ship which the Christian Church has traveIed is stiI1 visibIe.

der to the opinion of men? I fear that I will be found adull student! Had the brethren now sponsoring this unity

You must know what broke the fellowship, and knowing it,

movement lived in Texas during the ‘80’s. and had theydeplored division as they now seem to do, they would have‘been walked over by the Christian Church as were those

you also know what will re-weld it into a glorious whole

who could not then crucify their faith. Then, the pleadinesof thousands to retain the fellowshiw and wreserve the unitv

- __:..

of the body of Christ, were of no avail; Their prayerswent unheard, and their fellowship unwanted. The prayerfor unity had been Drayed long before, and was as dppeal-ing as it now is. Then. it was ruthlesslv swurned. Does it

“progressives” as are genuinely sincere in wanting tohelp rebuild the walls of spiritual Zion can and will do so,personally, in man-to-man- talks with loyal gospel preach-ers in their own localities, and will not need any sort of“catholic council” to interpret the Word of God to them. Wedo not ask them to “join us,” but only to obey God and fullyresuect His authority. ascribing all the rrlorv to Him. TheM&h-Witty fiasco has not don> this, but clouded the issuewith ceremonial unity in pious platitudes that did not beginto remove the causes of division or even to analyze themopenly and objectively in the light of Scripture. What hu-man innovation have the Digressives offered to give up forthe sake of unity?

The history of the Christian Standard and ChristianRestoration Association’s phoney fight against the UnitedChristian Missionary Society’s modernistic dictatorship overthe Disciples is revealing. I saw personally in 1926 and1927 and read from papers of various groups after I cameclean from even passive acceptance of human innovationsin 1928, that the selfprofessed “new loyalists” of the Mem-phis “theatre meeting” at the Internationl Convention of1926 and of the anti-U. C. M. S. North American ChristianConvention at Indianapolis in 1927, were lacking in genuineloyalty to God’s Word or else they would have severed allrelations with that atheistic U. C. M. S. wawacv a lone timebefore 1941. They have stultified themselves by clin&ig tothe fiction of unity inside the International Convention whilefighting like cats and dogs for twenty years or more, havingnumerous local churches split over the issue.

I assure YOU of my whole-hearted agreement with youin your announced objectives in the great fight you are

_

making for doctrinal purity of the true churches of Christ.I have lost many personal friends in the past by following

My work in the southern Philippines was located about

God’s Word above all human relationships, and will con-tinue to

five hundred miles distant and in a different language from

“obey God rather than men,” not letting any manor group of men have “strings” on me religiously. During

that of the Cassells around Manila. I had no part in or

my five years as Bible teacher and evangelist in the Philip-pines, I went out of my way to let Don Carlos Janes knowby personal letters that I took no stock in his premillennial

sympathy for the errors with which they were charged in

vagaries. From my childhood I have understood the Scrip-tures plainly to mean that Christ’s coming will usher in

a previous issue of the Banner. They are able to speak for

the beginning of eternal joy with Him in glory-not anysuwer-Hitlerian world emwire in the flesh.

themselves, being answereable under God to the Southwestagam.

Union is sweet, far sweeter to those who have possessedchurch at Los Angeles, as we were to the church at Graton.

it and lost it, than it is to those who have never tasted itsCalifornia, and you are to your home congregation in Okla-

sweetness. But its sweetness could not be restored by ahoma City while preaching in various parts of the great

“negotiated peace.” It must rome by the individual sur-worldwide field where the only foreigners are alien sinnerswithout regard to race. color. or national residence.

render route. We cannot trade the peace of God for theweace of men. If it is the desire to revive this peace so Therefore, as one who wants to “hew to the line andlong lost, I point to the still bleeding fragments. to the let the chips fall where they may,” I wish to congratulatethinas which broke it, and exhort you to stav the blood and you and other stalwarts who are upholding positive truthheal its hurts by removing the things which broke it. I still and opposing the errors of various isms, hobbies., humanhave confidence in the power of a faith that will work bv innovations, worldliness, compromise and softism m gener-love to accomplish this blessed desire if allowed to work. al. The truth must be told, even if it hurts. True ChristianTo you who admit that the instruments by which the fellow- love in preaching the truth seeks to save people out of their

ship was broken are instruments of nreference. we sav sins and errors-not to coddle or appease them in theironce and for all. we cannot exchange faith for perference. wrong-doing for fear of hurting their feelings. I thank God

-M. 0. Daley, Rock Springs, Texas. that we still have many brethren capable of wielding theSword of the Soirit as a surgeon’s knife to remove harmfulprow& from ihe body of ‘Christ so skillfully as to save

“A FACTION OF DIGRESSIVE DISCIPLES” the various members that have spiritual life enough to brsaved bv anv means. I want to do all I can in this great

Just recently I read the February Bible Banner with work, humb& and in fear of God. May He bless YOU 2b beyour gracious invitation for any and all true Christ,ians- wise and faithful and enduring for many years of soul-sav-not pussvfooters-to have our say concerning the Murch- ing labor yet to come. -Orville T. Rodman. OklahomaWitty milk-and-water compromise movement for unity of a City, Okla.faction of the Digressive Disciples with Christians who havenot digressed from God’s Word. At first their wromotionalarsum&ts sounded plausible, since we were encouraged to

APPROVED BY PRACTICE

believe that the New Testament would be studied as the In the 12th chapter of the Roman letter, verse two, webasis of unity; but, in most cases. “our” self-appointed have this statement: “And be not conformed to this world:spokesmen acted like “softies,” fooling around on teetcr- but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, thattotters rather than proclaiming God’s perfect terms of uni- ve mav Drove what is that eood. and accewtable. and wer-ty-which is the only kind of religious unitv that should feet will’of God . ” The word<prove in this statement has ainterest us. It misht have been different if “our” sweakershad been Wallaces: a Hardeman, a Lewis and a Porter. But

significance that a11 should get. Weymouth, in his modernspeech new testament translates it: “So that you may learn

now it is too late to establish confidence on our part toward by experience what God’s will is.” Again we might say:those who would entice us away from our great work of “That you may demonstrate in your lives what is the good,rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem to attend a conference and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” There is a valu-with crafty opponents in the plains of Ono. As many of the able lesson to be learned from this plea of the great Apostle.

16 THEBIBLE BANNER MAY 1941

clean and ho

skeptical.-ibHere is the way it might be done in ac rdance with the

thoughts already presented. If a preacher wants to beknown among the brethren will soon find out about it withoutany statement as to his soundness. If he will reprove, re-buke, and exhort all who are in error, his name will neverbe brought up for discussion as to his soundness.

If each college wili employ a staff of teachers knownamong the brethren for their steadfastness, they will havethe full endorsement of all faithful brethren everywhere. Bypreviops conduct some already have records that may bequestioned. If you would remove this arrange for the edi-tor of the “Bible Banner” to come there and deliver a ser-ies of lectures on themes that have brought a doubt. Or

better still, arrange a debate between Brother Wallace andBrother Boll, and have it in the college auditorium. Youcan remove the question mark, If you really want it re-moved. A restoration of confidence would be along stepin the right direction.-Oscar Ellison, Norman, Okla.

SIGHTING-IN SHOTSI drove by a place of business in the beautiful hills of

yoesrt ‘yirginia and noticed this in large letters yyer theRemember the Sabbath Day to Beep it holy. Under

it thk information appeared that “We close on Sundav.” Mvfriend, you used the wrong text. You should have said: “Weclose on Saturday”or selected another text. It w o u l dhaep been as logical to have quoted the law pertaining tothe Passover, feast days, or new moons and then said: “Weclos@, on Sunday.” The sabbath was a Jewish memorial dayand

2s nothing whatever to do with the new covenant under

Chri Christians do not observe the sabbath. The first, dayof the’ week is the Lord’s day and was never called thesabbath by the authority of Christ. It is a new day with anentirely new meaning and does not suggest the sabbath. Anew and an entirely different law governs its observance. Itis commendable to close a place of business on Sunday forgood reasons that could be given but the fact that Godcommbndea the Jews to “remember the Sabbath Day tokeep it ho!?” is not one of them. “Let no man therefore,judge you 14 meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day‘br a new m.mn or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of thethings to &ome: but the body is Christ’s,” (Cal. 2:16. 17)“Let no man therefore judge you.” Why the Therefore?Because he who circumcised us with a circumcision notmade with hands “blotted out the bond written in ordinancesthat was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hathtaken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” (Verse I4The sabbath belonged to this “bond written in ordinances”which has been blotted out. We have a better law than thelaw of Moses and a better day than the Jewish sabbath. Weshould possibly not expect an ordinary business man ofdevout character to be possessed of very much informationalong this line when even the preachers. who ought to knowbetter, talk piously about “the Christian sabbath.” It isimportant to “hold the patter nof sound words.” The popularuse of the term sabbath to describe the first day of theweek is out of harmony with ‘(sound words.” No inspiredwriter ever called the first day of the week the sabbath.-Cled E. Wallace.

Complete Christian Hymnal\ COMPILED BY MARION DAVIS

SECOND EDITION NOW READYHeavy cloth binding-unbreakable backs-325 songs. It is SPIRITUAL and SCRIPTURAL.Considerable expense was incurred in changing plates to correct erroneous teaching. Thecompiler was assisted in this work by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and we believe all vital errors havebeen eliminated from these songs.

THE MOST POPULAR OLD SONGS AND THE MOST POPULAR NEW SONGS

TWO BINDINGS: Limp Covers and Cloth-board. Red edges.

LOW PRICES: Limp, 35c the copy. Cloth, 5Oc the copy.

WRITE FOR PRICES PER HUNDRED

The Marion Davis Co.Box ,162 Fayette, Ala.