Truth Magazine

By J. Wiley Adams

The above sentiment has been used by many sects and humanitarian groups with regard to physical necessities in poverty-ridden parts of the world where many are dying of hunger, disease, and the harsh treatment of atheistic governments in those areas of the world. It is truly good to save the children even if we cannot save the adults. Why not save both? But man does not five by bread alone. Here in our own wonderful land people are dying from spiritual malnutrition. They need the Word of God.

However, let us look within the ranks of the church of the Lord. Are we even doing so much as saving our children? Case after case can be cited of congregations where the young peopl-e-are not obeying the gospel when it is time for them to do so. Why is this? Surely many factors would be involved in this. But, I have noticed that in some cases the parents of such children have been extremely loose in emphasizing to children where the priorities He. They will let them go off on outings and miss services, go around with worldly friends and do nothing to correct the matter. In fact, if I may be bold, some parents who are church members let their children do what they Jolly well please. The inconsistency is seen in that they always insist on their going to kindergarten, elementary school, high school, boy scouts, little league, girl scouts. They let them go in mixed bathing and expose their bodies to the lusts of sensual people. They allow them to sit around the house or go out in the yard without enough on to wad a shotgun. Then they wonder why their boys get some girl in trouble and why sometimes girls get with child out of wedlock and then they wring their hands and moan, “What did I do wrong?” For one thing they did not heed the Scriptures or the advice of those who could see where all this was heading. It is too late to shut the barn door when the horse has already run off. Even when parents do all it is possible for them to do, it might not turn out as we had hoped. But Ephesians 6:1,4 teaches children to obey their parents and that parents are to teach their children the ways of the Lord.

As long as children are at home, enjoy the blessings afforded in that relationship as part of the family, parents not only have the responsibility but the right to determine the conditions that will prevail in that household as a condition of staying there. When they will not abide by the parental rules, including attending worship and putting spiritual things first, then they should be told to leave and given their walking papers. If the Law of Moses were stiff in effect such rebellious children would be put to death.

The bad thing is that parents cannot take correction any more than some of their children. No doubt, some will read this and be offended. So be it. It is high time for God’s people to know there are still a few of us who will tell it like it is. We need more who will do so. Preachers and elders, wherever you are – will you join us in a return to the old paths of frankness and boldness in the teaching of the gospel of Christ? Save the children? Indeed, let us do so as a condition of saving ourselves!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 680
November 17, 1988

By Lewis Willis

The book is entitled Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard. Not long ago I bought it in paperback form and primarily, nothing but curiosity motivated me. I found it to be one of the most difficult books to read that I have ever encountered and even now I wonder how it could have been a bestseller. I dug my way through about 125 pages of its total 600 pages and then laid it aside. However, if I fail to capture the point he is trying to make, I have found one point that serves my purposes well. I share that point with you.

For several months I have been fascinated by a book which I have seen advertised on almost every television channel I have watched. I wondered what it was all about. The name of the book did not offer any clues and the advertisements certainly did not answer my questions. It occurs to me that perhaps this is nothing but a new marketing technique. If many people have been as 1, the technique is working.

On page 69, Hubbard wrote, “Charles Darwin did his job well and the fundamental principles of evolution can be found in his and other works. The proposition on which Dianetics was originally entered was evolution.” Whatever Hubbard intends to say in his book, it will be said as an evolutionist. Imagine my surprise when he made one of the best arguments against evolution that I have seen in a long time.

Beginning on page 61 he had some things to say about the human brain. He compared it to a computer by analogy, observing, however, that the brain “is yet more fantastically capable than any computing machine ever constructed and infinitely more elaborate.” He said it could be called the “computational mind.” He observed that the brain, like a computer, “has its standard memory banks. . . . The various senses receive information and this information files straight into the standard memory banks” of the brain. He points out that there is a set of memory banks for every one of our senses which not only store information but cross indexes it with the other memory banks. Thus, what we see is recorded and cross-indexed with what we heard, thought, felt, etc.

For instance, if you step out on your lawn, your five senses go to work storing information. As you stand there you observe a car go by. Your brain stores your remembrance that you were standing in your lawn and cross-indexes this information with the fact that, at that time, you saw the car pass by. Not only does your brain store that information, it stores that you saw a red car, with four doors, occupied by two people, one of which was your neighbor, who just incidentally smiled and waved at you as he drove by. Your ears activate their storage banks, recording the sound of the car motor, the sound of the tires as they moved over the pavement, as well as the sound of one neighbor across the street mowing the lawn, while the children of another neighbor, were laughing and shouting as they played. Without realizing it, the memory banks of your sense of smell were activated to record the smell of your new mown grass, and perhaps the fertilizer which you had just applied, as well as the smell of your neighbor’s off burning lawn mower. It would be possible to go on and on with this kind of information, all of which we store in our brain. So, what is the point?

First, the point is that the human brain has the capacity to store all of this varied information! And, secondly, it has the capacity, under the right set of circumstances, to play back to us all of this data so that we can describe, in intricate detail, all that was observed at that normal, average, non-special moment in our long fife. A fifty year old man has fifty years of such information stored in his brain. And, there is stiff room in his storage banks for another fifty years of information if he should live that long. Thirdly, if the right set of circumstances exist, this scene which has been described above can be recalled in detail three hours, three years or thirty years after it occurs, without error!

The theory of evolution says that we human beings are in the evolutionary chain – albeit, at the very top of that chain. Whatever we are, they assert, it is the result of a series of blind-chance occurrences over billions of years. Thus, our marvelous brain, with its capacity to do what I have herein described, as well as millions of other things, according to the evolutionist, just happened! To a degree, the human mind is an accident, according to the theory!

It is impossible for me to accept the evolutionary hypothesis that says the human brain evolved, just as it is impossible for me to accept that the computer on which this article is being written is the result of blind chancel I would like to hear an evolutionist explain how either of these possibilities can occur. When he asked his brain to search its memory banks for a reasonable explanation, his brain could only reply, “no such data available.” Young people, if you do not remember all that is said in this article, at least remember, in general terms, the point which I have made.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 681
November 17, 1988

By Connie W. Adams

For many years some have advocated that the alien sinner is not under law to Christ and therefore what the Lord taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage does not apply to such an alien. According to this view, the teaching of the Lord on this subject only becomes applicable to him when he enters the kingdom. How many wives he may have had and for what reason he put them away none of that matters. The “blotting out of sin” forgives all of this and grants the right for the sinner to abide in his calling and keep whatever wife he has (whether number two, three, ten or fifteen). In other words, baptism washes away wives.

It is certainly true that when God forgives the sinner he does not hold him accountable any more for the wrong done. But does baptism sanctify an unholy relationship? The Colossians had “lived” in fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness prior to their conversion (Col. 3:5). That was their state of living. Question: When they repented of their sins and were buried with Christ, did he cut off their sins? Col. 2: 11- 13 says that he did. Did he sanctify a state of fornication and the other listed sins of Col. 3:5? Did not repentance require severance from all such practices? Did baptism sanctify covetousness?

But, it is argued, these alien sinners were not subject to the law of Christ on marriage, or any other subject. There are several things wrong with this position.

(1) If the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ, then why preach the gospel to him? Jesus required that the gospel be preached to every creature in all the world (Mk. 16:15-16). Why do that, if they are not amenable to it?

(2) If the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ, then how did he get to be a sinner in the first place? Does God have two different laws in operation at the same time? Sin is a transgression of the law. But what law?

(3) This position robs repentance of its fruit. Repentance requires a change of mind which results in a change of conduct. John preached, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8). According to this idea, what was adultery before baptism is no longer adultery. One of the basic issues in this whole controversy is the nature of repentance.

(4) The notion under review assumes that marriage is a church ordinance; that is,’the Lord’s will on the subject does not affect one until he becomes a member of the church. But God ordained marriage in the garden of Eden, not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

(5) This position soothes the consciences of those in adulterous marriages, and makes them think all is Well when they are still in adultery. It thus contributes to an already frightening disregard for the permanency of the marriage bond.

I made these specific objections to James D. Bales several years ago when he sent me a copy of his manuscript for the book Not Under Bondage and requested a critique of the material. He thanked me for my comments, made some changes in his manuscript in an attempt to strengthen his argument, and published the book anyhow.

For a number of years, my esteemed brother, Homer Hailey, has taken essentially the same position on this subject as brother Bales. For the most part, he has been content to hold his view as a private opinion and not press it in his public teaching. But he told me personally that he thought Bales “has the truth on this.” I told him I certainly did not think so. But now, our highly respected brother is openly preaching this. In a sermon of over two hours at Belen, New Mexico, he made the most definite statement of his position to date. He also stated that he had preached on it not long before that in California, all that while he had been disposed not to say much about it in the past, that he intended to be more outspoken on the matter in the future.

That is cause for alarm. No man of this generation has been held in any higher regard than he. It was my good fortune to study under him in the late 1940’s and early 19501s. Through the years since, our paths have crossed a number of times and we have spoken several times on the same meeting or lecture programs. He was a wise counselor to me at a very critical point in my life when the exciting call of show business put me in a temporary dilemma. It was he who excited my interest in the study of prophets. But he also taught me, and a host of others, not to think of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). It is now time to apply that in the case of our beloved brother. What he is saying is welcomed with open arms by some who are in unscriptural marriages. They will be lulled into a false sense of security. Souls are at stake. This position is already contributing to a weakening of the moral fiber of congregations where it is advocated. There are already signs that his increased militance on the subject has emboldened some others to start circulating materials advancing this cause. The age, knowledge and experience, not to mention the fact that so many stand in awe of this good brother, only adds to the seriousness of the problem. I earnestly entreat my friend (I hope, as a father), to back off, take a good look at this position and its consequences and the potential for all-out war it portends.

It is a time to watch and pray, a time to keep our armor on and our swords sharpened and ready. (Quoted from Searching The Scriptures, September 1988).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 688
November 17, 1988

By Ron Holbrook, Harry R. Osborne, Lee Stewart, Tim P. Stevens

(An advance copy of this article was sent to brother Hailey with our request that he prepare any comment or response which he would like to have published along with this article. He declined to offer anything at this time but is “more convinced now than ever before of the truth of the position I hold.”

The reader should be aware that the four authors of this article have checked and cross checked each other as to the facts recorded here. We have not contrived to make anyone appear good or bad, but have labored to be as objective as possible. Our aim is to supply the reader with accurate information and to let him reach his own conclusions about the course followed by the people involved in this matter. Above all, we urge every reader to focus his faith in the principles of truth involved rather than in the person involved [see 1 Cor. 4:6].)

Over the past few months, each of us has received a number of calls about our recent studies with brother Homer Hailey regarding the issue of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Brother Hailey says that he also has received inquiries from all around the country. We have become aware of a number of stories being circulated which do not accurately present the facts. Our purpose in this article is merely to inform all who are interested with the facts. As Christians, all of us have a responsibility to halt rumors which Satan may use to injure the cause of our Lord. We have serious differences with brother Hailey’s teaching upon this matter, but we are trying to study the question in an effort to unite upon a “thus saith the Lord.”

Our respect for the good work of brother Hailey in so many areas of Bible teaching continues to be beyond our ability to express. His tireless efforts in studying and imparting the truths of God’s Word demand the thanks and admiration of every child of God. Three of us (R.H., H.R.O, & T.P.S.) have had classes under him and have stood in awe of his command of the Scripture and ability to expound upon it. It is a source of deep sorrow to all of us to find ourselves publicly differing with brother Hailey. This is not a place that we sought. Each of us would prefer not to be involved in this problem, but we feel compelled to teach that which we believe to be true when called upon to do so. We hope that we will come to see as one on this issue with brother Hailey and be able to add a hearty “Amen” to the other’s teaching.

The Background

In early March 1988, brother Harry Osborne held a meeting in Belen, New Mexico. The evening that he spoke on “The Family,” it was requested that he briefly discuss the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The request came from some of the members who feared that one young lady, recently converted, was in an unscriptural marriage. In the sermon, Harry showed that only the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of fornication had the right granted by God to remarry while his spouse was alive (Matt. 19:9). He also taught that both alien sinners and Christians are under that same law. Under the reign of Christ, God has only one marriage law for all humanity. Therefore, if two people continued in a marriage which did not comply with Christ’s teaching (whether the marriage occurred before or after baptism), they would be living in adultery.

After the sermon, a young lady came to talk with the local preacher, Lee Stewart, and brother Osborne. She said that she was in a marriage which did not comply with Christ’s teaching since her, husband had been married twice before and was divorced for a cause other than fornication. The woman expressed her intent to put away the husband if it was necessary that she might be right with God. This conclusion was reached upon her understanding of the Scriptures involved, not by further teaching of brethren Osborne and Stewart.

The next day, a couple who had come from a liberal church told the young lady that her husband’s situation did not matter since it all happened before she was baptized. The couple cited brother Halley as teaching the same thing. (He had expressed this to them while visiting in their home during a gospel meeting he held a few months earlier at Belen in October 1987.) The last day of the meeting in March, brethren Osborne and Stewart tried to reason with them to no avail. Several times, brother Hailey’s name and influence were used in opposition to the teaching of brethren Osborne and Stewart. When brother Osborne departed Belen, he left the matter in the hands of the local brethren for them to discuss and resolve.

Presentations By Brethren Halley and Holbrook

About a week after the meeting, brother Osborne received a call from Tim Stevens who got the work started at Belen in June 1987. Tim explained that there had been much disagreement among the members over the issue. Therefore, they had decided to study it more thoroughly. They were searching only for truth. Brother Stevens said that brother Hailey was coming to Belen the next day to teach his views on the issue to the church. The meeting was arranged in lieu of a previous plan for several of the men to spend a day with brother Hailey at his home in Tucson, Arizona, to learn about his views. Brother Hailey offered to save them some money by coming to Belen where all who wanted to hear his position could do so.

In view of the impending meeting, brother Stevens and Harry discussed the advisability of having Harry come for an informal discussion so that he could defend the truth which he had only briefly taught during the recent gospel meeting. The question was how best to provide the church with a thorough presentation of both views. It was finally concluded that it might put the cause of truth at a disadvantage for a young man like brother Osborne to dispute with one of brother Hailey’s age and wisdom. Brother Hailey also expressed serious disagreement with any format which included a second speaker to review and answer his presentation.

Therefore, brother Hailey alone presented his views and answered questions in a two and one-half hour session on March 22 which was video taped with brother Hailey’s knowledge and consent. This meeting was conducted at the regular meeting place of the Rio Grande Valley church of Christ in Belen, New Mexico, with an open invitation for all the members to attend (approximately 8-10 members were present). in a straight forward manner and without rancor, brother Hailey taught that alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ on marriage.

Some in the audience that day immediately felt the church at Belen had been “straightened out” on this issue by brother Hailey while others felt the need for further study. Although brother Hailey meant well, there was greater confusion among some in the church than there had been before he came. Clearly, the matter was not resolved, but needed further study.

When brother Stevens first called about the meeting with brother Hailey, Harry suggested that an older man be invited to answer brother Hailey’s teaching. The brethren agreed and asked who could do such. Brother Osborne suggested Elmer Moore and he was contacted. Brother Moore was in Maryland on a meeting and was having some health problems which prevented him from going. The brethren asked for a second recommendation and Ron Halbrook was suggested. Ron agreed to the task and called brother Hailey to express his deep regret for the necessity of differing with him. Ron received a copy of the video tape of brother Hailey’s presentation from Belen, but under certain conditions. It was not to be copied or any quote from brother Hailey published until the church at Belen had written brother Hailey and supplied him a copy of the two presentations (his and Ron’s).

On March 31, Harry Osborne accompanied Ron Halbrook to Belen where Ron answered brother Hailey’s teaching. Ron’s discussion of the issue was also video taped with his knowledge and consent. This study was held at the same place and with the same invitation as the first study. In a straight forward manner and without rancor, Ron taught that God has only one marriage law for all humanity under the reign of Christ.

In a letter from the church at Belen to brother Hailey dated April 13, brother Hailey was encouraged to view the tape of the two presentations to ascertain that he had not been misrepresented or misquoted by brother Halbrook. A response from brother Hailey was requested, but none was made. Out of respect for brother Hailey and in order to give him plenty of time to respond, much restraint had been exercised in withholding the tape from circulation. When it became evident that there would be no response, the church finally decided to release the tape so that “truth may abound.”

In regards to the new work at Belen being confronted with such a difficult issue, the church has been strengthened rather than weakened. This Atustion has forced the brethren there to go to their Bibles and study. Those who have refused to study the issue further have left and reverted into liberalism once again.

Major Differences

Our differences with brother Hailey’s teaching are in three main areas. f7rst, he claims that the alien sinner is not amenable to the law on divorce and remarriage as stated by Jesus in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 since the passages pertain only to those in the kingdom. Second, he says that 2 Corinthians 5:17 gives the new convert a totally new start in fife including the cleansing of past marnages so that God holds only the present mate to his charge. Third, he takes the position that 1 Corinthians 7:15 gives the right of remarriage to a Christian who is deserted by an unbelieving mate. These positions were all declared in detail by brother Hailey during the session at Belen, New Mexico.

Some brethren may criticize us for waiting so long to publish this report, but there is a very good reason for the delay. We have been exploring avenues for private study with brother Hailey. At one point, it appeared he would study with brother Osborne by letter, but recent communications suggest brother Hailey plans to publish a pamphlet of his views instead. Then brother R.J. Stevens talked with brother Hailey about the possibility of a few days of private study including brethren Hailey, R.J. Stevens, Marshall Patton, Ron Halbrook and Harry Osborne. We thought it was arranged and were waiting for brother Hailey to set the time, but now he says he does not plan to have the study with us. Follow-up appeals by brethren Stevens, Halbrook and Osborne have been unsuccessful. We have tried to leave no stone unturned in terms of openness, willingness to study, private efforts, patience and fairness in dealing with this matter.

An Appeal To Study

All of us need to study these issues carefully and prayerfully. Special attention needs to be given to the concept that the alien sinner is not amenable or accountable to Christ’s law regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. The seriousness of the issue can be seen from the fact that three families have left the church at Belen because of being convinced that the alien sinner is not accountable to Christ’s marriage law. Among that number is the aforementioned young lady who, at this writing, has left the church and continued to live in an adulterous marriage.

We would not wish to imply that brother Hailey is the only one teaching this view. Material authored by brother Jerry Bassett has recently been given wide distribution in the Northwest advocating the same positions taken by brother Hailey. Discussion of the issue is becoming common in many areas of the country. Tberefore, each Christian should understand the need to study the Word of God to find the truth regarding this subject.

If this issue is a matter of personal faith like the eating of meats, we must receive those who differ with us in the bonds of Christ (Rom. 14.) If this issue is a matter of divine revelation, we cannot extend the right hand of fellowship to those who go beyond the limits of the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11). Only diligent study of God’s Word will allow each individual to determine whether this issue is a matter of personal faith or of divine revelation. The four of us are convinced that the marriage law of God given through Christ applies to all men and we cannot compromise that law without losing our souls.

Various helps in studying this subject are available. Numerous articles have been written on the question in various bulletins and papers among brethren. We have found a workbook entitled And I Say Unto You. . ., by James 0. Baird, of great help in studying the problem in Bible classes. However, we must not allow ourselves to decide the truth about tins issue based upon winch preacher concludes what. We must let whatever helps we use guide us to an understanding of the text of the Scripture which is the ultimate answer to every question.

While we are saddened at the events of the past few months which have forced the issue publicly, we hope that an open and thorough investigation of the subject will result as we lovingly discuss the oracles of God. We ask for your prayers on our behalf as we attempt to discuss these differences with our beloved brother. Our trust is that God through his providence will bring good out of these efforts that his cause might be strengthened. May God grant us the wisdom to understand his will, the proper attitudes to discuss it, and the courage to obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 689-691
November 17, 1988