PLUMBLINE -- Editor, Wayne Coats

Vol. 4 No. 6,    Jan. 2000


Churches of Christ Disaster Relief, Inc.

"Statement of Purpose"

Lloyd E. Gale, Jr.

I read with interest the C.O.C.D.R.I. statement of purpose as it was published by First Century Christian.

In the second paragraph they state: "We propose to bring glory to God through our efforts." This is a noble thought if it is true. Cain may have been disposed to make a similar claim in regard to his unauthorized sacrifice. Saul claimed he was doing the right thing by responding to the people's desire when he returned with King Agag and the "sacrifices." Listen to what Saul said, "Yea I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the King of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites" (1 Sam. 15:20). Saul claimed "to have done God's will," but the truth of it was that he was doing his own will. In the next verse (v.21), Saul states his "noble intentions." "But the people took of the spoil, sheep, and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal." Saul in this verse attempts to involve "the people" or the popularity of his action. He claims it was for a good cause. What could be more noble than worshipping God? Since Saul claimed he had done God's will, he was claiming to have followed the "pattern" that God had given him. If such were the case, all he had to do was to cite the authority for his actions. Who, when, and where were his actions authorized? It was not enough to point to general commands that authorize sacrifices unto God. Such would not and could not provide authority for Saul's presumptuous conduct. The only authority for what Saul had done was Saul himself. The C.O.C.D.R.I. begins by saying "we propose" and indeed they do!

If Saul had done what God commanded, there would have been no bleating of the sheep and lowing of the oxen. The bleating and lowing was calling out in protest to the actions of Saul that were unauthorized. Now, I may only be one sheep but there are many others that decry the unauthorized society that calls itself the CHURCHES OF CHRIST DISASTER RELIEF, INC.

Samuel told Saul that he had not obeyed the voice of the Lord and that what he had done was "evil" in the sight of the Lord (1 Sam. 15:9). Samuel then pronounced an eternal principle of obedience. "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offering and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Sam. 15:22).

In paragraph three they state:

"We propose to help those who have been caught up in natural disaster: specifically, large national disasters within the United States. We help victims who, for the most part, have lost their earthly possession that they have, or have been displaced to the extent that they are homeless and in need of daily food and clothing. We believe that this is Biblical and follows the example of Christ."

I observe once again the source of authority is "we believe." This is followed by specific rule or law making that limits what they propose to do. All of the specific areas they list, and many more, have been and are the work that God has authorized for the church. Not only has God authorized the church to function but the church from the first century has functioned in all authorized areas. No humanly devised organization is authorized to do the work of the church. This writer and faithful members of the church do not object to helping the helpless and supplying the needs of the needy. Those who have devised this organization have no more compassion than those who desire to do God's work God's way. I believe that it is wonderful when brethren have hearts filled with compassion and do encourage such. But why are brethren not content to work within the framework God has provided? Do they really believe they have a better plan than God?

In paragraph number 4 they state: "We propose to be ready at a moment's notice." -- Any well organized congregation should be ready "at a moment's notice."

In paragraph number 5 they state: "We propose that this aid be given without regard to someone's race, sex, religion or background." Is this different from what the church would do?

In paragraph number 6 they state: "We propose that this work be done, whenever possible within the framework of the Churches of Christ." The organization itself is outside the framework of the Churches of Christ. They have not and cannot show it to be within the framework of the Churches of Christ. If they could do so they would have done so. Since they solicit and receive contributions from business, industry and from whatever source; is it absolutely honest to claim that this help is from Churches of Christ? When Saul brought the spoils back from the Amalekites to be used in worship to God, such was rejected by God. Were they really sacrifices from God's people? Did they not desire to take credit for unauthorized sacrifices?

In paragraph number 7 they state: "we propose that this effort lay the groundwork for Churches of Christ to spread the gospel of Christ in their neighborhood." "We propose..." Now this society proposes to tell local congregations how to spread the gospel in their local area.

They continue by saying, "it is Biblical and right that we feed the hungry, help the sick and aid the hurting." I have no quarrel with what is Biblically right. My objection is to that which in not Biblically right. Under the Old Testament law it was Biblically right to offer sacrifices to God, but what Saul did was without God's authority and therefore wrong. When men think they have a better way to do God's work than that which He has authorized, they do err.

For example, while it is Biblically right that we feed the hungry, help the sick and aid the hurting, does this then authorize the church to build a hospital and go into the hospital business? I do not believe that such is authorized, but there are some brethren who would advocate that the Lord's church may do what the denominations have done. When the Woodmont Hills Church joined in with a group of denominations to establish and operate a dental clinic, they did this very thing. What may sound extreme today among liberal proposals may become routine in a few years. The giant playhouses that a few congregations built a few years ago have become "essentials" today among many. If we do not remain fundamentally sound, we are only a short time from apostasy.

Paragraph number 8 launches into a "unity in diversity" appeal. "We propose to involve as many Christians as possible by adopting a middle-of-the-road course, avoiding conservative or liberal extremes, yet welcoming their help in reaching the lost."

Rubel Shelly, Steve Flatt, and many other liberals have been advocating this unity in diversity doctrine for some time now. While they disdain what they allude to as conservative and liberal extremes, they are willing to embrace both for the sake of their society. This statement becomes a sort of creed. How do we know what they are classifying as liberal or conservative extremes?

Is the Bales doctrine on divorce and remarriage extreme liberalism or is opposition to it extreme conservative doctrine? Are those who say they can worship with instruments of music, liberal, or are those who say such is sin, extreme conservatives? Are those who advocate salvation by "grace alone" liberal or are those who say that such is false and deadly doctrine, extreme conservatives? Are those who advocate a new hermeneutic of Christology, extreme liberals or are those who denounce such, extreme conservatives? Is the doctrine of premillennialism a liberal doctrine or is opposition to it extreme conservatism? Is the doctrine that there are devout, knowledgeable Christians in all denominations a liberal doctrine or opposition to it extremely conservative? Are those who teach the kingdom has not yet come extreme liberals or are those who denounce such as false doctrine extreme conservatives? Are those who advocate missionary societies liberal or are those who oppose such extreme conservatives? Are those who make laws where God has made no law liberals or conservatives? Are those who organize societies to do the work of the church liberal or conservative extremes? Yet, you state you can embrace all of these doctrinal positions plus many, many more because you have chosen a middle-of-the-road, which we have your word for it, is the right road to travel.

Are these and many more doctrinal questions simply "squabbles?" Were Jesus Christ and the apostles engaging in "squabbles" when they exposed and renounced false teachers and false doctrine? Are we or are we not commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3)? Do you or do you not believe that we must obey this command?

Was Jesus wrong when he exposed and denounced the false doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mark 7:1-13)? Was Peter wrong when he refused to abide by the orders of Annas the high priest and Caiaphas, John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest (Acts 4:5-22)? Was Peter wrong to expose and rebuke Ananias and Sapphira (Acts. 5:1-11)? Was Peter wrong to rebuke Simon for wanting to purchase the power to lay hands on people (Acts. 8:18-24)?

Would you have passed your judgment on Jesus and His apostles by calling their opposition to false teachers and false doctrines "squabblers?" Why do you make judgments against faithful brethren who love the Lord, His church, the Truth, and the souls of men as those who engage in "squabbles?"

If you know something about "brotherhood camps" you have an obligation to identify such and expose such for the good of God's people. I dare say it is easier to slander with sweeping generalization than to take up the sword of the Spirit and fight the good fight of faith.

God teaches us that we are a part of that which we fellowship. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 9-11).

What you have indicated is that you can fellowship both those who teach false doctrine and those who expose and oppose false doctrine. When you state, "surely genuine Christians can rise above these things," the "these things" must refer to what you previously call "squabbles." The truth is that division is the result of the false doctrine and the false teachers. It is not due to those who have the knowledge and courage to oppose false doctrine and false teachers. Were Jesus Christ and the apostles misguided by their opposition to false doctrine? You are absolutely correct when you state that "Jesus Christ has demonstrated and stated what we should do." The preaching of the gospel requires that we oppose false teachers and false doctrine and those who refuse to do so are not preaching the gospel (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Your stated philosophy of gathering together the good and the bad, the true and the false, for your ends is wrong. That is what your "middle-of-the-road" philosophy amounts to. There is no "middle-of-the- road" between truth and error. If there is, why do you fail to inform the brotherhood what this vision is that you possess?

In paragraph number 9 you state that "we propose not to conflict with what local congregations are doing." Is this not a tacit admission that what you are doing is not what local congregations are commanded to do? Then you state, "but to work with them in a Biblically cooperative pattern." This sounds good except for one small fact. You have no such Biblically cooperative pattern. If you had such, you would have by this time given book, chapter, and verse.

In paragraph number 10 you sing the same refrain: "We propose to keep the Biblical pattern in all things." Again, I ask, "Where is your biblical pattern for an organization other than the local congregation to do the work of the church?" I pause, and await your answer once again.

Then you state, "if we unintentionally err, we will ask your forgiveness and correct the problem." As I have pointed out, you are acting without Biblical authority as an organization separate and apart from the Lord's church. Are you as good as your word?

Then you make that old false liberal argument that goes something like this. Well, I would rather be lost trying to do something even if it's wrong, than to be lost, by doing nothing. To which I reply. What difference does it make which wrong course you follow? The end result would be the exact same thing--LOST! Why not be saved by doing the right thing God has authorized? The result of this is--BEING SAVED. To me, it's no contest.

It is obvious that this writer is anything but complacent and that I do indeed care about the Lord's work and the souls of God's people. I only complain when error is being advocated and I only criticize when my brethren are leading and being led astray. I uphold and support every scriptural effort to preach the gospel, edify the church and care for the needy. Those who fail to follow God's pattern may think they are compassionate but they are not.

In the last paragraph, we should note that God will help us and bless us when we do His work His way. Just remember Saul and the Amelikites. Saul and his brethren proposed to worship God but they failed to follow His instructions. God's way cannot be improved upon.

It should be interesting to note that the advocates of THE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY make the same arguments that the CHURCHES OF CHRIST DISASTER RELIEF, INC. are making.

D. S. Burnet wrote: "The establishment of this society marked the climax of years of intense effort on the part of Alexander Campbell to urge the brotherhood to found some kind of a general organization through which the entire brotherhood could cooperate to evangelize the world." "There is now heard from the East and the West, from the North and from the South, one general, if not universal call for a more efficient organization of our churches. Experience, that there is not a more efficient teacher, decided and promulgates that our present cooperative system is comparatively...inefficient and inadequate to the exigencies of the times and the cause we plead." (Alexander Campbell Church Organization #1)

Campbell first attempted to find scriptural authority for his ill conceived society but a careful search of the scriptures revealed no such authority. Next, Campbell turned to a sophisticated argument based upon expediency, which in the final analysis, also failed.

Alexander Campbell was looking for "a more efficient and scriptural organization" but there isn't a more efficient and scriptural organization than the Lord's church.

The convention offered this resolution: "Resolved, that a missionary society as a means to concentrate and dispense the wealth and benevolence of the brethren of this Reformation, in an effort to convert the world, is both scriptural and expedient."

We may all rest assured that the passing of their resolution was not able to accomplish, in the eyes of God, it's stated goal. It was true because they said it was true. They, however, failed to cite either book, chapter, or verse to support their claim. How much difference is there between "we resolve" and "we propose?" Neither carries with it one "whit" of authority from God.

When organized, the AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY appointed a board of directors which was authorized to elect it's own chairman, enact it's own by-laws and rules of order, fill vacancies, convene special meetings, and run the society. The society resolved to be free from any ecclesiastical control over congregations but as it turned out was not so free.

The Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee met together in January, 1842 to discuss cooperation. It was said they studied the Bible as though they had never seen it before. At the end they reached the following conclusions:

1. That there is positive scriptural authority for every religious work that is pleasing to God.

2. That the Church of Christ is the only divinely consecrated organization on earth for Christian labor.

3. All other organizations through which men propose to perform spiritual labor tend but to obscure, discredit, and subvert the reign of the Messiah." (Tolbert Fanning, The Path of Safety, Gospel Advocate, Vol. VII, No. 6, Feb. 6, 1866, p. 82).

History has proven these conclusions to be both true and accurate. Forming a new society and giving it a new mission and a new name doesn't change a thing. The missionary society divided the church and led the vast majority into denominational error. Will history repeat itself?


Editor's Note: Anent the preceding, the information is spread far and wide regarding all the great good which is being done. This flimsy quirk is saying that the end justifies the means. Who in his right mind will so affirm? The Jewish Relief Fund, the Catholic Relief Fund, the Salvation Army and others will do a bit of good. The people who get immersed in baking biscuits for the great brotherhood will only prattle how much hungry people like Disaster Relief bread. It is not wise to think that we can do evil that good may come.

Kentucky University And How History Repeats Itself

The problems which existed long years ago have become problems of the present. Many people lived to see the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky, as it was stolen by the Digressives. History is now repeating itself.

The Agricultural College was annexed to Kentucky University and David Lipscomb predicted that the annexing "would be a thorn in our sides as long as the monstrous union existed."

It was charged that, "the infidel who denies the resurrection of Christ, who does not expect him from heaven to judge the world, may occupy the professors chair...." "Those who contend for the ancient landmarks are not the ones wanted in the chairs of the professors, even of the Bible College." "It is hinted in some circles that the policy is to abolish the Bible altogether. We know this that brother McGarvey, the favorite of the churches and of the Bible students is now dismissed from the chair for no ostensible reason but that the regent of the University demands it, and assigns as his only reason for the measure, 'I cannot cooperate with him--you must put him out'."

It was suggested that the brethren who owned the University give the Agriculture College back to the state and let the University be divested of those who did not feel loyal to the purpose for which the University was founded. Also, there was a strong sentiment to reinstate brother McGarvey in the College of the Bible.

In September 1883, brother David Lipscomb wrote about the conditions at the University. See if things sound familiar. Lipscomb opined that "...regent Bowman is thoroughly radical in his politics and sympathies. He has manipulated the Board almost at will. Nine tenths of the contributors to the University are conservative or Southern. The charge is...whenever a vacancy in the Board would occur, (Bowman) would select and nominate a radical in politics until a majority of the Board of Curators were with the regent in political sympathy. He then began the same work in the faculty."

The situation brought about division with conservative brethren opposing the radical modernism in the University. Charges and counter-charges were made and finally a committee of five were to hear "...complaints of all parties." What do you suppose happened? That marvelous committee "...wound up with a request for those who would not work in harmony to resign." "The executive committee, a majority of whom consisted of regent Bowman and his personal and political friends, requested McGarvey to resign. This he declined. They then suspended him."

"The Bible College we believe to be essentially wrong in all of its features, and must result in evil." "...We see the endowments so often perpetuated to tear down instead of build up that which their founders intended...." These thoughts were penned by David Lipscomb.

When brother McGarvey was expelled from his professorship in the Bible College, "the Board of Curators were called together to consider the matter. By a vote of twenty-two to thirteen, they confirmed the exclusion." Lipscomb wrote, "...this matter we think as gross an outrage has been perpetrated against him (McGarvey, w.c.), and more especially against the Christian brotherhood as ever was perpetrated on one man or set of men we have ever known. Two hundred churches in Kentucky and the great majority of the donors protested against his exclusion. The University was built up as the property of the churches in Kentucky. To secure this, the charter required that two-thirds of the managers or curators in whom is vested the legal title to the property, should be members of the churches of Christ in Kentucky. (The charter says Christian churches in Kentucky)."

Of the five men appointed by the Board to manage affairs, "...three out of the five are not members of the church at all." "The University is to be run in the interest of the progressives in religion, those anxious to be popular, and to pease the wealthy politicians, to make religion itself pleasing to the wealthy, elite and fashionable--to those who are determined to destroy all that has been gained by a plea for the authority of the Bible for the last half century."

"We presume there are but few of the donors to this University now that do not feel that the money contributed would do less harm in the hands of the Roman Catholics, the Mormons or the worst infidels in the land."

The foregoings are strong words from the pen of brother David Lipscomb. What he said with respect to Kentucky University could be repeated in principle with respect to the school which he founded. The same kind of people (of such ilk and stripe) who gnashed their teeth against David Lipscomb because of what he wrote about Kentucky University--College of the Bible--will snarl, sneer, snort, howl, growl, bellow, yelp, bray, croak, resent, bristle, fume, and frown. I put Lipscomb University today in the same liberal cesspool as Kentucky University College of the Bible of yesteryear. For further events which demonstrate the diabolical, devilish, abominable, depraved, malignant, outrageous, trampling, hurtful, malevolent, destructive, rotten, wretched and deplorable depths into which the modernistic--liberal--digressive Kentucky University Administrators--professors--and board members can plunge, one can read the 1917 issue of the old Christian Standard magazine which portrays how Hall Calhoun was treated.

One would have to take a journey to hell itself in order to find a seat of political infamy more corrupt than that which has been practiced by the liberals/modernists in corrupting our Universities. When will we wake up from our slumber? I suppose that will occur when the world is set on fire.

If you are not aware of the devices of satan in capturing our universities, God pity. There is no ignorance as costly as willful ignorance and apathy. We need to know what happened to our schools in years gone by and be aware of how they corrupted and controlled so many congregations by sending young clergymen out to show off.

              --Wayne Coats, Editor

What Is The Real Problem With The Liberals?

Hardie Logan

I have read with some interest about the troubling times that are facing the church. No matter where one turns it seems, the battle is raging. I recently logged into a "chat group" of one of "our colleges" on the internet. What happened was both troubling and disheartening. I challenged the issue of "Promise Keepers" (PK) as being something that we should send our young men or old men to. I called the PK for what they are, "an evil breathing, gospel hurting, church splitting, doctrine of the devil." I did this on purpose and in full control of all my faculties. I was accused of blasphemy. I was accused of not having love. I was told that I had gone too far.

Anything that teaches more than or less than what the Bible teaches is evil breathed. Anything that teaches against the ways of God is bound to come from Satan. Anything that causes congregations of the Lord's church to split is church splitting. And, anything that would purposely continue such teachings is definitely not a doctrine of God.

The PK movement in this country is doing just that. Congregations are now being challenged by their "leaders" and their preachers to go to this evangelical outreach of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship Church to learn how to become better Christians, fathers and husbands. And, then they have the gumption to stand up and call it good? This is how far liberalism has grown in the church.

Not long back, here in the mission field of the Chicago-land area, I am told of a congregation of the church of Christ, with attendance of about 380, that started encouraging it's members to attend the Willow Creek Bible Church to learn about evangelism. Believe me, brethren, they did. Now that congregation has split and attendance is now running about 150-180. The preacher is now attending a Bible Community Church along with some of the former deacons and members. That congregation learned what Willow Creek taught about evangelism AND THEY FOLLOWED IT! What is the real problem here? The liberals?

Satan and his band have been beating on the church for hundreds of years. He beats on the walls, he beats on the foundation, he beats on the windows and the roof. If I was a betting man, which I'm not, I would bet that Satan would be tickled pink just to be able to break one brick on the walls of that great institution. We know Satan is there trying. We know he's not going to quit. We know people are working for him and helping him to do his dirty work and yet we put up with it. The problem with the church these days is the lack of strong leaders that are willing to stand up to these gainsayers. The problem with the church is the lack of preachers that are willing to call it like it is. The problem is that we don't demand that a congregation like the one mentioned earlier, change their name and we don't know how to go about it. We have become so autonomous that it is hurting the church of Christ all across this great land.

Take a trip across this country and stop somewhere for services. BE CAREFUL! You will get anything on the smorgasbord. Instrumental music, one cuppers, black only, white only, healings with the Holy Spirit, women leaders, women saying prayers, and the laundry list goes on. And they call themselves "Church of Christ!" How can this be in the church of our Lord?

Understand me please. The church is the church, it always has been the church and always will be the church until Christ deems it differently. But when this great institution, the one that Christ purchased with His very own blood, is filled with wimpy, afraid to take a stand, uncommitted and watered down teaching, the people will accept anything. When the church is lead by leaders that don't know the difference between implied authority and non biblical teachings or where to find out about it, then the church is led by people that are blind. Look around for yourselves and see if it isn't so!

Where are the people that will stand up for the truth? The truth about what to do with people that are causing division in the body? Where are the people that are willing to stand and say "NO" so loud and so strong that it'll be heard in the next state? Where are the Christians?

We are being taught evangelism by denominations, we learn how to worship from feelings, we use the Bible to help give us society points and we never feast upon the blessing of the Word and then we sit around our tables in our fine restaurants on Sundays and talk about what the liberals are doing to the church. Brethren, it's time to rise and be counted. It's time the liberals understood the church is worth something to us. It's time to pick up our swords, brush off the dust and learn how to use it in the fight for survival. There are ways to deal with people that cause division. There are ways to deal with people that teach contrary to the Word of God. There are ways to let them know that as Christians we simply cannot put up with it! But it takes men that are willing to be God fearing, Bible quoting, Christians. It takes men that are willing to stand in the pulpits across this land and know the truth well enough to teach it, and live it themselves. It will take the same kind of men in the pews to demand such from the ones that are leaders and preachers.

12424 S 45th Ave

Alsip, IL 60658

Why Do You Wait Dear Brother?

Over fifty years ago I heard brother G. C. Brewer speak at Freed-Hardeman College and he gave a humorous illustration. He related the story of a large ship out in the ocean which was travelling at top speed. The cook fell overboard and a ship-mate ran to the captain attempting to explain the matter. The sailor was so excited that he could not speak. He could only stutter a bit. After several efforts the captain said, "just sing it for me." The sailor began: "should auld acquaintance be forgot, And never brot' to mind, The cook has fallen overboard, He's forty miles behind."

If that story has any point in it, I would think it suggests that we have a church full of cooks who are forty-miles behind in their opposition to all the nut twisters who are tearing the old ship of Zion apart.

Why do you wait dear brother? Are you satisfied to sail along on the Zephyr winds in your little boat? Are you content to cough, spit, sputter and stutter when the situation is so very grave?

Is it enough to present two little sermonetts weekly and weakly when the liberals are having a free-wheeling time in splitting congregations? Why do you wait dear brother? If timid, fearful, compromising BISHOPS will not allow you to contend earnestly for the faith, I'm sure the Lord will allow you to do so. Get a job making tents to support yourself and preach that the liberals and modernists among us are going to hell, if they refuse to repent. Isn't that what the Book teaches? Take the Book from under the arm and hide it in your heart. Proclaim it from the house tops as the very Word of God. Be not dismayed if only a few people will listen to you. Try not to play to the grandstands like so many of our fat-cat preachers are doing. They are going to hell also, but not many folks believe it and scarcely anyone will say it.

Remember your task is to preach God's gospel, which I'm told is like dynamite. There is a difference in dynamite powder and talcum powder. Many brethren have substituted and they sprinkle a little talcum powder down on the heads of the laity twice on Sunday and the folks leave feeling fresh and smelling good like little babies in a nursery. Some liberal preachers would make excellent nursery attendants but the powder bill would be extravagant.

The gospel of Christ is God's power to save believers. There are plenty of unbelievers who need to be saved and there is the power of God as revealed in the gospel but only a few will dare to preach the word when real sacrifices have to be made.

I do not mean that we have to be brash, bigoted, harsh and unkind as we preach. The truth is to be preached in love. Our auditors can discern--even when we refuse to. "A little while and he that shall come, will come."

--Wayne Coats, Editor

People, Places, Things

Did you read the newspaper account where Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a kiss " Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat's wife?" The kiss was compared "to the kiss Judas gave Jesus when he betrayed Him in the Garden of Gethsamane," so said Cal Thomas who is a columnist for the Los Angels Times Syndicate.

According to Newsweek, " was Yasser Arafat who supplied weapons for the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in which 241 U.S. Marines died. No matter! President Clinton lobbies for $400 million in aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization on top of $500 million that has not been properly accounted for."

Wait! Do not send me your swords. These are social problems to me. To you, they may be dyed-in-the-wool political. There is a difference.


Back in 1992, the Supreme Court banned school officials from leading prayers at high school football games. On November 7th, "the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to approve voluntary prayer at high school sporting events...." The matter will continue to be kicked about like the footballs used in the games.


In Nashville, when the state senate convenes, there is a Jew senator from Memphis who refuses to come into the senate chamber until after the chaplain leads the prayer. Seems to me that a lot of suckers live somewhere in Memphis. They do not all swim in the muddy Mississippi River.


Bishops' Vote Forces Catholic Colleges To Certify Theology"

The above headline is from the Memphis Commercial Appeal of Thursday, November 18, 1999. "The nation's Catholic bishops voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to require theology professors of Catholic Colleges and Universities to obtain certification from their bishops declaring that what they teach is "authentic Catholic doctrine."

The Catholic Church has 235 colleges and universities in the United States and for a number of years modernism has been creeping into the classrooms. The bishops have issued a "mandatum" in an effort to clean out the modernistic corruptions. Do not doubt that the situation will be cleaned, starched and ironed. Pope John Paul has issued an edict known as "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" (from the Heart of the Church) which will ensure that Catholic schools "maintain their distinctive Catholic Character."

The Southern Baptists have suffered unduly as a result of modernistic theologians in their schools, but with a grass-roots effort, they cleaned out the traitors. The battle was pretty severe at times but the conservative element won back their schools.

I strongly disagree with the doctrines of the Catholics and Baptists, but it is a fact that the extreme modernists and liberals did not establish those schools, but they crept in and sought to take over. Does that sound familiar?

Those modernistic professors from the Catholic and Baptist schools should apply for teaching positions at Pepperdine, Abilene, Harding, Lipscomb, Rochester, and maybe at Freed-Hardeman.


Help wanted.

I continue to receive letters from good people who are heart broken due to the insidious evil of liberalism which creeps into congregations, hidden in the hip-pockets of young preachers who are ambling, swaggering and staggering out of the liberal schools. Please, will you help? I desperately need to know where these young divines went to school. I think this information should be compiled, not only for the present, but for those of the future who might like to read about the corruption of liberalism in our day. I do not need to divulge the names of the senders. I do think we need to know from which buzzard nests the liberal element is hatching. Why not?


It occurs to me that the Catholics and Baptists are purging the modernists from their schools, whereas the Administrators and Board-members of "OUR" (God forbid) schools do not seem to have sense enough to see through a ladder. The religious thieves continue to creep in unawares (to the compromisers) and take over the schools which they did not build.

I actually think so many brethren who are in one way or another associated with (our) schools are so terribly dumb as to be beyond help. Not so? Tell me what happened to Bethany, Bacon, College of the Bible, Add Ran and so forth. When the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church split, tell me who got all the schools? Of course, the modernistic, infidel Disciples got them. Who said, "you just can't tell some brethren anything?"

From an elder's mouth... The poor fellow bemoans the fact that he and his brethren employed a young preacher from David Lipscomb University. The young divine was so liberal, radical, digressive, and unscriptural. The young preacher was fired. How many other brethren have troubles with young liberals? I guarantee, when liberals apply for a position, (I did not say, for preaching work) they will coat their tongues with sugar, syrup, saccharine, and gooey sweetness. After a bit of time, the sugar begins to melt and the bitter stench of liberalism begins to ooze and drip out. Do you not agree? I have never seen an honest liberal.


From out in Texas a note has arrived concerning an event which occurred at the Highland Church of Christ(??) in Abilene. On Saturday night there was to be a "walk to Emmaus" video shown and "...the remainder of the meeting will include singing, preaching and communion."

"There was a full-blown band on stage. There was an all woman quartet entertaining the audience." This and more stupid, senseless, sacrilegious activities were engaged in by those folks at the Highland church. Do you suppose it will do any good to inform brethren that Highland is where the master of change, the authority of change, the author of change, the one and only Lynn Anderson has been proclaiming in years gone by? It is true that Highland has really been marching--for the devil.


Down in Madison, Alabama, a new church house is being built for $1.7 million dollars. I think the brethren should not call it a church house in view of what all it will be used for, besides a meeting place for worship.

Old Walter Rauchenbusch and his Social Gospel Movement could not possibly keep up with all the social programs being offered by the blood-bought, spiritual house of God(???). Rauchenbusch had a streak of honesty about him when he admitted that as a rationalist he had nothing to give his hearers so he began all his social benefit programs. The liberals today would not get to first base if it were not for substituting soup, soap and sausage for salvation.

x times