Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

One day Jesus went into the temple and while He was teaching, the chief priest and the elders of the people asked Him, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” (Matt. 21:23) This was and is a most important question. In fact, is there any question more important in matters of religion? Have you ever stopped long enough to examine your own doctrine to see if it is from heaven or men? It might be wise for all of us to do that.

What does it mean for something to be from heaven? It means that the teaching originates with and comes from God. And to be “of man” means to originate with and come from man. If it is from heaven, one can and must find it in the word of God. If one cannot find his beliefs sustained in the divine record, it is “of man.”

Jesus turned their question on them. He asked, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:25) They reasoned, “If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe?” They were afraid to say, “Of men,” because of the people’s reaction. They said, “We cannot tell.” It was not because they did not know-they did-but because they did not want to be caught in their own trap.

This seems to be the reason so many religious people are reluctant to answer today. They recognize the teaching of Jesus as being from heaven-but will not accept it. They also understand that one has every right to ask, if they say, “From heaven,” “Why do you not accept it?” There is not a reason under heaven that can offset such an argument. Or could it be that many recognize their doctrine is not in the Bible? It did not originate in heaven and they are ashamed to admit that it is of men. So, be honest with yourself in your search for the answer, “From heaven, or of men?”

The Standard Of Measurement Used Classifies The Individual

Paul writing to the Corinthians said,

“For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10: 12). It has always been a human weakness to measure and compare himself with others and endeavor to adjust his own practices by that standard. Style is a good illustration. However, it is not the only thing impressed upon us by what other people do. Our own children use the argument, “Everybody is doing it,”.or “I feel like an outcast, an odd ball, a square, or just ‘out of it’ if I don’t accept it.” But all of us know full well that such reasoning will lead further and further away from a straight course in, life. It will lead one into whatever goes or wherever the wind blows or the tide flows. People are fickle, changing, and there is no end to the corruptions into which this philosophy of life will lead. We cry and rightly should, “No, son or daughter, you cannot be governed by what others do. You must act upon principles — what is right — not on what others do or say. Think for yourself, you will surely have to accept the consequences of your own actions.

But what about it in religion? Must we act upon what others are doing? Or must we not act upon divine principles, yea, truth itself? Because it is one thing for sure-we will reap what we sow. We must, in the final day of the Lord, the day of judgment, accept the consequences of our own lives.

Some Questions To Be Answered

The doctrine of faith only — is it “from heaven, or of men”? The Bible teaches faith and no believer will even question that. But does it teach faith only? John 3:16 teaches that God’s love demands faith but not “faith only.” Romans 5:1 says, “justified by faith” but it does not say “faith only. ” James 2:24 states, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Paul said, “Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). Therefore, the “faith only” doctrine cannot be from heaven and has got to be from men. Yet, you say, “But so many people teach and believe it.” True, but are you going to be governed by what man thinks and does, or by what God thinks and teaches? Are you measuring yourself by others or by God’s eternal standard?

Is the doctrine of salvation before baptism “from heaven, or of men”? Jesus is the Savior, all agree. What does He say about it? He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you . . . for the remission of sins,” and, “The like figure, whereunto, even baptism doeth also now save us” (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21). Paul wrote that “all spiritual blessings” are in Christ, and he said, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:4). One is made free from sin after he obeys or at his obedience, not before (Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Pet. 1:22). Christ is the author of salvation to all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9). So the doctrine of salvation before baptism is not from heaven-then it must be of men. By which standard are you living?

Is sprinkling from heaven or of men? The New Testament teaches one is buried with Christ in baptism and is raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Every illustration given in the Bible proves this same truth. Then neither sprinkling nor pouring is from heaven, but of men. The word baptism means immersion. It is from the root bapto and means “to dip.” This is from heaven! Why will you not accept it?

Is the doctrine of one church is just as good as another from heaven or of men? Christ said, “I will build my church.” The inspired writers said, “He is the head of the church which is his body,” or “He is the head of the body, the church,” and also said, “There is one body” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:15; Eph. 4:4). Then to emphasize it a little more, Christ is the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 5:23). Does this sound any way like “one church is as good as another”? No, that is not from heaven but of men.

Are The Organizational, Centralized, And Sponsoring Church Arrangements From Heaven Or Of Men?

Heaven’s divine arrangement for the church is the local church with her elders, deacons, and saints through which the Lord’s people are to function as such (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-13). This is the highest, biggest, and only Divine organization revealed in the Divine Volume and is a manifestation of the wisdom of Almighty God (Eph. 3: 10-11). The church of Christ is to endure throughout all ages, world without end and through it God receives glory (Eph. 3:21). The local organization is the divine plan to sustain the Lord’s people and in which they become the sustainers and promoters of the Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

The church of Christ functioned in her completeness in the first century within this divine arrangement without any human attachments. (1) She preached the gospel to the whole world by sending out preachers and supporting them directly (Col. 1:23; Acts 11:22; Phil. 1:5; 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8). In this sense, the church was her own missionary society-no human setups. (2) She edified or built herself up in the most holy faith without human organizations (Eph. 4:16). (3) She cared for her own needy or did her benevolent work so long as she was capable (Acts 2:44-45; 4:35-37; 6:1-7). If one church was unable to support her own, other churches helped the needy church (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-28). This was accomplished within her own God-ordained arrangement.

This divine arrangement worked in the first century. The church held the identical relationship with God then as she has today. She had the same work to do and, I might add for emphasis, more than she could accomplish so far as man could visualize — the need for the gospel was everywhere, the church was young and needed building up, and the poor saints were waiting to be helped. Isn’t it strange that God did not design, Christ establish, nor the Holy Spirit reveal a single one of the human church — sponsoring, organizational, and centralizing arrangements through which to do the church’s work? Do you believe, if the Holy Spirit were here today revealing and confirming the Word, He would reveal and confirm these organizations and arrangements? Are they from “heaven, or of men?”

Why do we have these human arrangements through which the church functions now? To me, it is simple. We are using the wrong standard of measurement. The denominations have their big “set-ups” through which to work, and we believe that we should have the same. Yes, we are measuring ourselves by others. Brother J.F. Dancer, Jr., who preached for the church of Christ, 3474 Winchester Rd., Memphis, TN, had this paragraph in an article under “Double Sunday” in 1971:

The same reasoning led brethren to get the church engaged in acts not authorized in God’s Word. Some reasoned, “We have the Lutheran hour, the Catholic hour, Oral Roberts and Billy Graham, so we need a ‘church of Christ’ hour”and up came the Herald of Truth and World Radio. Others said, “We have the Baptist Hospital, the Methodist Hospital, St. Jude, etc., so we need a Church of Christ Hospital,” and we have some! Some reason that since we have the Salvation Army with the soup kitchens, the Good Will, and the various “downtown missions,” then we need some of our own-and we have them! Not much really care as to whether they were authorized by God, but since we heard of others who are religiously involving themselves in such we ought to do likewise! The ways of the world are not the ways of the Lord (Isa. 55:8-9; 1 Jn. 4:4-6) and the sooner brethren learn this, the better.

Are we not becoming like Israel of old and crying figuratively, “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5,20)? We say as they said, “It is working for them. It should work for us.” But we forget the real question, “Will it work for God.” The answer is — no! It will never work for God when man leaves God’s revealed way for his own (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12).

I beg you to take time out to search the Scriptures daily and examine carefully your own beliefs to see if they are “of heaven, or of men.”

By what standard are we going? God’s revealed standard? Or, are we comparing ourselves with others and thereby deriving a standard of our own. Please remember that “God’s way is equal” regardless of what others try. It was equal in Ezekiel’s time although the people rejected it. “Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?” (Ezek. 18:25)

The standard of measurement used classifies or identifies one. Those who study, believe, and obey the Message from heaven are of God, God’s children. Those who disregard God’s heavenly message and go about to establish their own righteousness, ignorantly or otherwise, are not of God. Any group who keeps itself within the doctrine of Christ belongs to Christ, Christ’s people, His church. But if and when any group or individual leaves the word of God and follows after the traditions, commandments, and doctrines of men, in that they cease to be of God (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:18-19; Tit. 1:13-14).

Are you being directed from heaven, or of men? Are you measuring yourself by others or by the Divine Standard revealed in the Bible? By this we can know the children of God and the children of the Devil. He that is of God hears, believes, and obeys His will (Matt. 7:21).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 513, 534-535
September 5, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

As you know, the past few issues of Guardian of Truth have carried some of my articles, beginning with an explanation by the editor. The “usual stir” was expected, but phone calls and letters tell me of “raised eyebrows” and questions about “who has changed.” I had hoped to “blend in”, to this new job with a number of “less than personal” type articles, but apparently the public wants something more; so Guardian of Truth readers may expect a few lines on circumstances leading up to my accepting the invitation of the editor and board members to write for Guardian of Truth. I will also consider some of the readers’ current questions.

For the past twenty years I have edited Plain Talk (many years writing eight articles per month), and most of that time I was preaching over thirty meetings per year. Then, health forced me to cut back on meetings (fifteen this year), so I taught “upper division” classes at Florida College for four fall semesters, and continued meetings in “free” time. When I began full-time meeting work, being seldom at home, I dropped subscriptions to “the papers,” seeing only a few lines here and there as I visited in homes. No effort was made to “keep up” with the latest scraps or “write-ups”-and I can’t say I missed them all that much. It was three months after the fact before I discovered I had been a victim in one paper; and I did not know I had been mentioned in the Guardian of Truth until studying back issues while considering this writing assignment. (Editors and writers should learn that only a small clan of readers are waiting anxiously for our next issue. Most of the brethren could not care less what we say.)

But I travel widely, talk with a lot of brethren, and have not been blind to the fact that so-called “brotherhood” journals among conservatives have undergone some bad days. Many preachers and others who once “kept up” with the papers, now tell me, “I do not read them”; and the tone of voice says, “I do not intend to start again.” That is a genuine “issue” for all editors and writers, including myself; for despite my non-reading days, I am convinced the written word is still a powerful tool, and can be used for the good of all. But that is an “issue” that can not be solved by “fussing” at it. There must be reasons for reader apathy among sound brethren who once profited by “the papers.” I would like to try to determine these causes and have part in providing the proper remedy. And to me, these are grounds for welcoming an invitation to use this medium.

A paper wields a tremendous influence on its clientele, and through them, on the church. This is not to say “influence” itself is bad, but to call attention to our responsibilities. A paper may become a “flag” about which a sectarian party rallies and by which the brotherhood is fragmented; or it can play down “self” and become salt and light to build up and strengthen all who will be exercised thereby. It is no secret that papers (like preachers, schools, etc.) have not always used their influence properly. A goodly portion of non-readers who have expressed themselves to me, seem to believe the brotherhood would be better off without the papers. Being a bit “independent” myself, there are times when I almost agree — but not for long. We should not let abuses of a good thing destroy its principle and usefulness.

Many brethren blame the papers for “pseudo-issues” that keep us in a constant turmoil. Sometimes I am tempted to think an editor may have “stirred up something” to create interest, and sell papers. This is a serious charge and may be unprovable. It is far more charitable to say an editor has used poor judgment in writing and selecting material to publish. Some writers seem to delight in pouncing on one another (do they feel it makes them look “sound” or “militant”?), and this can spread a fire before the danger is realized. The readers are to blame also, for some search for idnew issues” like a merchant man seeking goodly pearls. The next “mqior issue ” may be our taste for “issues. ” Unfortunately, one such blunder is enough to sour many readers on a paper; and, more important, it may keep them from reading sorely needed material on genuine docinnalproblems. It is the old story of “crying wolf” and destroying our usefulness as guardians of truth.

The editor and writers of a paper are not more God’s “police force” than any other brother or sister. Yet, each of us has an obligation to teach the truth, positively and negatively, in keeping with our ability and opportunity, The problems of our generation will not be solved either by ignoring them or by prancing around the polemic ring in carnal battles. Smart Alec remarks have never “saved the church.” The One Savior must be followed, in spirit as well as in truth, in private fife and from the pulpit. And we must see the printed word as but an extension of public teaching-a proven medium for embalming truth and conveying it to the hearts of men and women.

I believe loving one’s enemies means treating them fairly and ethically, as “you would that men should do to you”; and that this is the best and only way to overcome them for Christ. Surely that principle applies to brethren or any others who may “differ” with my material; and Guardian of Truth readers’ help in maintaining a proper attitude is sincerely solicited. My writing is usually condensed, may take a second reading in places, but you should feel no hesitancy in questioning it. I would like to think we could study together for mutual profit, learning and growing in the process.

I welcome the invitation from Guardian of Truth, to use their medium for teaching the public. The editor assures me of fair, ethical treatment; I believe him; and will work with this medium so long as those conditions prevail. No restrictions have been placed on me regarding subject matter, and because of popular requests, my next article will offer comments on “walking in the light.” I plan to continue my usual practice of Scripture studies and observations on this and other matters I feel will help folk get to heaven. I have been known to tint my articles and sermons with a bit of what is hopefully called “humor,” but never have I felt teaching God’s truth is anything other than serious business. I want to thank brother Willis and all others who have encouraged me in this new venture, and pledge to do all I can to present truly scriptural and usable material. It will be my pleasure to meet and know Guardian of Truth readers, and correspondence from you will be welcomed.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 519-520
September 5, 1985

By Weldon E. Warnock

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which am by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God (Phil. 1:9-11).

Here, in Paul’s prayer for the Philippians there are three things to which I direct your attention: (1) Love must be properly directed, (2) the purposes of directed love, and (3) the expression of abounding love.

The Direction

Christians are to overflow with love or have an abundance of love. This is the meaning of the word “abounding.” But this love must be channeled and it must act judiciously. An old trite saying is, “Love is blind.” This certainly is not true in regard to Bible love. Love is discriminatory. It is to abound in knowledge and in all judgment or discernment.

Love and knowledge are indispensable to one another. Paul wrote, “Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth” (1 Cor. 8:1). Knowledge must be mellowed with love. The same apostle also stated that if we have all knowledge and have not love, we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). On the other hand, love needs knowledge for guidance and discretion.

The child of God needs to know whom to love and how to love. This he obtains from a study of the Word of God. The Bible tells us that we are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-40). How we go about this is distinctly outlined in the Scriptures.

The Purposes

The reasons for discernible love are plainly set forth in verse 10. (1) The first reason is that ye may approve the things that are excellent. The word “approve” in the original language is the word which was used for testing metal or a coin to see whether it was pure or genuine or unalloyed. Discernible love tests the issues of life to see what is excellent or good. The footnote on this text states, “distinguish the things that differ.” Love gives us keen perception (through the Bible) to eliminate the good from the bad, the important from the unimportant, the trivial from those things that really do matter.

(2) The second reason for discernible love is that we may be sincere. The word “sincere” comes from two Latin words (sine, without) and (cera, wax) and means “without wax). Albert Barnes states that sina cera is “honey which is pure and transparent.” The idea is that Christians are to be free from the impurities of the world.

In the Greek, William Barclay stated that the word means either (a) that which is able to stand the test of sunshine by exposing it to the sun’s bright light without any flaw appearing or (b) to whirl around in a sieve until all impurities are extracted (Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, p. 19). Regardless which one is meant, the thought of purity is indicated and the word “pure” could correctly be used in the place of “sincere.” In fact, some translations have “pure.”

(3) The third reason for discernible love is that we may be without offence. R.C.H. Lenski wrote that the debate regarding this word is “whether this is active or passive, offering damage or undamaged, ‘uninjured’ ourselves. Both meanings are found, here the context favors the latter” (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, p. 719). Barclay interprets it to be damage to others.

If Lenski is right it means that we are to live an undamaged life, that is, we are to avoid being morally injured by the sinful obstacles of life. If Barclay is correct, it means that we are not to say things or do things which cause others to stumble. Barclay made two good points in this connection when he wrote that there are people so harsh and austere that they in the end drive people away from Christianity, and secondly, there are people who are good, but they are so critical of others that they repel other people from goodness.

We can profit from both views on Paul’s usage of this word “offence” in verse 10. The Bible teaches both, although only one is meant in the passage under investigation.

The Expression

When love abounds the lives of Christians are filled with the fruits of righteousness. This is how love expresses itself. “Righteousness” stipulates the quality of the fruit, and being filled with this kind, it leaves no room for fruit of another character. The quality of righteousness is determined by the Lord’s will or His commandments.

The spiritual harvest will consist of “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22-23), and as William Hendriksen suggested, “works which result from these dispositions.” Jesus said, “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples” (Jn. 15:8). Some of us are failing in fruit-bearing, especially the winning of souls to Christ.

The source of life for the fruit we bear is Jesus Christ. He brought us into a spiritual relationship and enables us to produce fruit unto the glory and praise of God. To honor and adore God is the chief aim and end of man (cf. Matt. 5:16).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 515-516
September 5, 1985

By Mike Willis

The nod few Issues of Guardian of Truth will contain editorials examining the question of whether or not the church is authorized by God to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. Someone will surely ask, I ‘Why are you devoting so much space to a discussion of this issue which has long been settled among our brethren?” And the question may be justifiable considering I am aware of only a few liberal churches which have changed their practice to include using mechanical Instruments of music in worship over a period of twenty years. Most members of the church are opposed to using mechanical instruments of music, by reason of what the Scriptures teach; unfortunately some only oppose it because of tradition (i.e., “we’ve never used them before”). Returning to the original question, why have I chosen to devote space to this subject? This article of introduction will give evidences that indicate a shift in the thinking of our liberal brethren regarding using mechanical instruments of music in worship has occurred.

In recent years, liberal brethren have been participating in unity forums with members of the independent Christian Churches, much like the unity forums arranged by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett several years ago. In the unity forums that generally have been arranged, the most liberal preachers among the church of Christ are invited to participate with the Christian Church preachers.

Such a unity meeting was held in Joplin, MO in August 1984. The reports of that meeting by those associated with the Christian Church were Slowing. The Christian Standard stated:

Not all of the reactions to these meetings have been positive, however. Some church of Christ periodicals have denounced the gatherings, or at least questioned whether they can accomplish anything. Some Christian church people are also reluctant to become involved. But among the mainstream of both groups, there is undoubtedly a grassroots unity movement going on, despite the reservations of some (Christian Standard [5 May 1985], p. 3).

The Joplin meeting was followed up by a meeting at the Garnett Road church in Tulsa, OK on 18-20 March 1985. Approximately 100 representatives from the liberal churches of Christ and the independent Christian Churches met. Here are some of the comments about the meeting:

If I had to summarize the results of the Tulsa Forum in a nutshell, I would say that we became convinced that whenever we disagreed on these issues, we would maintain fellowship as brothers, and refrain from binding our opinions or positions on these issues on each other. No user of instrumental music even hinted that a capella congregations should install a piano, and no a capella congregation asked instrumental congregations to remove the instruments. Once that degree of acceptance is achieved throughout the world, the future for fellowship is bright. At the grass roots, I’m convinced that such a degree of acceptance has existed for some time (William Pile, Christian Church, Good News [May 19851, p. 6).

Where will it lead? . . . From a better perspective my guess is that it will lead to a recognition among us that we do not have a clear and express statement from the Lord on it and thus may not make it a test of discipleship, and a recognition among instrumental brethren that we do have a case against its use that is substantial enough to justify its rejection by all who accept our “law of exclusion.” This is understanding and will result in a more united front on behalf of the many basic truths on which we do agree, more cooperation in projects that are worthy, and more carefulness in both camps that we be considerate of the other’s viewpoint (Olan Hicks, “Unity Conference In Tulsa,” News & Notes [5 April 1985], pp. 4-5).

That brother Hicks’ assessment was accurate regarding joint participation in projects was soon evident. In the 3 February 1985 issue of Christian Standard, an editorial appeared in which Christian Churches were urged to send funds for famine relief in Ethiopia through the Whites Ferry church in West Monroe, LA. The Christian Churches and churches of Christ joined hands in this benevolent work. What could work in Ethiopia in the realm of benevolence could work as well in the United States in any other area of common work.

Shortly after the Tulsa meeting, the Christian Standard carried an announcement of Reuel Lemmon’s new paper Image. Its managing editor, Denny Boultinghouse, was quoted as describing the paper as follows: “We do see Image as being a magazine designed to build bridges among brethren” (Christian Standard [12 May 1985], p. 3). Image reports that 80 writers will be contributing articles for publication. The next issue of Christian Standard announced another unity forum was held on the campus of Pepperdine University 16-19 April 1985 (Christian Standard [19 May 1985], p. 3). The following week, the Christian Standard published a glowing report of the Tulsa, OK meeting (Ibid., [26 May 19851, pp. 4-6). A fair assessment of the report seems to be that the conservative Christian Churches are ecstatic about what they see occurring among the liberal churches of Christ.

On the other hand, the liberal churches are beginning to manifest signs of division. The Spiritual Sword, Contending For The Faith, Firm Foundation, The Defender, The Restorer and several other journals are alarmed that those brethren who have participated in these unity forums seem willing to accept unity in diversity with reference to the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. They are writing about the compromisers among them.

The problem has extended to the editorial leadership of the Gospel Advocate. Brother Guy N. Woods expressed his dissatisfaction with the unity forums and reprinted brother H. Leo Boles’ speech which he delivered in the midst of the Witty-Murch unity meetings of the 1930-1940s. Shortly thereafter, there was an announcement that brother Woods was being replaced as editor of the Gospel Advocate by Furman Kearley (Gospel Advocate [6 June 19851, p. 3). Brother Kearley opened his editorial work by trying to convince the liberal brethren that he was “sound.” In doing so, he had to reply to the following taped conversation from his participation in the Joplin unity forum:

Kearley: The aspect of the isolation is lack of knowledge of our history. If we could start in our congregations doing some more studies in Restoration History outside of our own branch and look at the distinctions between the conservative instrumentalists and the Christian Church . . . (sentence unfinished).

Kilpatrick: I wonder, too, if bringing Christian Church preachers in for a class like this might be good. Let them come in and tell their history in a class situation. I think you could ease from the class to the pulpit.

Kearley: Right! And you could get by with telling history.

Kilpatrick: Yeah.

Kearley: . . . whereas if they were telling doctrine-heh, heh, heh.

Kilpatrick: And while they are telling history, they could tell enough doctrine to let us know that, hey, we believe alike so much of it. So that may be a beginning point: in the classroom (F. Furman Kearley, Gospel Advocate [18 July 1985], p. 432).

His explanation of this “misunderstood dialogue” leaves many unanswered questions and will likely prove unsatisfactory to the “conservative” members of the liberal churches. The affirmation that we are divided simply because we do not understand the differences between the “conservative Christian Church” and the “Disciples of Christ” is inaccurate. We divided from each other before there was a distinction between the “conservative Christian Church” and “Disciples of Christ.” Those who imply our division exists because we were not aware of these differences may accurately depict their ignorance of those in the Christian Church but should not imply that all of us share that ignorance. I for one have been aware of the distinctive groups within the Christian Church for years and stand opposed to each fellowship of them because of their departures from sound doctrine. Knowing that the “conservative Christian Churches” are opposed to the “Disciples of Christ” is not news or a reason for “tending to them the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9).

I have been able to detect absolutely no movement among the Christian Churches to give up the instrument. Hence, any unity which can be attained and maintained with them must be one which tolerates the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. This is the disposition which has developed among our liberal brethren and might develop among us. I think that we are generally agreed that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is sinful. However, some have begun to waver in their belief that those who use them in their worship will be eternally lost for using them. Some have said that so long as those who use them are good, honest, and sincere that they are “continually cleansed by the blood of Christ” and are in fellowship with God. If these brethren can maintain fellowship with God while continuing the practice of their sin, defending it as an act of righteousness, and encouraging others to join with them in the practice of their sin, surely they can also be fellowshipped by God’s children. When this kind of tolerance is embraced, we will be in the same sad condition as our liberal brethren.

With the hope that we can be reminded of the seriousness of all sin, and especially the sin of introducing unauthorized items into our worship, I have written a series of articles concerning the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship which begins with the next issue. We need to be reminded that a new generation not grounded in these matters has been raised. Brethren, let us not fail to teach them what the Bible says on this and other fundamental Bible subjects.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 514, 533, 535
September 5, 1985