Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
May 26, 1960
NUMBER 4, PAGE 9a-11

The Antics Of The Advocate's Angel

Chas. M. Campbell, Nashville, Tennessee

Brother Wallace's antics with semantics will surely prove "more amusin than confusin" to those who are familiar with the facts and all who think for themselves.

He, like so many who have found themselves without a defense for the digressive practices which have been adopted by so many of the churches of our day, would make a play upon words in an effort to prejudice the minds of his readers. The same trick has been tried repeatedly with reference to the titles of various periodicals in the brotherhood. Does Brother Wallace think that the title of the paper in which his article appeared infers that it is the only organ being used for the advocacy of the gospel?

Most assuredly the men who came to preach for the Franklin Road Church did not think of themselves as "The Saviors of Nashville." They ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Sovereign Son of God, all merit and efficacy in regard to the redemption of man, and He was proclaimed and acclaimed by them as man's only Savior. Those men believe, and they taught, that Christ has all authority in heaven and in earth. In the strength of that faith they considered themselves obligated to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" the multitudinous errors that are in vogue here, in the hope that the churches of Nashville and the surrounding territory might be influenced to turn from their digressive ways. We occupied a position similar to that of Brother Wallace twenty-one years ago, come April 23rd, when he spoke in the building of the University Place Christian Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on the subject "The Differences Between The Christian Church And The Church of Christ." During that sermon Brother Wallace made the following remarks which we deem as applicable to the churches of Christ in this area now as they were to the Christian Church then. Brother Wallace said:

"Brethren and friends, it is with mixed emotions that I stand here this afternoon to speak on the subject announced. Of course I am always glad of an opportunity to preach the gospel, to defend the truth as it is in Christ Jesus; and yet my heart bleeds when I look out over a brotherhood that has been torn asunder by men and women who are. following the "doctrines and commandments of men." This division, caused by men who have corrupted the simple New Testament worship, makes my heart sad. Thus you can see why there is in my heart, this afternoon, mingled emotions of joy because of an opportunity to say something that will restore the fellowship once enjoyed, and sadness because of the present division.

The Bible commands us to be one, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10). We can obey this command only by being guided by the book — the Bible; by returning to the old paths. I beseech you this day to return to the right way. The only things that stand in the way of perfect unity, today, are our wills in the matter. The weeping prophet stood among the divided people of God in the long ago and pleaded for a return to the old paths. Hear him, "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." (Jer. 6:16). They said, We will not. If unity is really desired it may be had. However, if you have made up your minds that you "will not" — then you won't"

Now, does Brother Wallace think himself to be in possession of a God given monopoly on the prerogative of attempting to correct those who are in religious error? Did he consider himself to be occupying the status of a Savior when he criticized and condemned the errors of the Christian Church in Oklahoma City? Why was it right for Brethren I. C. Nance and G. K. Wallace and the Military Park Church of Christ to expose and oppose the innovations and perversions engaged in by the Christian Church in Oklahoma City in 1929, but wrong for the Franklin Road Church and the preachers who assisted it to expose the unauthorized and sinful practices being engaged in by the churches of Christ in Nashville in 1959? With Brother Wallace it would appear to be a matter of whose error is being opposed by whom.

The great and glorious Restoration of the nineteenth century was characterized by doctrinal discussions. The errors of the numerous conflicting creeds with constant criticism and unrelenting opposition and the spirit of sectarianism so rife in that day met from both the tongues and the pens of the champions of that mighty movement. Later, when the innovationists among them began to hinder the cause by the introduction of unscriptural, unauthorized practices, men of faith, who recognized no standard but the word of God, denounced the actions in no uncertain terms. But Brother Wallace would have us believe that all such efforts are without the authority of either precept or precedent in the history of Christianity. Thus he reflects upon the very spirit of the men without whose labors he would hardly know the truth. Truth which he seems so willing to sacrifice for the sake of popularity or some other emolument of no greater value.

In the same sermon to which reference has been made, Brother Wallace condemned the Christian Church, in scathing terms, for its sin of dividing the body of Christ over unscriptural organizations. To him, at that time, any other organization designated to do the work which God had appointed the church to do was very sinful. And he definitely understood the difference between organizations and methods, too. Here are his words concerning the human organizations of the Christian Church:

"The many missionary societies have corrupted the New Testament organization. They have divided the house of God. They have even divided the Christian Church. Note the fight over these things between the Christian Standard and Christian Evangelist — the two leading Christian Church papers. Societies are not methods of doing the work of God. They are organizations. They usurp the work of the church. It is an unauthorized body — this missionary society. A mob is an unauthorized body. These societies are but mobs in the kingdom of God."

At this juncture, and on this point, it is proper, no doubt, to quote Brother Athens Clay Putties and David Lipscomb College. (It is assumed that Brother Pullias represented the position of the College, at least he spoke as its president, and his speech was published in the David Lipscomb College Bulletin, Volume 37, February 1950, Number 10, and mailed from the office of the College.) Brother Pullias spoke on "An Increasing Ecclesiasticism." Here are his very pointed, pertinent words:

"God has ordained that elders, overseers, shall oversee the work of the local congregation of the Lord's church. There is no scriptural organization beyond the local congregation that would link two or more congregations together under the same control, except of course, the unity of the universal church under Christ Jesus as its head. Therefore, any actual plan, or situation, which transfers control to any agency, institution, or group is unscriptural and anti-scriptural. This is true even if such control is informal and denied by those who actually exercise it. It is not the province of any school, paper or preacher to supervise, direct, or meddle in the affairs of a local congregation of God's people. The New Testament does not make provisions for any brotherhood regulators, or spiritual umpires to oversee the congregations. Any group attempting to exercise such control is in essence a denominational Board — whatever you want to call it, and whatever it calls itself. Therefore, when any school, paper, or preacher announces the intention to fasten itself on the churches or to direct and control the brotherhood, that act is sinful, and should be opposed as unscriptural and wrong by every faithful Christian. Each school, paper, and preacher does have the right to teach the word of God, and that is all. Therefore let no man bind upon you anything as a matter of faith for which he cannot give a "thus saith the Lord." The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ is not determined on the campus of any school, nor in the editorial rooms of any paper, nor in the private study of any preacher, or group of preachers. The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ is determined only by what is taught in the New Testament."

Notwithstanding the above words of wisdom, Brother Putties has completely reversed himself, and now occupies the unenviable position of an apologist for institutionalism with all of its sinister schemes and politically operated pressure movements. And, as far as it has been within the power of his office, he has placed the faculty and facilities of the school at the disposal of this recently spawned spiritual octopus, whose tentacles have wrapped themselves around the church in a life and death struggle. For this reason, if for no other, Brother Wallace should be careful about any reference to an "ecumenical council."

Surely the "ecumenical council" consists of the assembling of preachers from the nation, and a few foreign countries, perhaps, on the campus of the local seminary — David Lipscomb College. For it is there that the dogmatic theology of the day is formulated and the creed of the churches is written. It is a well known fact that the president, who will not allow anyone to teach there unless he subscribes to the modern ideas of institutionalism, has tried desperately to bind his "Creed In The Deed" upon the churches. He would actually confiscate their property by legal process in order to give advantage to the heresy of the hour. "Ecumenical councils," indeed!

As for preachers acting as "termites," G. K. Wallace is not exactly my idea of the man to cast the first stone at such a surreptitious situation. The other preachers, whom he assailed as "hypocrites," are of age, and they are abundantly able to answer for themselves. But I well remember my experience with him in regard to a doctrinal issue. In view of his inconsistent and irreconcilable actions in the past, there is no possible way to translate his name into "Otto, The Orkin Man." In fact, it would be much easier to think of him as Senator Wiggleworm, whose face can be seen on both sides of a proposition at the same time.

When he came to Chattanooga, Tennessee, about seventeen years ago, to preach in a meeting for Central Church, he had already very conveniently selected his entire repertory of sermons, and no art of persuasion could induce him to alter it. Premillennialism was the burning issue of the day; and Central Church had been ruthlessly and unscripturally victimized by its perverted preaching and political chicanery; but G. K. Wallace was as silent as a sphinx on the subject. Oh, he condescended to refer to it on one Sunday afternoon, and to boast of his ability to annihilate it, but his threats served no good purpose. He even lent his influence to those who were compromising and sympathizing with premillennialism, and criticized those of us who were condemning it openly and publicly as the odious and obnoxious theory that it is and always has been. So, it did not come as a surprise to me when G. K. Wallace changed his position on the current issue and began to use his influence in behalf of institutionalism. The truth is, I know of no man who is better qualified to act in the role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, as far as doctrinal issues are concerned, than he.

"What Is The Sin of Nashville?" Principally and primarily it is the rejecting of the authority of the New Testament in regard to the mission of the church under the commission of Christ. And, as a result, there is every kind of an innovation that any of the modern movements advocates can conceive or contrive and impose upon the churches. I name a few of the long list whose name is legion, there are the hobby shops, youth recreation center, youth singings — inter-congregational in nature; and where "pop" songs are sung 4s well as spiritual ones, church camps, church kitchens, fellowship breakfasts, men's luncheons, with a chairman, etc., church skating parties, a juvenile delinquency program of an inter-congregation arrangement, the churches contributions to the colleges, celebrations of wedding anniversaries, and compromising the gospel by so called "affirmative preaching.

The specific errors which were dealt with during the Franklin Road meeting were not concerned with opposition to "taking money out of the church treasury to care for orphans," preaching the gospel to the lost and dying people of the world, or teaching the Bible in the college or through the columns of a paper. Neither was the meeting conducted in an effort to reflect upon any man. Such ignoble efforts are left, as far as we are concerned, to other organizations and individuals. The meeting was conducted in a very sincere effort to clarify the position of the Franklin Road Church, which has been deliberately and maliciously misrepresented repeatedly. It was also conducted for the purpose of defending "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints," and which is now being corrupted and compromised in this city of so many advantages and opportunities, where the truth is concerned.

Brother Clay Pullias had written and circulated a tract titled "Where There Is No Pattern." He made it available to the public; and thereby subjected it to public criticism, if such was deemed proper and advisable. Therefore its contents were examined and its specious arguments were answered. David Lipscomb College was censured for its impositions upon the church, and its doctrinal departures from the faith in its teaching of the youth who enters its halls and subject themselves to its influence. Was such a procedure the unpardonable sin? The church may be criticized, but not the college.

Also, the preacher s on the faculty of the school exploit the pulpits of this section of the country to extol the virtues and argue the advantages of David Lipscomb College. Here is preacher payola on parade. The churches pay the preachers, but use the time that should be devoted to preaching the gospel to eulogize the college. They emphasize that the students at Lipscomb are not embarrassed by not being able to participate in all of the activities of the school, as is the case with many in the public schools. Of course, the implication is obvious. The reference is to the dancing which is practiced in many public schools. But the same preachers will receive their pay from money contributed by a Hollywood star, who not only dances himself, but has a television show that undoubtedly owes much of its popularity to the dancing that is done on it, and not just such as is done in public schools, as repulsive as that may be. If Prancing Pat can "cha, cha, cha' his way into the Celestial City, why can't the sons and daughters of other church members do the same thing? The Dean, and Vice-President of the College flew to New Jersey to have a conference with their cherished celebrity in the interest of a show that he is scheduled to stage for the school in Atlanta, Georgia some time this year. Also, the dean is to make a plane trip to England with him.

The Gospel Advocate has made every kind of a vicious attack upon those who have dared to differ with its unscriptural and indefensible editorial policy and doctrinal position. It has been as unethical as any propaganda agency has ever been. Those who have submitted to its editorial edicts have been the recipients of its plaudits, and its panegyrics have been pronounced upon them. All others have been stigmatized by it as "antis" and their names have been cast out as evil. Why, then, does Brother Wallace think that it is a terrible thing for men to take issue with The Gospel Advocate? Does he think that The Gospel Advocate and David Lipscomb College have exclusive rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The Lipscomb teachers go before their classes and, taking advantage of mere youths, hold up Franklin Road church to ridicule. One of them, who has a reputation for being so lovable, talked at length to a young lady to dissuade her from attending the services there. And, according to reports from reliable sources, Clay Pullias has been guilty of the same unethical practice before the entire school at a chapel service. A local congregation brought a preacher to the city, almost a year prior to the Franklin Road meeting, to expound the modern theory of benevolence and evangelism. The preachers of the majority of the "over one hundred and ten congregations" in Nashville have constantly striven to maintain their unscriptural position via way of attacks where a reply was impossible. "They work in the dark out of sight." (To be concluded next week.)