Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
January 8, 1970
NUMBER 35, PAGE 4-5a

"We" Are Not Immune

Editorial

"Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, That he is grown so great?" were the words by which the ancient conspirator sought to arouse his fellow Romans against the overweening ambition of his emperor. We really don't know what kind of diet this Caesar had been feasting upon, but we suspect many disciples of Christ in our day may have been nibbling at the same deceptive cuisine. Caesar was no doubt familiar with the violent end of many of his predecessors, but with that blind optimism which so often characterizes the threat, he undoubtedly said to himself, "It can never happen to me!"

But it could. And did.

This editor has been a member of the church of Christ for half a hundred years. And his personal acquaintance has covered a wide range of those who have labored and worked in the vineyard during that time. Actually, we had personal friendship with two men who were students of Alexander Campbell (J.W. Grant and George H. Porch), and were often in the company of such stalwarts as M. C. Kurfees, A. J. McCarty, Joe S. Warlick, F. L. Rowe, R. H. Boll, E. A. Elam, F. B. Srygley, F. W. Smith, W. W. Otey, Hall L. Calhoun, T. Q. Martin, Homer E. Moore, G. H. P. Showalter, John T. Hinds, and a great host of others who have answered the summons of death. Growing up in the home of J. D. Tant meant, of course, that there would be constant contact with gospel preachers from all parts of the nation who visited with him. Three years as a student at David Lipscomb College more than forty years ago under such men as A. G. Freed and H. Leo Boles, gave broad opportunity for acquaintanceship with hundreds of gospel preachers who visited the campus from time to time.

We believe very few, if any, of the men we have named or knew in those years would feel at ease or comfortable in many of our modern "Churches of Christ." And we are not talking at all about stained glass windows and million dollar "plants." (We don't have 'meeting-houses' any longer; we have 'plants?) Such outward signs of change are probably inevitable in a developing society. We are talking about the "inner" changes they would find — a spirit of compromise, a general tendency to drift away from the basic tenets of Biblical Christianity, and to accept more and more the tenets and attitudes of Contemporary Christianity. Two articles in this issue of the Gospel Guardian illustrate the point we are making. Read them carefully. Especially the one by Brother Ketcherside. It is our considered judgment that Brother Ketcherside is speaking from a far stronger base than many realize. While we may make all due allowance for his desire to create the impression that he has a big and growing following among "Churches of Christ," it would be a sad mistake (which some are making) to dismiss his plea as insignificant and inconsequential.

Why should the Churches of Christ consider themselves immune to the winds of modernism and liberalism? On what meat have they been feeding that they would think they could escape the tragic division which has shaken all the other great religious bodies of our nation? What sort of bland egotism controls the man who can see other churches swept into a veritable storm of controversy over liberalism and still think it will not affect the church of Christ?

Nearly fifteen years ago this writer was engaged in a debate with Brother E. R. Harper in Lufkin, Texas, concerning the scripturalness of the "Herald of Truth" cooperative combine. Brother Harper repeatedly emphasized the thought that "there is no outside organization overseeing this work — just the Highland elders." Brother Early Arceneaux passed us a short note saying, "Tell him the church has NEVER been corrupted by 'outside organizations;' but always by being 'organized from within.' " The onrushing disaster, which will within a decade engulf the church in the bitterest fight since the digression of a hundred years ago, will follow precisely the same pattern. The trouble will come not from modernists and liberals outside the church, but from doctrinaire liberals within the church. And if you do not believe there are such, read the Ketcherside article again! Ketcherside is an extremist and an enthusiast. Let us make all due allowance for that. But, at the same time, we have not a doubt in the world that there is a considerable basis of TRUTH in the statements from him concerning the inner "softness" of a great number of those who are (to lift a phrase from Paul) "reputed to be somewhat" in the church. As a case in point, gag with me over Reuel Lemmons' defense of Pat Boone for his betrayal of the cause of Christ by appearing on the Oral Roberts television show. Pat's explanation was that he simply seized this opportunity "to testify to my faith in God and to my love for Him and for His son." Lemmons commended him for the appearance, and said he himself would be glad to appear "with Oral Roberts, or Billy Hargess, or Billy Graham or Pope Paul on any television station on earth." But, Brother Lemmons, would you commend Pope Paul as a great servant of God, and pray that he might have success in his work? Would you give public endorsement to Oral Roberts and Billy James Hargess, lay your hands upon them, and join in mutual prayer with them for success of both their work and yours? THAT is what sickened brethren about Pat Boone's appearance, and NOT the fact that he had a chance to appear on the show. It was not his appearance on the show that was objectionable, but his betrayal of the cause of Christ.

This is only one straw in the wind; there are a thousand others. Dudley Lynch, released from the Christian Chronicle because his ultra liberalism was even too far out for that journal, is now the feature editor for Mission Magazine which is spear-heading the liberal philosophy among the churches.

It can't happen to "us"? Who said it can't? It IS happening. And this affords a golden opportunity for all those brethren of conservative convictions (and there are many thousands of them) in the churches now "going along" with centralized institutionalism to "stand in the way and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way; and walk therein." And, lo! when they begin to walk in those paths they will find them filled with some scores of thousands of brethren from whom they have been estranged, but who, like them, are determined to stand "steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord."

— F.Y.T. —