“Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that “Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the it may be displayed because of truth.“-(Psalm 60:4.) voice unto them.“-(Isa. 13:2.) .
2 TEE BIBLE BANNER SEPTEMBER 1941 POINTING THE WAY TO UNITY Our idea has been and is that the way to unity should has and if all the ‘conservative’ brethren had as much of the spirit of Christ as he has, the difficulties would be very be pointed out by preaching and practicing what the New largely removed. And if those who refrain from going to Testament teaches. We have freely and sharply criticized the unity meetings could bring themselves to the point of at- the Murch-Witty unity meetings because we honestly believ- tending with open minds and open ears they could acquire ed they encouraged a unity by a compromise or surrender some helpful information about present attitudes and views.” of principles to which we cling most tenaciously. Personally, I do not like Brother Witty’s attitude. He seems to have Now, there are a few points I am ready to concede and only kind words and tender looks for Brother Murch and his be done with them. Brother Lappin is “A Christian digressive associates while he thinks the rest of us who will church minister” and can make a “magnificient speech.” not smile and smile and smile on digressives and premillen- He is a prolific writer on the staff of the Christian Stand- nialists shouId be ashamed of ourselves and expresses the ard and an advocate of instrumental music in worship and opinion that the Lord is ashamed of us. He has aimed some defends the same societies the Christian Standard endorses.
SEPTEMBER 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 3 CONCERNING CHURCH NAMES _ tend the next unity meeting and learn something about the “spirit of Christ” from a lot of digressive preachers who will be sure to be there. On page 5 will be found an article entitled “About Since Brother Janes has told us what he thinks, I’m Church Names.” Brother John W. Kurfees, whose zeal for going to tell you how I feel for what. it may be worth. the New Testament order of things is generally recognized I’m a little more than tired of hearing a few soft-headed and approved, is having a pretty hard time keeping some of brethren brag on the digressives and throw spoiled eggs us from “stereotyping one particular designating term” at “conservative” brethren who are both too smart and when we are talking about “the church.” He thinks we are too loyal to be taken in by digressive tricks as old as the “sectarianizing the church” if we call it “church of Christ” first organ that was ever slipped into a church over the pro- too often and something else too seldom. Now, I am some- test of brethren who did “not have the spirit of Chr’st.” “It what of a stickler for calling the church anything and every- makes me sick,” as Brother Brewer would say, to hear it thing it is called in the New Testament and have said so brayed around that digressives, premillennialists, and a over and over again in these and other columns. Much handful of their sympathizers have a virtual monopoly on that Brother Kurfees says is true, but I’m inclined to think “the spirit of Christ,” and I’m about ready to “suit the ac- he is carrying this thing to an erroneous extreme. I am tion to the word.” The silly airs they are putting on is certain that the expression “church of Christ” has been getting under my skin. I know them well enough to know used in a sectarian sense, but not when it is applied to that they are not any better, and some of them are not any the right thing, however often it may be used. It is mis- smarter, than I am even. “This thing has got to stop,” as used, only when it is employed to cover too little or too Winston Churchill would say, or else. A negro preacher m.uch or applied to something that is not it at all. For in- arose to address his audience. Somebody in the audience stance if you call something “the church of Christ” which punctuated one of his remarks with an over-ripe tomato is smaller than the entire body of Christ and larger than a which landed right in the middle of his black face. He local congregation, then you have employed the term in a patiently wiped away the remains and calmly remarked: sectarian sense. Brethren keep me more uneasy some- “My deah brethrin. Ise gwine ter reason wid you-all a spell times by what they mean by it, than they do by how often frum de scriptouhs, den Ise gwine ter ast de deah Lawd they say it.
SEPTEMBER 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 5 ABOUT CHURCH NAMES preached for nearly half a century. When did Kurfees ever offer to make an agreement with anyone, which would John W. Kurfees compel him to extend an invitation to the unsaved at the In your issue of May 1941, you have a two page article, close of his sermon with the understandmg mat the new one paragraph of which is headed: “Names-Designations converts were to unite with a digressive church? That is of the l\lew ‘l’estament Church.” what Jorgenson did at Bedford, Indiana. Kurfees demand- ed that Briney and others leave off their organ and socie- Under that heading you speak of the “religious nomen- ties. Jorgenson at Bedford invited people to unite with a clature of the day”, using church designating terms which church that had the organ and societies. That is one differ- are “foreign to Bible parlance.” ence between the “principles” of Kurfees and Jorgenson; and it seems to me that Jorgenson ought to be able to see it; Why should it not be foreign to it, when they are speak- others can. ing, and writing about religious institutions which are, them- selves, foreign to the Bible? 3. In his “brief resume” Jorgenson further says he Then you say some claim that it “sectarianizes the invited Lappin for the Highland meeting because the old church to call it church of Christ.” Campbell Street church had a certain Brother Cappa who turned out to be a digressive to lead the singing. He says Sectarianizes what? “the church”, you say. So that is this man Cappa was a “professional” Christfan Church the thing we are talking about.
THE BIBLE BANNER SEPTEMBER 1941 6 THAT “MISPLACED CONFIDENCE” JNO. T. LEWIS Under the above caption, in “F. L. R.‘s Notes,” Chris- ed the knowledge to you regardless of the personal con- tian Ledger August 5, 1941, we have the following corres- sequences to myself. You may recall that I asked you to pondence. inform him.
, -.- SEPTEMBER 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 7 - I see no way by which this could have gotten into the a half century. Each one to whom he confided this broth- hands of the Banner, unless it was shown to a supposed erly (?I suggestion is a gospel preacher, an editor, associate friend, and this friend copied it; or someone took to himself editor, or in some way connected with a religious paper.
SEPTEMBER 1941 THE BIBLE BANNER 9 WHO IS RIGHT ON THE MILLENNIUM JOHN T. LEWIS When two teachers teach the opposite on any Scrip- 1. That the nation of Israel scattered by God’s hand shall ture both may be wrong, one must be. To illustrate, if I by his hand be recovered and regathered and restored to teach that Kph. 5:18,19, and Col. 3:16 prescribe only their own land. (Bro. Armstrong says: “I do not believe it; , vocal music in the worship, and some one else teaches I see no indication of it”) that both vocal and instrumental music. are prescribed, 2. That they shall accept their Messiah, be converted one of us must be wrong. Again, if I teach that only a and saved.
10 THE BIBLE BANNER SEPTEMBER 1941 clares) was so raised up. He therefore is the rightful claim- “5. I do not believe that, because Christ was rejected ant. He is the God-appointed Heir of David’s throne. To by the Jews, the Lora turned tram his original purpose and gave the church as a ‘substitute’; and that at his coming Him and to Him exclusively the throne of David belongs by again he will carry out his original plan and will restore, every right. But that He is now already occupying that or establish, a kingdom with Christ on David’s throne in throne is precisely that which Peter does not say, still less Jerusalem.“-J. N. A.