|
(Ralph Burns Correspondence by Hayes K. Minnick)
September 20, 1968
Rev. Ralph Burns
3998 56th Avenue, No.
St. Petersburg, Florida
Dear Brother Ralph:
Greetings in the precious Name of our wonderful Lord. Upon our return from Pennsylvania I found some of our
people deeply disturbed over the manner in which you expressed yourself during your recent visit on matters pertaining to
ecclesiastical separation and to the testimony of the local church. At our recent council meeting it was recommended that
I secure from you a clarification of your position in relation to several questions that were raised. Since some of the members
of the council, including myself, were not present at the time of the discussion, we would not wish to form any final judgment
without giving you an opportunity to speak for yourself.
It would appear from what I have heard that you whole-heartedly endorse the policy of inclusivism in ecclesiastical
relationships. In other words, you could without compunction of conscience identify yourself in worship and witness with churches
and denominations whose leadership and organizational character is apostate, raising no voice of protest against such apostasy
as long as you were permitted to preach "a positive gospel." This, of course, has been the practice of the National Association
of Evangelicals from its inception. Instead of drawing the line of separation as the Word of God commands, dual membership
is permitted. One can be identified with the N.A.E. and at the same time hold membership in a church or denomination belonging
to the apostate National and World Councils of Churches. It is this kind of compromise pursued as a matter of policy through
more than twenty-five years, that has produced the New Evangelicalism so prevalent today, of which Billy Graham in his ecumenical
evangelism has become the symbol. Within the past few years the influence of the N.A.E. has been projected internationally,
particularly in Africa through the formation of the E.F.M.A., with which most of the old Faith Missions are now identified.
Would I be correct in assuming that the North Africa Mission is a cooperating member of the E.F.M.A.? I am not sure that it
is, but am inclined to think so since it is a part of the I.F.M.A.. If so, it is a cooperative enterprise to which we as a
local church could not by conviction give our support.
I am told that you object to my exposure of Modernism, Masonry, and other forms of doctrinal error from the
pulpit. I make no apology for doing so as this type of ministry is Scripturally required of every faithful servant of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Cf. Isaiah 58:1; Jeremiah 1:7-10; Ezekiel 2:1-3:12; II Timothy 4:1-8. In the commission received by Jeremiah,
four out of the six things he was commanded to do (1:10) --two-thirds of his ministry -- involved a negative emphasis. The
same thing was true in the solemn charge given to Timothy (II Timothy 4:2). And in each instance the negative preceded the
positive. The proclamation of an all-positive, non-negative piety which refuses to expose doctrinal error and the sin of apostasy
is a compromised message capable only of producing a compromised Christianity, a superficial, spurious form of Christianity,
totally devoid of genuine discernment in the truth. In this age of easy believe-ism we need to wake perfectly clear not only
what genuine faith in Christ involves, but what it excludes. It is sin of the most serious sort for one who professes faith
in Christ to identify himself in worship, witness, and fellowship with pagan idolatry, I Corinthians 10:16-22. If identification
with idolatrous worship in a pagan temple involved the Corinthians in fellowship with demons, are not they who name the Name
of Christ today guilty of the same sin - fellowship with demons - when they identify themselves with the idolatrous worship
of modernism? I would no more worship in a church or denomination having its representation in the National and World Councils
of Churches than I would at a Shinto shrine. It is for this same reason that we expose Masonry as utterly inconsistent with
Christian testimony. Surely it is wrong for any person who professes faith in Christ to belong to an organization so un-Christian
in character as that of Masonry, and which in the ultimate involves the taking of an oath in the name of "Allah, the god of
our fathers, whose prophet is Mohammed." As you know, our church constitution excludes from membership in the local testimony
any who are members of secret oath-bound organizations. It becomes necessary from time to time, as the situation requires,
to explain the reason why, since many professing Christians say they see nothing wrong with such organizations.
We love you Ralph. I am sure you know this. And we would not want for one moment to circumscribe your liberty
in the conduct of your ministry. But we must know that you are in sympathy with, and can give whole-hearted endorsement to,
the testimony of the local fellowship if we are to continue your support. For this reason, if you are at liberty to do so,
we would like to have a statement in writing clarifying your position on the matters mentioned above. I think too that it
would be well if you could plan to meet with the members of the Council personally so that we can have a clear understanding
in the matter. You may let me know when you can come to Orlando at your convenience, and any expense involved we will be happy
to meet.
May God bless you and every member of your precious family. Our prayer for you - Numbers 6:24-26. Love from
all of us to all of you,
In Jesus, Precious Name,
Hayes Minnick
Phil. 1:20-21
***
September 24, 1 968
Rev. Hayes Minnick
Orlando Bible Church
P.O. Box 6361
Orlando, Florida 32803
Dear Brother Hayes:
Greetings in the Savior's Name. After the discussion that took place on August 18, I expected to hear from you but I was
not prepared for the tenor of the letter I received. I have before me a copy of the church bulletin with its clear-cut statement
of doctrine. Lest there be any doubt where I stand on this let me say that I still heartily endorse every item on it as I
have done for the past fifteen years. This, to me is the basis on which we have fellowship in the Lord.
I realize that we don't see eye to eye on every single point of practice and interpretation, but I do not regard this as
a hindrance to our fellowship in our Blessed Lord. Seldom, if ever, have I found anyone who believed every single detail as
I do. It never occured to me that the price of fellowship with another child of God would be the surrender of my own conscience
and convictions and a rubber stamp acceptance of the views and convictions of another. Yet in the conversation of last August
18, I discovered that with some of the brethren involved, this was just about what was expected of me. This I could not and
do not accept, nor do I believe this is your position or that of the church. You and others in the church have known me for
many years; you know what I stand for, what I teach and preach. If you had found any fault with my doctrine, I an sure you
would have brought it to my attention, yet I have always been most warmly received on every occasion when I spoke at the church.
I confess that I tried to avoid the discussion last month when I saw the trend it was taking, knowing we differ on some
of these points and that further discussion would not be helpful. Until that time, though, I had no idea how very strongly
some of my brethren felt. They did not leave any doubt in my mind, however, before the conversation was over. That is why
I am not surprised at hearing from you for I could see that the discussion would be fully reported to you.
You have asked me to clarify in writing certain of the points on which I am called to defend myself. I do not know exactly
what was told you but it is inaccurate in the extreme to represent me as wholeheartedly endorsing the policy of inclusivism
in ecclesiastical relationships and without compunction or conscience identifying myself with apostates. As best as I can
make out, this is the interpretation of my unwillingness to roundly and soundly condemn anyone who ever has any contact with
denominations or modernists or anyone connected in the remotest way with the National Council of Churches.
I am still keenly aware of the elements of that conversation and the dismay evoked by certain statements I made so it would
be well for me to fill you in as well as possible on the points that disturbed my brethren.
I.
I stated that I would not take it upon myself to insist that any given individual Christian who is a member of a denominational
church absolutely must get out; that this, and this alone is the will of God for every believer. I still stand by that statement.
I am not the Holy Spirit of God to give such directions that are not explicitly laid down in Scripture. They felt that II
Corinthians 6:14-18 was explicit enough for this; I do not. Christ, Himself, and His Apostles did not abandon the temple and
synagogue and those in it even though its leadership was so corrupt and despised the Lord and His teachings so much they eventually
bribed a traitor and false witnesses to convict Him and put Him to death.
II.
I stated that I would accept an invitation to preach the gospel in any place as long as I was given complete liberty to
preach the Word of God as I understand it. This is still my position and I make no apology for it. I was told, however, that
to go into a denominational church for the purpose of preaching the Gospel would be sinning against the Lord. I have to reject
this position for several reasons:
Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature. If the lost people in denominational churches or modernistic
ones do not fit in this category, I do not know where they do fit. I am afraid I cannot exchange the command of the Lord for
the opinion of any man, no matter how sincere his conviction, or how pure his motive. In the discussion that followed it turned
out that some folk seem to feel that a member of a denominational church is a special kind of sinner who has, by his association
with such a group, forfeited any right to hear the Gospel. I disagree. In the first place all denominational churches are
not modernistic. In the second place I am convinced that the majority of individuals even in modernistic churches are not
apostate, but are led astray by false leaders. If we refuse to preach the Gospel to them, WHO WILL? What chance do they have?
Or do we simply wash our hands of any responsibility to them and blithely consign them to Hell just because they have the
misfortune to be led astray by false leaders? Where would any of us be if our Lord had taken this attitude? Rather, He saw
the multitude (who were likewise deceived by corrupt religious leaders) as sheep without a shepherd. He had compassion on
them and ministered to them wherever He found them. I stand on the example of the Lord in this for I find more than thirty
places in the Gospels which tell me that He ministered and taught in the synagogues and the temple, and this in spite of the
fact that the religious leadership of those places was a self-seeking, jealous, hypocritical lot who rejected Him and opposed
Him constantly, even throwing His followers out of the synagogue (John 9:22,34; 12:42; 16:2).
In addition I find more than a dozen different references where the Apostles followed the example of the Lord in preaching
and teaching in the synagogue and temple. To be sure, the Lord and His Apostles did much preaching outside the synagogue also
but they did not desert those within the established religious institutions although those institutions were, according to
our Lord's own words, under the leadership of men who hated and opposed Him. I know we would not for one second suggest that
His presence in those places was evidence that He wholeheartedly endorsed them and all they stood for.
III.
I stated that I reject the contention that the only possible justification I could have for going to a denominational group
would be for the sole purpose of denouncing them for their "apostasy". To this I would repeat the command of the Lord to preach
the Gospel to every creature and I believe Paul pretty well defines the basic elements of the Gospel in Romans 1:1-6 and I
Corinthians 15:1-4.
Of course there is need to rebuke apostasy and false doctrine but I am committed to the belief that the Word of God is
sufficient for this. I cannot improve on the Word of God, for it is His Word alone that is quick and powerful and sharper
than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts (Heb. 4:12). I feel I can preach what the Word of God has to say and leave
it to the Holy Spirit to empower and apply His Word, convicting men of sin. That is the ministry of the Holy Spirit as described
by the Lord (John 16:7-11).
IV.
I was quoted as objecting to your exposure of Modernism, Masonry, and other doctrinal error from the pulpit. First let
me apologize for making a direct reference to you and your ministry. This was a serious breach of ethics and I am very sorry.
I ask you to forgive me for this. In fact I apologized to my hearers at the time and earnestly requested that they not repeat
it. I am sorry they felt it was necessary. To set the record straight, this is what was said. I simply made a reference to
this practice in passing to illustrate a point I was trying to make about the danger of forfeiting the opportunity to witness
to some individuals for I do know personally of some who have been turned away by this, never to return. I was not, as seems
to be implied, making an unqualified objection to the practice of dealing with error from the pulpit. I simply said I felt
there was a right time for it. We refer to the Sunday morning service as the Worship Service. To me this is the time when
we should be fed on the Word of God and worship Him, in fellowship with our brethren. I feel that the cataloging of the sins
of the apostates, modernists, and masons, however well documented, while informative and sometimes helpful, is no substitute
for this.
V.
I refused to concur in the blanket, unqualified condemnation of Billy Graham and all his works, including the assertion
that all, or nearly all those converted under his ministry are false and will not last. This latter I have found to be grossly
unfair and untrue for I know personally many who have been saved under his ministry. However I am not the judge of Billy Graham
or of any other man for that matter. Paul says in Romans 14, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. But why dost thou judge thy
brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. So then everyone
of us shall give an account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that
no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." (Romans 14: 4, 10, 12, 13). Thank God He has been
too wise to commit judgment to me for I know I am utterly unworthy. As far as Billy Graham is concerned, I have heard many
messages by him and I have yet to find any fault with his presentation of the Gospel. He condemns sin and evil, calls for
repentance, preaches Christ as the only Savior and Lord and bases all his preaching solidly on the Word of God. Some critics
said, "Yes, but he leaves out so much." In reply to this I can only refer to Romans 12:3-8; I Cor. 12:12-30; and Eph. 4:7-13
where the Apostle Paul takes great pains to explain that we do not all have the same ministry;
rather God has given us widely different gifts and ministries. Billy Graham is an evangelist, not a Bible teacher or learned
theological scholar. His ministry is to the unsaved primarily, not to solid Christians. How can we expect men who have not
the Spirit of God to be taught the deep things of God's Word. I Corinthians 2:14 shows us the fallacy of this.
There were other criticisms that I won't take time to list but let it suffice to say that I realize that Billy Graham is
not perfect; neither am I and I know of no one who is. What I do know is that the Word of God strictly warns me not to judge
others (Matt. 7:1-2; Luke 6:37; I Cor. 4:1-7; Jas. 4:11-12). We are fallible and limited in knowledge and unfit to judge others.
I recall that even Michael, the Archangel of God, in all his perfection, dared not bring a railing judgment against Satan,
the arch enemy of God, but left this to God (Jude 9).
Finally, let me say this once again: I am thoroughly opposed to Modernism, apostasy, secret societies and other forms of
error. I do not say there is no place for condemnation of these or that no one should have this as his ministry, perhaps his
primary one. I am simply saying that I cannot accept the assertion that this MUST be done by EVERYONE on ALL occasions.
I think I should make it clear that I draw a sharp distinction between ministering the Word on occasion to a group and
entering binding relationships and alliances with them, involving membership in their groups and support of their programs.
I feel that Laura and I amply demonstrated our position here when we withdrew years ago from a group which we saw was departing
from the truth. I simply cannot accept the contention that my physical presence on occasion with a given group makes me one
with them and a party to all their beliefs and deeds. If this is true then we would do well to follow the example of the monks
and withdraw behind the walls of a monastery where we could preserve our purity without fear of contamination.
One more point in answer to your query about my mission. No, the North Africa Mission is not a member of the E.F.M.A.
This has been a long letter I know but you asked that I clarify my position on those matters and that is difficult to do
briefly. I hope this will be of help to you in making a decision. Still I agree that we need to meet together face to face
where we can have a full understanding. I am sorry I will not be able to come before next week. I will be out of the State
for a few days but will contact you about a definite date when I return.
I am very sorry that you seem to have been given the impression that I was finding fault with the witness of the local
ministry, for such is not the case. I have repeatedly expressed publicly my deep appreciation for your firm and faithful witness
to the Lord and His Word. However I never felt this had to mean that I concurred with every single thing that was ever said
or done. I feel that mature brethren can agree to disagree on some points without breaking fellowship and I certainly trust
you all feel the same way.
I cannot close this letter without once again expressing to you and the church how greatly we appreciate the faithful support
in prayer and giving we have received from you all these years. Your fellowship in the Gospel has been most sweet and precious
and I do not want you to feel that we take it lightly. I cannot begin to tell you what an encouragement you have been to us
through the years of our ministry. I do earnestly hope there has not been, nor will be any trace of bitterness over the above
matters and that we shall be able to meet together in Christian love as brothers should, and especially that our discussion
may be conducted in an atmosphere of love and understanding.
Phil. 1:2-5 In the Bonds of Calvary,
/s/ Ralph
Ralph V. Burns
P.S. I am enclosing a couple of extra copies that you may wish to give to council members to study before I come over.
I already sent a copy to Harry Wimberly but I don't know who the others are. I thought this might save some time.
********
November 8, 1968
Rev. Ralph Burns
3998 56th Avenue, No.
St. Petersburg, Florida
Dear Brother Ralph:
Greetings in the precious Name of our wonderful Lord. It was good to see you a few weeks ago during your brief visit, I
am sorry that it has taken me this length of time to reply to your letter. One thing and another has prevented my getting
to it, and this is the first opportunity I have had since you were here.
As I sought to explain when we talked together, if the tone of my letter to you seemed severe, it is because of the evident
concern on the part of those involved in the discussion as also those who overheard some of the statements you made. It is
not your personal belief in the evangelical doctrines of Scripture that is in question. Nor is it your motive, which we believe
to be perfectly sincere. It is rather the method to which you adhere in the conduct of your ministry which causes concern.
No matter how orthodox the message, nor how pure the motive, it is possible for both to be compromised through the use of
an unscriptural method. It is this that we are seeking to ascertain. If, after having examined your position, we should be
convinced that the method you are using is unscriptural, it would then of course be necessary to discontinue our support.
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3) It is not merely how we talk, but how we walk that counts with
God (III John 4). Nor should this be construed as an attempt to rubber stamp your convictions. I made it very clear in my
previous letter that we are not in any sense of the word seeking to interfere with your personal liberty in the conduct of
your ministry. We will compare our positions as brethren, and then we will prayerfully seek to win you to the position we
believe to be Scriptural. If after a reasonable period of time you are not convinced, you will be free to go your way, and
we ours. Fair enough?
We believe that the Word of God commands and requires absolute separation from every form of apostate ecclesiasticism,
and from those who compromise therewith. Just as surely as God commanded Israel in the Old Testament to have nothing to do
with Baal, just so surely He commands His people today to come out from churches and denominations that are identified with
the apostate, anti-christ program of the National and World Councils of Churches. Is there any doubt in your mind, brother
Ralph, that these organizations are apostate? It is inconceivable that anyone professing love and loyalty to the Lord Jesus
Christ should be identified with, and thus give support to, the building of the harlot bride of the Antichrist. To do so is
sin of the most serious sort, for it is in direct disobedience to the clear command of God's Word - II Corinthians 6:14-7:1;
Romans 16:17-18.; Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 3:1-5; II John 6-11; Revelation 18:4. When God's Word says, "Come out from among
them, and be ye separate," it means just that. When it says "touch not the unclean thing," it means just that. When it commands
us to label those who err doctrinally and avoid them, it means just that. When it commands us to have no fellowship with,
but rather reprove the works of darkness, it means just that. The authority of the Word is the authority of the Holy Spirit,
for He is the Author of the Book. To excuse one's disobedience to the clear command of Scripture by pleading dependence upon
the Holy Spirit for further leading is an insult to the Holy Spirit. It is a form of pious mysticism that has no foundation
in the Word of God. It is indeed the sin of Balaam, who prayed for further leading after God had clearly revealed His will,
Numbers 22:12ff. It is one of the sinful subtleties of neo-orthodoxy, to the impact of which the neo-evangelical element is
yielding - the dissociation of the Holy Spirit from the authority of the Word of God. The fact remains that those who stay
in and support religious Babylon are partakers of her sins, no matter how well intentioned they may be. The place for true
believers is outside the camp of apostate ecclesiasticism, Hebrews 13:12-13. Having taken our place with Christ outside the
camp, we challenge those within to come out and stand with us, just as does the writer of Hebrews.
This is the position of the American Council of Christian Churches with which our local fellowship has been identified
through the years of its existence. We firmly believe that the line must be as clearly drawn today as it was by Moses in his
day, Exodus 32:26-29. There was blood in the camp that day, and plenty of it. Those who were true to the Lord and took their
stand with Moses were commanded to take a sword and run it through every one on the other side of the line, including their
own flesh and blood. It wasn't an easy thing to do, but the Levites did it and were rewarded of the Lord, Deuteronomy 33:
8-11. We don't hear very much of this kind of consecration today (Exodus 32:29)! The sword we use today is not a literal sword,
but the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.
And we are expected to use it just as effectively as did they in exposing and condemning the sinful idolatry of those on
the other side of the line. Either they cross the line and come to the Lord's side, or they must get the sword. There was
no area of neutrality in the camp of Israel that day. Nor should there be today. And yet there is, for, as I explained in
my previous letter, the National Association of Evangelicals permits and practices the policy of dual membership. One can
be identified with the N.A.E. and at the same time hold membership in a church or denomination belonging to the apostate National
and World Councils of Churches. This is not permitted by the A.C.C.C. If you are in the N.C.C., you cannot be a member of
the A.C.C.C. This position is consistent, whereas the position of the N.A.E. is one of compromise. Inclusivism is the policy
of the N.A.E. The New Evangelicals believe that it is possible for them to maintain an evangelical witness within the framework
of the N.C.C. and the W.C.C. Without compunction of conscience, they identify themselves in worship and witness with churches
and denominations whose leadership and organizational character is apostate, raising no voice of protest against such apostasy
as long as they are permitted to preach 'a positive gospel.' You will understand that it was this practice of the N.A.E. to
which I made reference in my previous letter, since it seemed that some of the things you were reported to have said reflected
that pattern. Perhaps unconsciously, some of the arguments set forth in your letter to me are very similar to the arguments
used by New Evangelicals.
Now as to the contact we are to have with those in churches and denominations that are identified with apostasy, the only
justification according to Scripture for ministering on the ground of apostasy is to expose and condemn the sin of apostasy.
We have a classic illustration of this principle in I Kings 13:1ff. Immediately after Jeroboam has instituted the idolatry
described in the latter part of Chapter Twelve, God commissioned an unnamed prophet, a man of God from Judah, to go up to
Bethel (near the borderline between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms) for the explicit purpose of protesting Jeroboam's
apostasy and pronouncing Divine judgment upon it. His ministry was an effective ministry, accompanied by an immediate sign
and a prediction which found fulfillment approximately three and a half centuries later - an indication that apostasy has
both an immediate effect and long range consequences. He was forbidden to eat bread or drink water, he was not to have fellowship
with anyone, as long as he was in the place of apostasy. Please note the emphasis upon the expression, "in this place." (13:8,16).
His return to Judah was to be by a way other than that by which he had come. He was to take every precaution to avoid forming
any kind of an entangling alliance while on the ground of apostasy. After having successfully resisted the invitation of the
king, he succumbed to the pious testimony of the old prophet. In so doing he was disobedient to the Word of God, and his disobedience
cost him his life. He had compromised the message he had so faithfully proclaimed, and was no longer serviceable to the Lord.
We have here all the elements of the problem facing us today. When Jeroboam instituted his apostasy, those who determined
to be true to the Lord left their homes and their possessions in the Northern Kingdom and came down into Judah, thus identifying
themselves with the true worship of Jehovah, II Chronicles 11:13-17. And this is what the Lord's people need to do, and ought
to do today. Instead of staying in and supporting the apostasy of Jeroboam, those who know the Lord should leave the area
of organized apostasy and thus strengthen the kingdom of Judah! Instead of staying in churches and denominations whose leadership
is apostate, those who name the Name of Christ should withdraw their support from synagogues of Satan by leaving them, and
identify themselves with independent Bible testimonies that are seeking to be true to the Lord and His Word. Modernists speak
the truth when they say that denominational loyalty insures the success of the liberal movement. It was so in Jeremiah's day
(Jeremiah 5:30-31), and it is so today. The liberal movement would have collapsed long ago if the Lord's people had refused
to give it their support. Yes, brother Ralph, those who remain in the area of apostasy do become a special kind of sinners
- sinners against light. Because of their disobedience to the clear command of God's Word, a process of judicial blindness
and hardening of the heart sets in so that in time they come to the place where they no longer know the difference between
truth and error, between right and wrong. They become brain-washed in a way of thinking that is contrary to Scripture, and
thus become impervious to the truth. Cf. Romans 11:7-8. That is what happened to Israel through the centuries, and that is
what is happening in apostate Christendom today. Cf. Matthew 13:13-15; Acts 28:25-27. Read also Jeremiah, Chapters Fourteen
and Fifteen. Several times in this passage Jeremiah prays for revival, and each time the Lord admonishes him to "pray not
for this people for their good." (14:11; 15:1) Even though Moses and Samuel, two of the greatest intercessors in Israel's
history, were to pray, God could not change His mind and send revival. Why? Because the people of that day had passed the
point of no return. Repentance was impossible because they could no longer tell the difference between right and wrong. The
Lord rebuked Jeremiah for being overly sympathetic with the viewpoint of the people and commanded him "let them return unto
thee; but return not thou unto them." (15:18-20 ) Raise the standard, Jeremiah, and let the people come
to you, but don't you go back and identify yourself with them! Our Lord said the same thing to the disciples concerning the
Pharisees who were offended at His exposure of their hypocrisy, Matthew 15:12-14. "Let them alone ..." Not only the blind
leaders, but those who are identified with their blind leadership, come under the judgment of God. "Both shall fall into the
ditch."
You do not reach such people by going into the area of apostasy and preaching a purely "positive gospel." The man of God
from Judah was commissioned to go to Bethel, deliver a message of judgment (a purely negative message), and return to Judah
as fast as His transportation could carry him, avoiding all possible entanglements while in the place of apostasy. His ministry
was a witness "against, " not "with." Had he accepted the invitation of the king and entered into fellowship with Jeroboam,
he would have acknowledged the king's sponsorship, compromised his message, and identified himself with apostasy. This is
what Billy Graham does with modernists, and he is dead wrong in so doing. The first stop toward the prophet's downfall came
when he sat down under the oak tree, I Kings 13:14. He ought to have gone back to Judah as quickly as possible, but he didn't.
He relaxed before he got across the border, and the old prophet caught up with him. There is a lesson for us here. Eternal
vigilance is the price we must pay for the purity of our testimony. Earnest contending for the Faith permits of no relaxation
in the unending warfare between truth and error. Who was the old prophet? He was one of those "special kind of sinners" who,
instead of going down into Judah, as he ought to have done, with the rest who determined to be true to the Lord, stayed in
the place of apostasy. He apparently decided that he could "use his Christian influence" and "serve the Lord to better advantage"
by remaining in "the denomination," despite the wicked apostasy of Jeroboam. In this capacity he served to be nothing more
than a stumbling block to the younger prophet. And this is exactly the role that is filled by evangelical pastors who claim
that they can serve the Lord better by staying in denominations whose leadership is apostate, instead of separating from them.
Such men through their compromise are causing confusion in the issue between truth and error, and thus become a stumbling
blocks to others. The conscience of the old prophet had become so warped through compromise that he was capable of lying.
Piously proclaiming a "revelation from Heaven" (13:18), he enticed the man of God from Judah to go back home with him and
have a little fellowship with him. In so doing, the younger prophet compromised the message he had so faithfully and fearlessly
delivered. And that is exactly what happens when evangelicals enter into fellowship with those who are in the camp of apostate
ecclesiasticism today. Their message is rendered meaningless and they are no longer serviceable to the Lord. I firmly believe
that Billy Graham and those who follow his example are just as dead to genuine service for the Lord because of their compromise
with modernists as was the man of God from Judah who was slain by the lion. His sin was the sin of disobedience to the Word
of God. The only justification for his going on to the ground of apostasy, for his being at Bethel, was to expose and condemn
that apostasy. But he had no right to fellowship with and give brotherly recognition to those whose apostasy he condemned.
His ministry was a witness "to," not "with."
So it was with Christ and the apostles in their relation to the temple and the synagogues. They did not conduct their ministry
under the sponsorship of the religious rogues of that day (as do Billy Graham and the New Evangelicals today), and their ministry
was a constant, continual challenge to the apostasy of the religious leaders who were in control. From beginning to end, Christ's
ministry in relation to the temple produced controversy (it was certainly not characterized by fellowship and cooperation!)
which reached its ultimate climax in His utter rejection and crucifixion. Cf. John 2:13ff; 8:12-59; 7:11-52; 10:19-39; Mark
11:15-18; Matthew 21:23-46; 22:15-46; 23:1-24:2. Continuous controversy, and particularly during the last days of His life
upon earth! Twice He cleansed the temple. His authority rivalled their authority at every point. The establishment of His
claims and His kingdom meant the destruction of theirs. In no uncertain terms He told them that they belonged to the Devil's
family, and was ever a diatribe delivered such as that which He levelled against these religious rascals in Matthew Twenty-Three?
He thoroughly exposed their sin and pronounced judgment upon them. Their house was left unto them desolate when He stopped
over the temple threshold for the last time, Matthew 24:1-2. And though the structure itself stood for forty more years, from
that time henceforth it was a house with the judgment of God upon it. The eyes of Christ saw it levelled to the ground. Certainly
no one could accuse Christ of entering into fellowship and cooperation with the false religious leadership of that day. His
ministry was a ministry of exposure, and rebuke, and condemnation of the whole religious hierarchy. We have no objection to
going into an N.C.C. church or denomination on occasion as the Lord may lead, if the purpose of such a ministry is to follow
the pattern of our blessed Lord in exposing apostasy, condemning the apostates, and challenging the people to come out of
it. But we do object to the compromise of Billy Graham and other New Evangelicals who identify themselves with such churches
and denominations, regarding modernists as friends and giving them recognition as "Christian brethren" and ministers in whom
people can have confidence, instead of rebuking their sin of unbelief and exposing them as wolves in sheep's clothing. To
enter into the area of apostasy and identify oneself through fellowship and cooperation with these in the place of apostasy
for the purpose of preaching a purely "positive gospel is treason to the Truth. Such a ministry is a ministry of compromise
which leaves people complacent in their sin. To be sure, the simple elements of the Gospel message must be preached, but not
at the expense of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). To be sure, the Word of God empowered by the Holy Spirit is sufficient
to produce conviction, but this does not relieve the messenger of the responsibility of applying the principles of Scripture
to forms of sin that are prevalent today. To "preach the Word" involves reproof, rebuke, and exhortation with all long-suffering
and doctrine (II Timothy 4:2) - a ministry which would be impossible without application. Nathan was certainly making application
when he said to David, "Thou art the man!" (II Samuel 12:7) Paul was certainly making application when he publicly confronted
Peter and exposed his hypocrisy, Galatians 2:11-14. Our Lord was certainly making an application all the way through Matthew
23, as He did indeed throughout His entire ministry. He made the application so forceful that the Pharisees were never left
in any doubt as to whom He was talking about, Matthew 15:12; 21:45. He told the false religious leaders to their faces that
they were hypocrites. Stephen, in Acts 7:51ff, made an application of the truth to the hearers who stood before him. Indeed
it is difficult to find any faithful messenger in Scripture whose ministry did not include the making of an application to
the truth.
It is the application that usually gets one into trouble, as it did Stephen, and our blessed Lord, and other faithful servants.
It is the application that pricks the conscience and causes people either to repent (as did David, II Samuel 12:13), or turn
away from the truth because they cannot stand the light. Cf. John 3:19-21. You make reference in your letter to "the danger
of forfeiting the opportunity to witness to some individuals ...who have been turned away" by the documentation of error pertaining
to Modernism and Masonry. If the truth be proclaimed, and the people turn away from it, where does the responsibility lie?
With the messenger? Certainly not. If people turn away from the truth, never to return, it is their own responsibility. There
were these who turned away from Christ, never to return to Him. John 6:66. Was this the fault of the Son of God? Would you
say that He had "forfeited the opportunity to witness to them" because He told them the truth so plainly that they walked
away? It was not He who forfeited the opportunity to witness to them - He had taken full advantage of that. It was they who
forfeited the right to further light by turning away from the light they had. What you seem to fail to see is that these who
turn away from the truth at any point will turn away from it at all points. Truth is indivisible. You cannot logically divide
truth up into parts, and accept one part while rejecting another. People who turn away from the truth at one point, forfeit
their right to further light, and consequently turn away from the truth at every point. They do so because their deeds are
evil, and they do not want them exposed to the light. These who love the truth welcome the light at every point. They want
all they can get of it! It is a rather strange argument to say that the documentation of doctrinal error is out of place in
a morning worship service. I know of no better way to emphasize sound doctrine than by exposing the error that is opposed
to it. And I know of no better time to do it than when you have your largest hearing. I do not know, brother Ralph, where
you get your concept of a Sunday morning worship service, but I do not find it in the Bible. I am persuaded that it is this
very concept of an all-positive, non-negative piety which leaves people complacent and comfortable in their sins, that is
the underlying cause of the present day apostasy. The people were put to sleep in the pew through the "beauty of worship,"
and while men slept the Devil's agents infiltrated the pulpits.
Genuine worship is worship that is energized by the Holy Spirit and in accord with Divine truth, John 4:24. It is God's
Word that is truth, and therefore it is God's Word that needs to be kept before the people continually. It is the Word that
is to be the center of our worship if our worship is to be acceptable in the sight of God. For what purpose was the Scripture
given? It is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" in order that the Lord's
people might be all that He wants them to be, II Timothy 3:16-17. All of these elements then, enter into a worship service.
That is why Paul so solemnly charged Timothy to "Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove rebuke, exhort
with all longsuffering and doctrine," (11 Timothy 4:1-2) Where this is faithfully done, true worship prevails -- even though
some people walk out the back door. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine." (II Timothy 4:3) They
will take the social "gospel" of the modernists, the grace-plus-works "gospel" of the Arminian, the watered down doctrine
of the New Evangelicals the crowd that is "making the gospel relevant to this present age" but when it comes to sound doctrine
they will walk out the back door. Are we to be surprised at this? We ought rather to be surprised if some don't turn away.
There were more who turned away from the Lord than turned to Him. There were more who turned away from the apostle Paul than
turned to him. It is the "many" that are on the broad road to destruction, and only the few who are on the narrow way to life,
Matthew 7:13-14. Let's face it, the majority of people do not want sound doctrine. They want their ears tickled, so they turn
away to a mere comfortable form of Christianity. Incidentally, the Greek word for "sound" is the word from which we get our
English word "hygiene." They turn away from the very doctrine that would produce sound spiritual health. Shall we water down
our message to please people and hold the crowd? God forbid! Cf. II Corinthians 2:14-17; Galatians 1:10.
Now bless your heart, Ralph, let me assure you that no personal apology is necessary to me for anything you may have said
in my absence. I am not above criticism, and if the occasion presented itself for you to speak your opinion, I fully respect
your right to do so. While we differ in judgment, I am sure that it would not be from an ulterior motive.
With reference to Billy Graham, I will enclose a copy of my correspondence with Mr. Paton of Back to the Bible Broadcast.
If you will read it carefully, it will help you to understand my position more thoroughly. What we object to, of course, is
his compromise of the Gospel he professes to preach through fellowship and cooperation with modernists. You cannot deny that
he does this, for the evidence is much too abundant. It would appear that this is one of your difficulties, Ralph. In our
brief conversation together you stated that you had no time for the Christian Beacon, thus indicating an unwillingness
on your part to entertain and examine the evidence. The Beacon is not the only source of information, of course, but
had you taken time to read it, you would surely be better informed on the progress of apostasy. The Lord doesn't want us to
stick our heads in the sand, ostrich-like, and ignore the evidence. He wants us to lift up our eyes and see what is going
on, Read Ezekiel 8:5 - 9:11. Ezekiel was told to lift up his eyes and see the abominations that were being committed in the
temple of God, 8:5, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18. Every time he turned around he saw greater abominations. God wanted him to
see the sin of apostasy in all of its vivid detail as God sees it, so that he would not question the severity of God's judgment
upon Judah and Jerusalem. In 9:8, the prophet apparently felt that God was being too hard and that His judgment was too severe.
In verses 9-10, the Lord assures him that the severity of the judgment is required by the seriousness of the sin. Examination
of the evidence is absolutely necessary to the formation of proper judgment. And I firmly believe that it is the responsibility
of every faithful servant of the Lord to be aware of the progress of apostasy, and to denounce it as God denounces it. While
it is true that in the sphere of service (Romans 12:3-8; I Corinthians 12:12-30; Ephesians 4:7-13) each child of God has his
own peculiar gift and particular function, in the sphere of truth versus error, there are no double standards. It is the responsibility
of every faithful servant of the Lord, be he pastor, evangelist, or missionary, to oppose error wherever he finds it. It is
indeed the responsibility of every child of God to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the
saints, Jude 3-4.
The passages you quote with reference to the matter of judging forbid the passing of judgment in certain areas, but certainly
not in all. In matters of indifference, where no doctrinal or moral issue is involved (Romans 14:lff), it is not the prerogative
of one to judge another. No man has the right to judge the motive of another, or to engage in prejudicial judgment without
evidence, or to sit in judgment on another if there be known sin in his own life (Matthew 7:1-5). A heart with an unforgiving
attitude disqualifies one from passing judgment (Luke 6:36-37). So far as the hidden counsels of the heart are concerned,
or the ultimate evaluation of another man's ministry, God alone is the Judge. Christ alone is Lord of the individual conscience
(I Corinthians 4:1-7). In the more than quarter of a century that I have been privileged by the grace of God to be engaged
in the ministry of the Word, I have never sat in judgment upon the motive of another. But with an open Bible before me, I
do have a definite responsibility before God to judge the position and practice of any man who in the conduct of his ministry
walks contrary to the Word of God. And so do you, dear brother. Cf. I Corinthians 2:15-16. Constructive criticism for the
purpose of clarifying the issue between truth and error is not speaking "evil one of another" (James 4:11-12). Was Paul speaking
"evil" of Peter when he saw that he was not walking "uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" and passed judgment upon
him publicly (Galatians 2:11-14)? Certainly not. It is one thing to "preach the Gospel," but it is another thing entirely
to walk "uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." And when Peter's walk went contrary to his talk, Paul called him
for it, charging him with hypocrisy. In the area of doctrine, in the area of truth versus error, in the area of right versus
wrong, we are not only permitted to pass judgment but are responsible for doing so. Cf. Matthew 7:15; Ephesians 5:11-13; Romans
16:17-18; I John 4:1-6. We are to beware of false prophets; mark them out, label them, and avoid them; have no fellowship
with them, but rebuke them; we are to put them to the test of God's Word - all of which involves the exercise of Judgment.
Cf. Isaiah 8:20. It is impossible to fulfill these Scriptural requirements without passing judgment. We are responsible for
trying the "spirits" - he doesn't say "the preachers," but the "spirits" - and thus recognize that those who conduct themselves
contrary to the Word are energized and motivated by a "spirit" other than the Holy Spirit. Every modernist, every minister
who proclaims a "gospel" other than the true Gospel is an agent of Satan (II Corinthians 11:13-15; Galatians 1:6-9). And it
is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say so on the authority of the Word of God! Pray tell me, by whom was Peter activated,
under whose control was he when he mouthed the speech of Matthew 16:22? For whom was he speaking? Was our Lord "speaking evil"
of Peter when He said that he was a spokesman for Satan? (Matthew 16:23) He was surely passing judgment. True, no human being
with finite limitations is possessed of perfect knowledge. None of us, in and of ourselves, are qualified to judge. The judgment
we are called upon to exercise is not a subjective judgment, but an objective judgment based upon the revelation of God's
holy Word. It is the Word that does the judging, and we simply recognize the judgment of the Word. Cf. John 12:43. The Word
of God is our only safeguard against the error of the modernist, the cultist, and the compromising evangelical.
Surely you do not infer from Jude 9 that Michael was not exercising any kind of judgment with reference to Satan? The very
fact that he was contending and disputing with the Devil indicates that there was difference between them, that Michael recognized
it, and was exercising an objective judgment in the matter. What he did not do was "speak evil" (Jude 8c) of a dignity. He
simply committed the final judgment and disposition of Satan to the Lord, to whom vengeance belongs. To infer from this that
we are not to pass judgment, objective judgment, upon the inconsistent practice of other Christians is to misunderstand the
passage. It is certainly not our prerogative to exercise vengeance against such, not to speak evil of them in the process
of criticizing them, but it is our prerogative to exercise judgment with regard to their inconsistent practice. It was not
wrong for Michael to bring judgment against Satan. This he did when he said "The Lord rebuke thee." It would have been wrong
for him to bring a "railing" Judgment.
You say that Billy Graham "bases all his preaching solidly on the Word of God" and that you "have yet to find fault with
his presentation of the Gospel." Are you aware of the fact that he has in writing stated that he does not believe that the,
inerrance of the Scriptures is the basis of Christian fellowship and cooperation? He thus removes the evangelical doctrines
from the firm foundation of absolute truth and places them on a relative foundation of shifting sand. Do you agree with him
in this? Have you read the, message he presented at Union Seminary in New York? Those he has delivered at N.C.C. gatherings?
His own headquarters have publicly acknowledged that he does not emphasize the, preaching of the blood of Christ in his messages
-- he leaves that to the pastors! Are you aware of the, fact that he stood in Pike's pulpit, addressed an N.C.C. meeting,
and that at Pike's installation commended this blaspheming bishop as a Christian minister in whom the people could have confidence?
He has given his blessing to Bishop Gerald Kennedy of the Methodist Church, a man who rejects the absolute Deity of Christ
and the authority of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. If he really believes the evangelical doctrines, as he professes
to do, why does he fellowship and cooperate with Bible-denying Christ-rejecting men who do not? Surely he brings upon himself
the judgment pronounced upon Jehoshaphat in his alliance with Ahab -- "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that
hate the Lord." (11 Chronicles 19:2) So must it be with every evangelical who says to an ungodly Ahab, "I am as thou art,
and my people as thy people; and we will be with thee in the war." (II Chronicles 18:3) It was William Jennings Bryan who
said: ''When a man tells me that he believes in the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Christ, and His atonement, and then
adds, 'But I can fellowship with those who do not' -- I tell him I do not believe he believes what he professes to believe."
And to this I say "Amen!" By entering into fellowship and cooperation with Christ-rejecters, Billy Graham becomes a partaker
of their evil deeds, II John 7-11. And those who support Billy Graham become, in turn, partakers of his evil deeds, which
are the evil deeds of the modernist and thus forfeit their reward at the judgment seat of Christ. It is for this reason that
I warn people not to support Billy Graham in his ministry of disobedience and compromise, I have no respect for any man who,
though he mouths the Gospel, contradicts it in his conduct.
As for his converts, who can say to whom they belong? You are familiar, I am sure, with the contents of Genesis, Chapter
Twenty. How much respect do you have for Abraham at this point who was willing to permit his wife to be taken and used by
another man? Frankly, I have none. 0h yes, he told the truth! When he said, "She is my sister," he was telling the truth.
But like the New Evangelicals today, he preached only the positive and left out the negative. Had he been any kind of a man,
he would have told Abimelech that Sarah was his wife and that Abimelech had no right to lay his hands on her. It takes the
negative to accentuate the positive, and thus put it in proper perspective. If Abimelech had taken Sarah to wife, whose would
the child have been? Conceivably it might have been Abraham's; conceivably it might have been Abimelech's. Only God would
have known to whom the child belonged. No one in this wide world could possibly have known. God providentially intervened
and kept Sarah from being taken by Abimelech so that when the child was born, all would know that the child belonged to Abraham
in fulfilment of the promise God had given. God's Word and God's honor were at stake. It didn't matter much to Abraham, but
it mattered much to God. He wanted the testimony for the truthfulness of His Word to be kept clear and clean. Now the same
thing happens when you put an evangelical on the same platform with a modernist. When modernists and evangelicals are identified
in the same program in the area of Gospel witness and testimony, who can say to whom the converts belong? Only God knows.
I have no doubt that some are saved through believing the Word of God, for the simple reason that God honors His Word oft
times in spite of the one who proclaims it, not because of him. Jonah is a case in point. I have also no doubt that a compromised
ministry also produces many illegitimate offspring. How about the multitudes he has turned back to modernistic churches and
denominations after they have come forward in his campaigns? I have a picture in my files of people who went to the altar
in Billy Graham's New York campaign, and then with his endorsement were sent back to the Riverside Drive Church from which
they had come. It is the church that was built by John D. Rockefeller for the infidel Fosdick, in which he preached for many
years. Robert J. MacCracken is Fosdick's successor - Graham called on him to lead in prayer in one of the meetings. Now if
his converts can go back to this kind of church and be satisfied with the ministry of a man like MacCracken, is there any
evidence that they were genuinely saved? Absolutely none. Continuance in the Word is the evidence of a genuine work of grace,
and of saving faith - John 8:30-31. Of one thing I am sure, that compromise produces a counterfeit Christianity, a superficial
and spurious form of Christianity that is sending many souls to hell in the Name of Christ. There is absolutely no excuse
for Billy Graham, or any other evangelical, sharing his platform and his program with Bible-denying, Christ-rejecting infidels.
God wants the testimony for the truth to be kept clear and clean so that when converts are made, there will be no doubt as
to whom they belong.
Incidentally, I Corinthians 2:14 does not mean that unregenerate men cannot apprehend the facts of the Gospel; this they
do under the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit in His convicting work. The verse indicates that they cannot comprehend, that
is, understand the spiritual significance of these facts in relation to God's glorious purpose in saving grace until they
open their hearts and receive the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth. Unregenerate men cannot discern the truth because
they will not believe the Word. If they believed the Word, which is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, they would understand.
The point of the entire passage, I Corinthians 2:9-16, is that the deep things of God have been revealed so that men can know
and understand them if they will only believe the Word. The force of this passage certainly could not be used to excuse an
evangelist from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. All parts of Divine truth can be understood if they are simply believed.
It is faith, a receptive attitude toward the truth, that produces spiritual understanding and discernment.
I am aware, of course, that you have no organizational alliance with any church or denomination in the N.C.C. and W.C.C.,
having left the Methodist denomination many years ago. I am grateful, too, for your statement to the effect that the North
African Mission is not in the E.F.M.A. I have always believed that you are personally opposed to Modernism and apostasy -
otherwise we could not in good conscience have supported you through the years. We pray for you daily and deeply appreciate
the fellowship we have been privileged to enjoy with you and your precious family. I trust the position and the underlying
principles set forth in this letter will serve as an encouragement to you to more actively and earnestly contend for the Faith
against the compromise of the New Evangelicalism. We do not require that you concur with every single thing we say or do,
but we do believe that you should be fully aware of the peril of the New Evangelical movement (of which Billy Graham is the
champion and symbol) and actively oppose it, rather than assuming a position of neutrality, and even showing signs of sympathy
with it. It is not for me to prescribe for you or any one else a rigid and detailed course of conduct for the execution of
your ministry - far be it from me to think such a thing! If you are led to go to a group of questionable involvement for the
purpose of "witnessing" to them, it is not my prerogative to sit in judgment upon you. But I would point out with emphasis
that in so doing you should be very careful not to give the impression that you are "witnessing with," and that you should
make it very clear that you are against that which is questionable - as did the man of God from Judah; as did our Lord and
His apostles in relation to the temple and the synagogues. The important thing is that we do not identify ourselves with any
form of apostasy, or compromise with apostasy, in order to further our witness.
Association is one thing, and identification is another. It is my privilege to associate with all kinds of people for the
purpose of witnessing to them. A true separatist is anything but a monk in a monastery! I meet people every day from all walks
of life, from all kinds of backgrounds, religious and otherwise. It is the joy of my life to meet people and associate with
them for the purpose of witnessing to them about my wonderful Lord. But I am not to identify myself with the purpose, practice,
or programs of any who are not of like precious faith. The distinction between association and identification is made clear
in I Corinthians 5:9-13. In the area of Christian fellowship and testimony we are not to be identified with any whose conduct
is contrary to the Word of God. It has been my privilege to challenge every modernist minister of prominent position in Orlando
through the past seventeen years, as well as compromisers of the Gospel. On two occasions I have challenged every Methodist
minister in the Orlando- Winter Park area. I have made myself available to any and every one who will sit down with me personally
and discuss the issues at hands with an open Bible before us. But you will never find me on the same Gospel platform with
any man who is a modernist, or who compromises with modernists. Nor does this mean that we "hate" those who differ with us
or are unfriendly to them, or discourteous toward them. Within the week after we had arrived in Mount Carmel, Illinois, I
sought an interview with the pastor of the Methodist Church, ascertained his position, and refused to cooperate with him in
any Gospel program as long as we were in that area. Yet whenever I met him on the street, we treated each other in a friendly
and courteous manner. If we met in a public park, we'd pitch a game of horseshoes - but you'd never find us on the same platform
in a Gospel enterprise together. A few years ago one of the most radical ministers in this area was the pastor of the First
Methodist Church in Winter Park. He and I were personal friends outside of the pulpit. But never would you find me identified
with him in the area of Christian witness and testimony. I challenged him publicly, and warned the members of his church against
his influence, yet our relationship was always on a friendly and courteous basis. The current pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church in Orlando is a personal friend of mine. We are diametrically opposed to each other in doctrine and position, and you
would certainly never find me identified with him in the area of witness and testimony, in any kind of "cooperative" program.
I am constantly warning people under his influence of the Satanic, soul-seducing error of Seventh Day Adventism. Yet he and
I are personal friends. I mention these things to illustrate the difference between association and identification, and to
show that as Bible-believing separatists we do not "hate" or shun people, or treat them in an unfriendly manner. We do not
have to become one with them and go into their churches in order to "preach the Gospel." To do so would render negative the
message we preach. There is plenty of opportunity to reach people on the outside and witness to them faithfully and warn them
of the danger of their false ecclesiastical relationships.
Along with the correspondence to Back to the Bible, I will enclose Dr. Ashbrook's New Neutralism, and several other
items regarding Billy Graham and the new Evangelicalism. I earnestly pray that it will help you to understand our position
more fully. Take plenty of time to study the material, and when you have done so I would be interested in having you write
me your reaction to the position, principles, and evidence set forth herein. I feel that it will be best for us to have as
clear a mutual understanding as possible of our positions before you meet with the members of the council. After having examined
the evidence, would you take part in, support, or identify yourself in any way with the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham
if the occasion or opportunity presented itself?
You mentioned that Linda was now attending Wheaton College. It is not my purpose to interfere with your choice of schools,
but I would not be a faithful pastor if I did not point out that Wheaton is today a citadel of the New Evangelicalism. A book
entitled Steps Toward Apostasy at Wheaton College may be obtained from the author, Wilhelm E . Schmitt, P.O. Box 712,
Wheaton, Ill. The author was graduated from Wheaton in 1954.
After many, many interruptions I think I have finally reached the point of bringing this letter to its close. I trust you
will not be wearied with its length. But I do feel that it is necessary to analyze the statements of your letter fully. As
I said above, take your time - I will await a reply at your convenience.
May the Lord abundantly bless you and every member of your precious family. Love from all of us,
In Jesus' Precious Name.
/s/ Hayes Minnick Phil. 1:20-21
April 10, 1969
Dear Brother Ralph:
Greetings in the precious Name of our wonderful Lord! Approximately five months ago I sent you a rather lengthy letter
in reply to your letter to me over the issues raised during your ministry here last August, along with additional material
pertaining to the New Evangelical compromise. I stated that you should take plenty of time to study the material before formulating
a reply. We are wondering as to what progress you are making in this direction, and thought it might be well to have some
kind of an expression from you within the six-month period.
We trust that this finds you and the members of your precious family in good health. We had a very blessed Resurrection
Day, and trust that you all did too, I Peter 1:3. Love from all of us to all of you.
In Jesus' precious Name,/s/ H. K. M. Phil. 1:20-21
******************
3998 56th Avenue north
St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
May 15, 1969
Rev. Hayes Minnick
Orlando Bible Church
P. 0. Box 6301
Orlando, Florida 32803
Dear Brother Hayes,
Greetings in the Saviour's Name. I am sorry it has taken this long for me to answer your letter but I want you to know
it is not because I have simply neglected it. You must admit that you gave me quite a bit of material to study and I have
tried to give it careful consideration.
First of all I might say that on the one hand there seems to be little room for discussion since your letter makes it plain
that the only acceptable outcome is for me to be won over completely to your own position. I realize of course that
it is good for one to be sure of his convictions but at the same time it seems to me that we, as mature Christians, should
realize that perhaps we as individuals do not have a complete corner on the truth and everyone who differs with us must be
wrong. For example in the entire thirteen pages of your letter you have not once admitted the remotest possibility that you
could be wrong at any point but must be one hundred percent correct. On the other hand you have told me repeatedly in the
letter that I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the scriptures to which I made reference. Nevertheless I feel I must make
one more attempt to clarify my position and give some reasons why I differ with you on certain positions you present.
For one thing I must strongly disagree with the assertion that those who "remain in the area of apostasy become a special
kind of sinner" as applied to all who are in denominational churches. One might possibly say this about some of the apostate
leadership but certainly not of all the misled sheep. In Matt. 9:35-38 we have the record of the Lord teaching in the synagogues,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing diseases. We are told that He was moved with compassion on the multitude because
they were as sheep having no shepherd. He didn't say they HAD no shepherd, for they did have, but were as having no shepherd.
Their shepherds were false and were loading them down with burdens they could not bear, leading them astray. But notice that
Jesus refers to this multitude as the ripened harvest and commanded His disciples to pray the Lord of the harvest to send
forth laborers into this harvest. Those were Jews, following Judaism under the apostate leadership that condemned and crucified
Christ, yet He did not consider them special kinds of sinners.
It happens that Laura and I were among those who were in a denomination that had gone apostate in many respects but we
did not know it. We didn't even know the meaning of the word at that time, didn't know what apostasy was. We were sincerely
doing what we felt was right. According to your interpretation, we were some of those special kind of sinners who diserved
nothing but condemnation and judgment; certainly not deserving of further light. You may say, "Yes, but you got out of it,"
to which I must reply that we did not get out until after we had begun to study God's Word and got our eyes opened. It was
the testimony of men like Dr. Charles Soidonspinnor who preached in that church on occasion; and also the insistent invitations
of a friend with whom I worked, to go with him to a Bible class in the First Baptist Church, that were initially responsible
for getting us into the study of the Word and ultimately getting us out of the church. Without such a witness, where would
we be today? If we had had to depend on an ACCC member to bring us the light, we would likely still be there. These people
came to us where we were and gave us the Word of God and this created a hunger for more. Had they come to denounce us for
our apostasy I have no doubt we would have, rejected them. Do you not believe there is a proper time for certain teachings,
even of God's Word, that there is truth that some are not yet ready for? Christ Himself told His own disciples that He had
many things to tell them but they were not yet able to bear them.
You insist that, "Truth is indivisible. You cannot logically divide truth into parts, and accept one part while rejecting
another. People who turn away from the truth at one point forfeit their right to further light, etc." I quote this from your
letter because I feel there is in your statement some faulty reasoning that should be examined. In the first place I do not
know from where you get the authority for the assertion that one who turns from the truth at one point forfeits the right
to further light. As I understand the scriptures, and the Gospel in particular, none of us has any right whatever to anything
but God's judgment; this is all we deserve. It is God's free, unmerited grace, to which no one has a right, that saves us.
Further, as I study the Word, I see how God continually holds out the hand of grace and mercy to us; again and again giving
opportunities for repentance and restoration. Just look at His dealing with apostate Israel, how many chances He gave them.
Truly I feel it is a gross oversimplification of truth and an evasion of our responsibility, to assert that after we have
exposed people to a certain area of "truth" and they have not responded, they have forfeited their right to further light.
How many Christians do you know who responded to the first presentation of the Gospel? Or the second, or the third? Did you?
I do not know what your early background was, perhaps you were raised, in a fundamental church, but many of us were not. But
did we all immediately respond the first time we received the truth? I think you know the answer to that. I know that Laura
and I "turned away" from "truth" as presented in the Christian Beacon and the Sword of the Lord, but were won by the simple
straightforward teaching of God's Word.
Further, in stating that "Truth is indivisible", etc., what do you mean by truth? Do you mean the Word of God, or do you
mean all that is true. I ask this because if you recall, it was not the preaching of the Word to which I objected, but rather
the detailed cataloging of the sins and errors of certain groups, in this one case the Masons. If all this information about
their deeds, teachings and practices are included in your definition of truth, then I would have, to differ with you about
your position on the indivisibility of truth. All truth in this sense is certainly not appropriate at all times, and some
of this kind of truth is seldom if ever appropriate. For example, I know a lot that is true about the horrible, vile practices
of certain people but I certainly would never present detailed accounts of such to an audience in order to document my statements
about their degeneracy. Yet it is all true.
Once again let me say that I am not opposed to the practice of exposing error from the pulpit but I still feel there is
a time and a place for it as well as a right and wrong way to do it. I have in mind a certain day when we came to the worship
service to meet the Lord and have our souls fed. But we did not see the Lord, His beauty, virtues, and blessings were not
uplifted to draw us to Him in adoration and praise. Rather our ears were filled with all the vile corruption practiced by
the Masons. We left the worship service feeling almost unclean. I contrast this to the communion services we have been privileged
to share with you there in the Bible Church. I have never experienced such blessings in a communion service as I have there
under your ministry. I can still recall your standing before the congregation and quoting from memory many passages of the
Word as communion was being served. I always left these times refreshed and with a renewed dedication to the Lord and I am
sure it was because we were saturated with the Word of God. This to me is true worship. I mention this because I have to admit
that we were very saddened on certain occasions when after succeeding in getting someone from the Methodist church to attend
the Sunday morning service, we saw them turned away as needy as they came because what they heard was simply a denunciation
of their own church. They were unprepared for this; this was truth they were yet unable to bear for they had no foundation
for it.
In your letter you made reference to my unwillingness to read such publications as the Christian Beacon and other "evidence"
of the progress of apostasy. Perhaps I have been a bit critical of such publications but let me tell you why this is so. I
used to receive certain of these and have read quite a few but I became distressed at certain tendencies and attitudes. Let
me mention a few.
There is usually the use of such excessive language, overstatements, inaccuracies and name calling, together with an unabashed
indictment of the motives of others. For example, in the paper you sent me, "The Voice of Truth", in the article on Billy
Graham there are such extremely excessive statements that one tends to discount the whole thing. To say that the gospel Billy
Graham preaches is a "blinding delusion that has led millions astray" most certainly is not only a ridiculous overstatement,
but in my opinion borders on blasphemy. Billy Graham's associations are sometimes questionable, many of them definitely wrong,
many of his practices are open to question, but certainly not the gospel he preaches. To refer to Billy Graham as a horribly
wicked man who is deceiving millions is most certainly extreme and unscriptural. Even Lot, that self-seeking compromiser who
chose to live and identify himself with that vile city of Sodom, is referred to in II Pet. 2:7-8 as "that righteous man" and
"Just Lot". I am sure that God will hold the editor of that paper responsible for such gross statements.
Then he throws in a lot of totally unsupported statements about people being "100% communist", claims that all delegates
to the "phony congress" on evangelism who came from the communist-ruled countries were communist agents. In the whole article
he doesn't really offer one bit of solid fact but rather his own strongly held opinions; and these he calls "incontrovertible
facts". In another article he quotes statistics which show the decline in church members' active participation, and also Biblical
illiteracy of Americans then attributes the whole thing to the new evangelicalism as though it were the sole cause of such
a state. This is the type of naive oversimplification that causes many to give little credence to such writers and their publications.
Another factor that disturbs me even more is the tendency to stoop to dishonesty in order to make a point. This may shock
you but I really have found many misleading statements and distorted facts in a number of articles. This shows itself in misquoting
others, or quoting them entirely out of context. For example, in the booklet you sent me on the New Neutralism, the
author criticized the book, Missions in Crises by Fife and Glasser, giving several quotes. One quote he lifts from
page 117 and it reads as follows: "There are outstanding men in this movement. They have sought to sense the need of the church
as they know it throughout the world and to do something about it." This he criticizes as throwing sops in the direction of
the ecumenical movement. What Ashbrook fails to tell us is that in the very same paragraph, Fife and Glasser go on to state
that the Ecumenical movement poses the gravest of problems, then begins to deal at length with those. In another quote on
page 127, Ashbrook picks out one sentence at the end of a paragraph which states, "But now there appears to be the possibility
of a great stimulus in evangelistic outreach by the whole church throughout the whole world." He finds fault with this as
making complimentary remarks about the missionary efforts of the WCC. He does not mention, however that in the very next paragraph
the authors state, "the great unresolved theological problems remain. It is here that the enlightened evangelical holds grave
misgivings", and that the WCC is "moving steadily away from the historic evangelical position." Again he quotes from page
136, "The Ecumenical movement is thoroughly Biblical when it affirms that Christians are members of One Body, even Christ's
very own, and that Christians share a common fellowship with Christ in His Church". Ashbrook's comment is that he fails to
see that the Ecumenical Movement is Biblical in any of its basic concepts. Yet the statement is true, no matter who
said it. Even Satan quoted scripture but that did not change the truth of scripture. Ashbrook does not tell us that just across
the page on page 137, Fife and Glasser state, "And yet, the Scriptures are unequivocal in their insistence that there be agreement
on essential truths." and on page 138, "While one laments the scandal and shame of the disunity of the Church, he is also
obliged to confess that an even greater scandal and shame is the disloyalty of the Church to Jesus Christ and His Word."
Then follows a contrast of the Ecumenical movement to the Scriptural position on purity of doctrine. But again in another
quote from page 140, Ashbrook leaves out the middle of a sentence, then skips on to Page 142 just picking out those words
totally out of context to make it appear that Fife and Glasser are opposed to the principle of separation. At the risk
of wearying you, I am going to give you Ashbrook's quote from his book and then the actual context from the book by Fife and
Glasser. Ashbrook says, "Following the typical Neutralist line on 'love' and 'Positiveness', the authors (Fife and Glasser)
declare: 'Unfortunately, in our day among evangelicals there have been such violations of much that Scripture says regarding
the Law of Love ...and such unnecessary divisions within the visible church - all in the name of 'separation' - that the underlying
Biblical truth of this matter has been largely discredited and ignored...To be positive, evangelicals today should affirm
their concern for the disunity existing among the Lord's people? pp 140,142." That is the way Ashbrook quoted it. Now let
me quote for you exactly what the authors said and you will notice what Ashbrook has carefully omitted. Quoting from page
140: "In order that His own might overcome, God has decreed the principle of separation. It is unfolded from Genesis to Revelation.
To cite texts is almost superfluous, they are so extensive in number and pointed in meaning (II Corinthians 6:14,15; Galatians
1:8; II Thessalonians 3:6; I Timothy 6:3-5; II Timothy 3:5; II John 9-11, drawn from the New Testament alone). There are rival
Gods, separate from them. There are rival Christs, separate from them. There are false gospels, separate from them. "Let us
go forth therefore unto him (Christ) without the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we have no continuing city, but we seek
one to come" (Hebrews 1 3:1 3,1 4).
''Much of the Old Testament is taken up with the melancholy record of the consequences that come to individuals and nations
when they disobey the Word of God by failing to separate themselves unto the Lord and from the world. Unfortunately, in our
day among evangelicals there have been such violations of much that Scripture says regarding the Law of Love and the sacredness
of truth, such uncrucified pride, and such unnecessary divisions within the visible Church - all in the name of
'separation'- that the underlying Biblical truth of this matter has been largely discredited and ignored. Certainly, "an enemy
hath done this."
"Church history likewise is replete with multiple evidence of the validity of this great principle. But the Ecumenical
Movement, by its very inclusivist nature, makes loyalty in this area not only suspect, but virtually impossible. This disregard
for the hard lessons of Scripture, reinforced by the awful confirmations of Church history, is sufficient to give the reflective
evangelical some sorrowful moments as he watches the onward march of this movement." Then skipping to page 142 and the paragraph
Ashbrook quoted, here is what it says, "To be positive, evangelicals today should affirm their concern for the disunity existing
among the Lord's people. Concurrently they should guard against any easy optimism that sees the whole matter of unity realized
through the erection of a finely balanced organization to which all groupings, church and mission, are pressed to join." In
this you can certainly see how the author, Ashbrook, has given a distorted picture, carefully selecting a sentence here and
there but totally ignoring the context from which they were taken and carefully ommiting anything that would weaken his argument.
It is interesting to note that out of all 261 pages of the book, Missions in Crisis, he has taken scattered quotations
from five pages and these themselves are all from one chapter containing 33 Pages. Yet anyone who read his book would judge
the book on the basis of his distorted reporting, unless they took the trouble to secure the book and read it for themselves,
and most people will not do this as you well know. They simply accept what authors like him-say because they trust
him as a fundamental, Bible-believing Christian. But how can I trust a writer like this? I simply cannot. I don't care how
fundamental he is - distortion of this sort is nothing short of lying and I know what the Scripture says about that. If I
can't trust an author to tell the truth at one point how can I trust him at any point? How do I know when he is giving accurate
information or just his own biased opinions and prejudiced appraisal?
This is not the only one either, but it is one of those which you sent me and wish me to accept and believe. I simply cannot.
When I was on the East coast a year or so ago, my host gave me two booklets which soundly and roundly castigated the RSV Bible
and asked me to read them. (He thoroughly approved of them, incidentally). I had never used the RSV for years because I accepted
the writings of fundamentalists who tore it to shreds in their booklets. However I have reference editions so I agreed to
read the booklets and compare them with the RSV. When I did so, I was absolutely astounded at the way these two men had dealt
with the problem. I carefully checked all their statements, quotations, etc. using the RSV and many different versions and
translations, including the French and Arabic Bibles which we use in Morocco and France. I found to my utter surprise that
nearly all the allegations against the RSV were totally unfounded, that most of the changes objected to so strenuously were
in agreement with older translations that have already been accepted for years as well as some newer ones. But these same
changes from the KJV rendering were confidently attributed to the desire of the translators of the RSV to corrupt the Scriptures.
But again what troubled me more was the dishonest way in which quotations were handled, and this by fundamental Christians!
Time and space will not permit my listing these, but they were numerous. This sort of thing is what has eroded my confidence
in the type of publication under discussion. I simply do not feel I can trust statements made, they are made with such bias
and are colored so much by the feelings of the writer. Do not misunderstand me; I am not here arguing the pros and cons of
the RSV itself (although I must admit that those very authors have given more confidence in it than I would ever have had
before reading their booklets). What I am pointing out is that I have found those authors to be incapable of an objective,
honest evaluation. I am afraid they become so obsessed with heresy hunting that they search for something to criticize. I
examine some of the passages to which those critics object and I am totally unable to find the point they are so excited about
and it becomes obvious they have simply read into the text what they imagined the author had in mind, then they go on to describe
in detail all the base, ungodly motives that prompted the translator to translate as he did. This sort of thing I simply cannot
accept. It is an insult to the intelligence and it is despicable when such distortion comes from Christian men whose motives
I assume are good. However the highest motives do not justify the use of such methods. I will give respectful attention and
consideration to the arguments of men who are able to present solid fact in an unexcited objective manner, letting the facts
speak for themselves. If the case one seeks to present is so weak it needs to be supported by a lot of misquotes, misrepresentations,
and excited comment, then it is no case at all and does not merit our attention. I am sorry to have spent so much time on
this, but your letter made it plain that you did not think I had bothered to even consider any solid "evidence" as represented
in these publications, but was merely closing my eyes to the truth. I felt I had to explain at length why I feel as I do.
In the matter of positivism versus negativism, the question always recurs in my mind, why is it that fundamental Christianity
is often slow to do anything besides criticize what others are doing? For example, there are several different groups who
came into being for the purpose of reaching youth for the Lord and have a ministry aimed specifically at this age group. Some
of those are Youth for Christ, Young Life, Campus Crusade for Christ, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Without exception
these are under attack by fundamentalists. Yet what is being offered in their place? Evangelism in depth is another example.
It has the burden of involving every Christian in the ministry of witnessing for Christ. It is most heartily criticized. Yet
what is being offered in its place? Take the matter of Bible revision for example. We of course love the good old King James
Version; we were raised on it. But if we are honest we will have to admit that a good revision has been needed for a long
time. God never intended that His message to man should be obscured by language that is outdated any more than He intended
that it should remain forever in the Hebrew and Greek and never be translated. As long ago as 1937, plans were laid for a
revision that would be known as the Revised Standard Version. Since this version has appeared it has known nothing but the
bitterest of opposition from fundamentalists, being utterly condemned and rejected by them, mainly because it was done under
the sponsorship of the National Council of Churches. The point I am trying to make is this: after more than thirty years since
work on the RSV began, why have those who are so violently opposed to the NCC and the RSV not done anything toward producing
a good, solid, fundamental reliable version that would be acceptable? During all this time why had there been nothing but
criticism to offer? Why have we fundamentalists sat back and left the work of revision to the liberals? Even the Berkeley
Bible which appeared in 1959 as a sort of answer to the RSV has not been accepted. As I said before it is difficult to escape
the impression that some folk are not interested in producing, but only in carefully examining and criticising what others
are attempting to produce. Some time ago I wrote to the ACCC and asked for a listing of Missions and missionaries whom they
are prepared to endorse. From the information they sent me, I gather that of the 257 boards not in the NCC or the WCC they
are prepared to endorse only about 35. Those 35 mission boards account for only around 2000 missionaries. The other 222 boards
account for around 25000. To me this is carrying "separation" too far.
I do not wish to sound harsh because I certainly do not feel that way. Rather I am deeply distressed that my brethren who
are true to
|
