Truth Magazine

By Homer Hailey

For forty-five years I have held a view on God’s attitude toward individuals who seek salvation in Christ, though they have been married, divorced and remarried previously, which differs from that held by many brethren. Though I have not made an issue of our differing views, or felt impelled to crusade for mine, I have never hesitated to express it when asked.

All at once I find myself under attack by some, being charged as a false teacher, unfit for the fellowship of certain ones who differ from me. This attack began in the spring following a study with brethren in the church at Belen, New Mexico. Because of the misrepresentation in the mind of some, here are the facts.

During the week of October 5-9, 1987, a group from over the country met in Belen to assist in getting the congregation started there. During the week I met with a couple who had left the “liberal” congregation and were meeting with the new group. In the course of the conversation or visit they asked me my view on the condition of divorced and remarried individuals, which I explained. They were in that condition having been baptized after their marriage (as I understood them). They joined the new group.

Following the meeting a preacher held a meeting for the church, preached on the subject, which brought up the question in the congregation: What of this couple and a recently converted woman (as I recall being told). On March 19th (Saturday) of this year, I returned from two meetings, then on Sunday (March 20) I received calls from Lee Stewart, the preacher, asking me to come over and present my view, which he said differed from that presented by the preacher in the meeting. I begged to be excused, but he and Tim Stevens insisted that I come. Reluctantly I went, after they asked if six of them could fly over and meet in my home. Why six air fares when one would answer! So I went there. I left early Tuesday (March 22), was met by Lee and Tim and we went to the meeting place. The meeting was private, and they insisted we keep it that way. A friend of mine from a different congregation wanted to attend, but they did not want it. The meeting was to be private. We sat around a table, fourteen or sixteen I believe, and for an hour and a half I went through the scriptures pointing out the ground of my position, then we spent an hour asking and answering questions. I then left. They had assured me that what they wanted was my view to compare with the differing view, that they might make a decision. I didn’t even make any special preparation, just went as one would meet and discuss a matter. I made some statement that it looked as if I would have to make my views more public; others know how I phrased it; I do not recall. The brethren were not satisfied with the two presentations, but invited brother Ron Halbrook to come and refute my presentation of my position. The video that was made of this meeting has been given wide circulation so that what was to have been a private study has become a brotherhood issue, which is regrettable.

I make no apology for my position; I believe it to be correct. I have no intention of becoming the focal point in a brotherhood discussion of the subject. But neither do I intend to be put in a position where I cannot express my views on this or any other subject in which the truth of God is involved. Any who feel they must consider me unfit for their fellowship must make that decision, though I do not share such a feeling toward them.

Others may feel differently about their mission, but I do not intend to contribute to any division in the church over this issue. If at some future time I should feel that truth will be served by a full presentation of the scriptural grounds for my position, I will exercise my freedom to do so. However, it is both my desire and my intention to continue the practice I have followed on this issue for the past forty-five years.

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate brother Hailey’s note expressing his intention not to make a crusade of his belief that nonChristians are not amenable to the teachings of Matthew 19.9. Although his comments regarding the motives and actions of those who opposed his actions at Belen, NM might be the subject of disagreement by those who originally reported the incident at Belen, the article confirms that these brethren have correctly assessed and reported the views preached by brother Hailey at Belen and earlier at El Cajon, CA.

The view which brother Hailey expresses privately when asked and has preached publicly on some occasions has now become public material. I suppose that Peter may have wished that his conduct in Galatians 2:11-14 would never have become the matter of public contention. But it did and the truth of the gospel was at stake in the confrontation which ensued. In the same manner, the truth of the gospel is at stake in this controversy. Souls are in danger of eternal damnation. If brother Hailey is correct, those of us who are teaching remarried non-Christians, who have had divorces for causes other than fornication, to separate in order to be acceptable to God are guilty of breaking asunder what God has joined together. If brother Hailey is incorrect, he is teaching those who are in adultery to continue in their sin. The consequences are serious and soul-threatening. I cannot see how a public discussion of these issues can be avoided. I do not desire that brother Hailey not be allowed to express his convictions; rather, I request that he or someone else bring book, chapter, and verse to defend this conviction. We desire to see him express his views that they may be tested to see whether or not they are from God (1 Jn. 4.1).

I wish that I could see a way for a tolerance about this matter. However, from my point of view, brother Hailey is defending what I believe the Bible labels “adultery” as acceptable conduct before God. 1 Corinthians 5 states that adultery is a sin which breaks the fellowship of the saints. Although brother Hailey is not practicing adultery, he is teaching a doctrine which condones the practice and encourages those guilty of adultery not to repent. The fact that this adultery is “sanctioned” by civil authorities does not make the sin righteous conduct. Unless one can explain how this false doctrine which leads to sin can be acceptable before God, I cannot conscientiously tolerate it.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 70-71
February 2, 1989

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. In our last lesson we traced the division that came to the ranks of the Restoration Movement.

A. Developed on two major points:

1. Organizational – Missionary Society formed.

2. Worship – instrumental music added.

B. Division recognized by our government in 1906.

II. We observed that as time went on, the differences multiplied.

A. Denial of verbal inspiration, miracles, etc.

B. Open membership.

C. Fraternization with denominations.

D. Transition into just another denomination.

III. In this lesson, we look deeper into the causes of division and into present-day conditions.

Discussion:

I. Basic Difference Between the Church and the Christian Church Was Attitude Toward Authority.

A. Historical background.

1. Martin Luther: “Whatever the Bible does not specifically forbid, we may practice.”

2. Ulrich Zwingli: “If the Bible does not authorize a practice, we must reject it.”

B. When the Christian Church was formed, these two basic attitudes were the bases upon which “battle lines” were drawn.

1. Formation of the Missionary Society: Campbell and others reasoned as follows in regard to the organization of the church:

a. The church is referred to both universally and locally in the New Testament.

b. Local arrangement or organization is provided for in the New Testament.

c. Local churches acting independently can never accomplish their divine mission.

d. Therefore, there must be some means devised in order that local churches may act together.

e. Since no revelation has been given to tell us how, we are free to devise a plan. In other words, the Bible does not tell us how to organize the church universal, so we may do it as we please!

2. In regard to the introduction of the instrument into the worship, many of the arguments in favor could be summed up with: “The Bible does not tell us not to have it.”

C. One is reminded today of our brethren who write tracts and articles entitled. “Where there is no pattern.” If there is no pattern, there is no authority, and if there is no authority, man cannot move.

1. Scripture limits a person to what is written:

a. 1 Corinthians 4:6

b. Ephesians 3:1-4

c. John 20:30-31

d. 1 Timothy 3:16-17

e. 2 John 9

2. Man cannot add or subtract (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

II. Our Present-day Difficulties in the Church Find Their Origin in the Same Historic Difference in Attitude Toward Authority.

A. Organization.

1. Institutionalism. Today we find the church establishing and maintaining organizations of various kinds:

a. Benevolent institutions:

(1) Old Folks Homes

(2) Widows Homes

(3) Orphans Homes, etc.

b. Social service institutions:

(1) Hospitals

(2) Homes for unwed mothers, etc.

c. Educational institutions:

(1) Kindergartens

(2) Grade schools and high schools

(3) Colleges

(4) Schools of preaching, etc.

2. Sponsoring church arrangements:

a. Examples:

(1) “Herald of Truth” sponsored by Highland Avenue church in Abilene, Texas.

(2) Area-wide evangelistic efforts. Each one has a sponsoring church.

b. Here are some of the reasons why such are wrong:

(1) Such an arrangement constitutes a violation of the autonomy, equality and independence of local churches.

(2) Such an arrangement ignores the limitations placed on elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:14).

(3) There is no more authority for activating the church universal through one eldership or one local church, than through the Missionary Society.

(4) Such “cooperation” has no scriptural authority. (Acts 11:22-23, 27-30; Rom. 15:25-32; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; 11:8).

B. Work.

1. Churches across the land are involving the church in recreation, entertainment, and all sorts of social activities.

a. Summer camps

b. Student centers located near colleges and universities.

c. Youth rallies.

d. Bowling, baseball teams, etc. Some churches employ a “recreation director.”

2. Hundreds of churches provide facilities (and often the food) to feed “rich” people (see 1 Tim. 5:16).

3. Interesting to walk the parking lot of Opry Land and see the number of “Church of Christ Busses” that have (at church expense) hauled kids.

4. Common today for preachers to plead with churches to “minister to the whole man.”

5. Notice the parallel between the work and worship of the church:

Worship	Work
Sing – Eph. 5:19	Preaching – 1 Tim. 3:15
Pray – Acts 2:42	Edification – Eph. 4:16
Teach – Acts 20:7	Benevolence – Acts 4:32-37
Give – 1 Cor. 16:1-2	Discipline – 1 Cor. 5
Lord’s Supper – Acts 20:7

To these nothing can be added or subtracted. You can no more add recreation to the work, than you can instrumental music to the worship.

Conclusion:

1. The seed that produced the Christian Church has been planted again.

2. Luther and Zwingli could not agree 450 years ago. These basic attitudes toward authority continue to divide people in the twentieth Century.

3. Here is where authority directs:

a. There is one body (Eph. 4:4). That one body has been so arranged or organized that it can function according to God’s plan.

b. That one body has been given responsibilities in the areas of worship and work.

4. What is your attitude toward the authority of Christ? Must we speak where the Bible speaks and be silent when it is silent?

5. Do we walk by faith or by sight?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 2, 1989

By Robert C. Welch

Change from wrong to right is necessary. When a person insists upon the importance of never changing, his consistency is the kind Emerson spoke of as the hobgoblin of little minds. But I should be certain that I am in the wrong before I change. And I need to be sure that I am in the right and not changing to wrong. According to some people, even some of my brethren, alas even some of my preaching brethren, I have been in the wrong in some of my actions and teaching. These are the things about which I ask the question, must I change?

Must I change the wording of my marriage ceremony? I have been in the habit of having couples who are not Christians to pledge that they will live together after God’s ordinance so long as they both shall live. But some of my brethren are telling me that God’s ordinance of marriage does not apply to those who are not Christians. They are telling me that it does not matter if aliens to the kingdom of Christ divorce for any cause and marry other people. They reason that the laws of God apply only to Christians. If their argument is correct then I must leave God out of the ceremony and merely pronounce them husband and wife according to the law of the state. But who can believe it? That divorce and remarriage is violation of God’s law, just the same as murderers and liars, and all will be found in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8) unless they repent (2 Pet. 3:9). 1 do not plan on changing.

Must I change my preaching on the necessity of repentance? For fifty-five years I have been preaching that children of God who sin must repent of their sins in order to be forgiven and be in fellowship with God. But in these days I am being told by some of my brethren that so long as my general spiritual demeanor and health is good, that these few and incidental sins are taken care of by the Lord. Thus they would have me change my preaching, assuring the hearers that they do not need to be concerned about those inadvertent lies, lascivious looks, words and acts, occasional social drinks, innocent (?) dances or provocative poses and dress. They will be assured that the Lord will cover these “little” sins so long as they worship regularly. Oh, I can almost hear them shout that that is not what they mean. But that is what the hearers, who want to do these things anyhow, will get from such teaching. And all along I have been teaching that the Lord makes no distinction between sins, that his word insists that sin be repented of in order to forgiveness. No, until I am shown otherwise from the Scriptures I am not planning on changing my teaching, to please the compromisers.

Must I change my view and teaching that the Scriptures are inerrant, and that they are written for our time as well as the first century. A lot of people and some brethren are deciding that some things were written only for that time, though it is not so stated and the context does not so teach. Paul gave some teaching and spiritual advice about what to do in “the present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). So I know that this does not directly apply to these days even though the principles involved may have application. He wrote concerning the use of spiritual gifts, but elsewhere points out that such gifts would not last (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Therefore I understand that such specific instruction does not apply to me. But I am not to conclude that the Bible is an outdated set of words to be taken or left at my own whim. My faith in God and his word as the incorruptible and eternal word (1 Pet. 1:23-25) is such that pratings of skeptics will not cause me to change my teaching on the matter.

Must I change my thinking and teaching on the matter of fellowship with immoral people and teachers of false doctrine, or those whose practices are in addition to and contradictory to the teaching’of the New Testament? For fiftyfive years I have been preaching that the church (including each member) is not to have fellowship with such. But there are those who suggest that just so long as I do not do these things then I can worship with, work with, and have social concourse with those who do them. It appears that they would insist that if they had an idol in their worship, that so long as I did not worship the idol I could go right along. The Bible teaches that I am not to so endorse sin and error (2 John 9-11). No, I am not considering changing my thinking, teaching and practice in this matter. “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 2, 1989

By Mike Willis

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith (Hab. 2:4).

The prophet Habakkuk prophesied some 40-50 years before the Babylonians invaded and destroyed Judah. He faced difficult circumstances. The wicked were trampling the righteous under their feet and God seemed deaf to their cries. The message of the book of Habakkuk may be summarized in the statement, “the just shall live by faith.” This was a message of comfort to a troubled remnant. It is a message of such profound importance that it is quoted in three different places in the New Testament (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). We will do well to meditate on its teachings.

The Historical Situation

The prophet was distressed by the wicked’s conduct and God’s not immediately responding to punish them. “O Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!” (1:2) Because God did not act, the wicked became more brazened in ungodliness.

God responded to Habakkuk’s plea by announcing the following: “Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you” (1:5). He then proceeded to tell Habakkuk of his intention of bringing the Chaldean nation to destroy Judah because of its sin.

Rather than settling the matter for Habakkuk, this announcement created greater conflict for the prophet. Despite the wickedness which he saw in Judah, he knew that Babylon was more wicked than his mother country. He asked, how can God hold his tongue “when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he” (1:13)?

The prophet awaited God’s response. The Lord commanded him to write his vision on tablets for others to read when the prophesied destruction of Judah came. He then revealed his word, “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith” (2:4).

What Did This Mean?

The word “just” (from tsaddiq) means “just, righteous in conduct and character toward God.” The word “faith” (from emunah) means “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity; faithfulness.” The text is, therefore, saying that the man who will maintain his faithfulness will live (not only survive the calamity, but also maintain his relationship with God, not being separated from God by his sin,[dead in sin]). The prophet responded to this message of hope saying,

When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble: when he cometh up unto the people, he will invade them with his troops. Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places (3:16-19).

Here is the mountain top of faith. Homer Hailey described Habakkuk’s attitude as follows:

In this verse the prophet includes all means or resources of food and declares that though all fail, he will trust in Jehovah . . The prophet has enumerated every avenue of food peculiar to the Jews; and though all be taken away by the invader, he will continue to put his trust in Jehovah and to joy in Him. Here the peak of faith is reached; here is the faith by which men live. “Jehovah, the Lord, is my strength”; upon this he had learned to depend. The “I Am That I Am” will not fail or forsake him…. Faith is now victorious. The prophet’s questions have been answered and he himself has come through his perplexities a complete conqueror. The faith by which he came through victorious is the faith by which all will triumph (A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, pp. 295-296).

The faith which won the victory for Habakkuk is the faith which has sustained man through his troubles in every age of life. Job relied on such faith when he spoke in the midst of his troubles, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). He did not know why he was suffering, but he had confidence in the God he worshipped and served.

The New Testament Application

We turn to look at the three places where this passage is quoted in the New Testament: Romans 1: 17; Galatians 3:11; and Hebrews 10:38. The first two may be considered together. In both Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 to show that man is justified before God, not on the basis of perfect law keeping, but on the basis of faith. The faith of these passages can only be understood when it takes the rich depth of meaning that is in Habakkuk 2:4. The “faith” of the Protestant dogma of “faith only” (in which a man is saved the moment he accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and in which he cannot fall from grace, resulting in no emphasis on faithful living to stay saved) does not grasp the meaning of either Paul or Habakkuk.

The passage in Hebrews 10:38 has virtually the same context as does Habakkuk. The Christians of Hebrews 10 were witnessing the destruction of the Jewish state and suffering persecution from their own Jewish brethren. The writer exhorted,

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:35-39).

The faith which saves and sustains man is a faith with implicit trust in God that results in persistent obedience to his will, regardless of whether or not one can perceive God’s full intentions at the time of obedience.

Lessons From The Text

1. Don’t allow circumstances to cause us to quit persevering in faithfulness to the Lord. The prophet’s resolve was to trust in the Lord in spite of the adverse circumstances through which he must suffer. Like the prophet, we need a faithfulness to God which will maintain its obedience regardless of what faces us. We need to obey God when our brethren encourage us and when they discourage us; to obey God when multitudes are obeying the gospel and when multitudes persecute us; to obey God in poverty and in wealth, in sickness and in health.

2. God’s purpose is not clearly understood by looking at today’s circumstances. The Lord’s purpose for Israel in the Babylonian captivity was corrective discipline (1:12). Viewing the situation centuries later, a person can see that God’s chastening of Judah resulted in her survival as a nation and people; in contrast, the Babylonian nation was utterly destroyed with no surviving remnant. Jehovah’s disciplining of Judah was an act of his mercy and grace. But, those who lived through the period could not perceive this.

Living in a brief moment of time between two vast eternities, man is incapable of comprehending God’s purposes and plans. He looks at the skirmish; the Lord sees the war. He sees the tree; God sees the forest. Recognizing the limitations on my insight and knowledge should keep me from murmuring against my God. Humbly I should submit to his providential government of the world in full reliance that he knows better than me what is best for mankind.

3. God can use the wicked to accomplish his good purposes. God’s use of the wicked Babylonians shows that God can bring good out of the conduct of wicked men. The wickedness of those who crucified Jesus was used by God to accomplish his purpose of redemption.

4. The knowledge of God’s glory will cover the, earth. In Habakkuk 2:14, the prophet foretold, “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” The passage does not say, “‘For the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord,” but “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.” The actions of God would cause men to know the glory of the Lord. When the Lord rose up to destroy that wicked Chaldean nation, the knowledge of the Lord’s glory filled the earth.

The knowledge of the Lord’s glory has filled the earth in what he has done through his Son, Jesus Christ. His glorious grace, marvelous mercy, and kingly kindness have become known to man through his sending of Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

5. Man should show reverence for God. As the second chapter of the book came to a close, Habakkuk contrasted the deaf and dumb idols with Jehovah. “Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him”(2:19-20).

Our God is a living God! He is not the figment of man’s imagination, myth, or a leftover remnant from an obsolete society. He lives and reigns over his creation! That being so, man should show him reverence: “let all the earth keep silence before him.”

Our assemblies for worship should attest that we hold God in reverence. We come together, not to exalt a preacher or song leader, but to praise God. Our conduct in the assembly should be one of reverence, not characterized by acts of sacrilege.

Conclusion

May we humbly bow in reverence before our God and humbly accept the circumstances in which we live, maintaining our faithfulness to him through them all. May we draw assurance of our ultimate victory from the statement of the prophet Habakkuk: “The just shall live by faith.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 66, 86-87
February 2, 1989