Truth Magazine

By Bill Cavender

Dear brethren __________ and __________,

Your letters to me, printed in the July 4, 1985, issue of Guardian of Truth, were appreciated greatly. In this “letter” to you, I will especially address only one of you. In planning to write five or six “letters” in this series, there will be matters discussed which each of you suggested or raised in your letters to me. It is my hope and prayer that by publicly printing your letters, and mine to you, that the cause of Christ may be benefitted and well-served as brethren read and think on these things.

Your letter, brother ___________, seems to convey your great discouragements as you set out to be a “full-time” preacher, with all the sincerity and zeal which should accompany preaching the gospel, whether we are younger or older. Yet because of the initial discouragements which came to you, and which come to all preachers who really try to do God’s work of preaching the truth, you have chosen to “never be a full-time preacher again,” unless you are financially independent. You have gone back to college to work “on my master’s degree,” and to “preach part-time with the brethren” in _________, Texas.

I doubt, brother __________, that you gave yourself enough time as a “full-time” preacher to really understand the life, work and problems of a preacher, to learn how to deal with discouragements and problems, and, on the other hand, to know and realize the blessings and joys that come to those who fully give themselves to the Lord’s work. I am now in my thirty-ninth year of preaching Christ in this world, thirty-six of those years being in “full-time” work as a “full-time” preacher, fully and completely supported by wages from my brethren. (I have never had any business or sources of income in addition to wages paid to me by brethren. More on this later.) In looking back over those years now, from the vantage point of more maturity, understanding, and experience, I know for sure that the joys have far outweighed the sorrows, the friends are far more numerous than the enemies, the blessings of God far greater than any sacrifices I have made, and the encouragements from kind, loving brethren to do my best have far exceeded the discouragements of unthinking, unkind brethren who would hurt if they could. The Lord has blessed me a hundred-fold as He promised. “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mk. 10:28-30). 1 believe all faithful preachers of age and experience can and would say the same.

Yet, as a young preacher, like you, I had so many discouragements. People whom I loved and trusted proved untrue in many cases. Brethren turned against me in various places and at times when my intentions only were to preach the truth, save souls and build the church of Christ, and when I only wanted to do good to and for those people. I, and other preachers of my age and time, caught the full fury of the liberal-institutional-orphan home-college in the budget-Herald of Truth-centralization of churches and funds-social gospel-modernism controversies in the late forties, and through the fifties and sixties. As young preachers, inexperienced, so many of us had to learn so quickly, preach and teach on these issues, take a stand and fight, and then suffer the consequences of loving Christ, His truth and His church more than the wisdom, praises and institutions of men. To be fired for preaching the truth, to have wages cut off, to have meetings cancelled (I had seventeen meetings cancelled in 1958-60), to be ostracized, black-balled and quarantined by churches and brethren who had previously been close friends and beloved brethren in the Lord, brethren whose homes, hearths and hearts had been so freely given and shared, and then to be treated as a heathen and enemy by such brethren made for most-trying times for so many of us. In fact, about 1953-54, when I had preached for six or seven years, I became so discouraged with all that was happening in the churches and among the brethren and to me personally, that I seriously thought of quitting preaching, going back to college and completing my pre-medical studies, and trying to be a doctor. A kinsman offered to pay my way, all my expenses, even with my wife and child, if I would do so. But I didn’t. My wife would have none of it and stood her ground that I must preach. I have never since regretted that decision. These experiences were a part of maturing and enduring, and were beneficial to me. Yet, at the time, like chastisement (Heb. 12:5-11), none of these problems and events seemed to be joyous or helpful. Yet, in time, they yielded the joys and “peaceable fruit of righteousness” which our loving Father intends (Heb. 12:11).

I said all of this, brother _________, not to give you a history nor to claim any hardships more than others, but just to let you see that all of us, all brethren, and especially preachers, have trials and temptations, difficulties, and problems. We must learn to face them and overcome them. None of us, younger or older, ever escapes them. We all need to face and defeat discouragements that beset us so we can learn patience and wisdom, and cultivate the hope which our God and Father desires, so we can have a crown of life at the last day (Rom. 5:1-8; Jas. 2:1-12; 2 Tim. 4:5-8, Rom. 8:24-25). There are still times in my life when I become discouraged and heartsick when I see sin and unnecessary strife, divisions, ill-will and fightings among so-called “sound” and “conservative” brethren who once stood shoulder to shoulder, as one man, in the truth and in vital controversies which really were worth fighting for. Now so many brethren are fighting over foolish ideas and opinions, and majoring in minors. If I were a young preacher at the present time, I imagine I would be far more discouraged over these divisive matters than I was thirty-five and forty years ago over those far-reaching digressions from God’s word. With the prophet I still sometimes want to say, “Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people and go from them” (Jer. 9:2). Yet never do I entertain the idea of quitting or changing or doing less than the best I can. To do that would mean the loss of eternal life, for which “we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10).

I know your uncles and your cousin, brother ________, and I know they are men who have suffered for righteousness’ sake, in hard places, one of them overseas for many years, doing the work of evangelists. Two of them are “full-time” preachers; one is a “part-time” preacher, as you now refer to yourself (more on these distinctions later). I know that the “part-time” preacher uncle of yours may be even now considering going back into “full-time” preaching. And I hope he does I All good men, giving all the time they possibly can find for study, visiting, working and preaching, are greatly needed.

More than any of us now, and more than any preacher since the apostolic period, were those great men of faith and obedience of old who suffered oppositions and endured persecutions in their lifetimes, yet they never turned back. I doubt anyone ever encountered more oppositions nor became more discouraged than Elijah and Jeremiah. Only our Lord Himself was opposed more, enduring even to the shedding of His precious blood. I try to remember the trials and temptations of Enoch, Noah, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the immerser, the apostles, Paul, and more than all, the Son of God Himself, our Savior. Had they not endured all things, had they become discouraged to the point of turning back or doing less than they could, they would have failed and we would be unsaved, lost forever in the endless eternity of a devil’s hell. If the afflictions of the great apostle to the Gentiles were “light,” how much more are ours infinitesimally so (2 Cor. 4:16-18). In all our national history, the United States of America has been by far the most materially blessed country which has ever existed, and the Christian in America, at any time, has been the most materially blessed person who has ever lived. But so many of us forget (or perhaps we never learned) that 6 ‘unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Lk. 12:48; Mt. 13:12). We never really have any great problems which God our Father cannot solve if we are devoted and entirely faithful to Him. We have never faced what the early pioneer preachers and brethren encountered in our own country, let alone other countries of the world. Materialism, to a great degree, blinds us to reality.

I do not mean to imply, brother __________, that a man must be a “full-time” preacher in order to serve the Lord and go to heaven. Every Christian must be a “full-time” child of God, putting the King and His kingdom first in her heart, life and work. Whether in the office, in industry, in school, on the farm, in the store, in the truck, on the highway, in the professional building, etc., he must be faithful and true to Him who called us to partake of His glory. “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:3-14; Heb. 12:10; 2 Cor. 1:7; Col. 1: 12). Yet the work of Jesus more and more needs to be done as the world becomes more sinful and people are multiplied upon the earth. Never have there been more people, souls in the world and therefore the increased need for laborers, preachers, students, elders, teachers, and all Christians giving all the time and effort they possibly can directly to the work of Christ.

In my own thinking and vocabulary, I’ve tried not to incorporate the terms “full-time” and “part-time” preacher. I know, and have known, men who work with their hands for their own livelihood, yet find more time to study, preach, visit, debate, and do personal work than many “full-time” men do. I know, and have known, many men who give their complete interests and time to study, preaching, visiting and working for Christ, and who depend upon brethren and churches for their livelihood (1 Cor. 9:1-19; Gal. 6:6; Acts 18:1-3; 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:14-18). 1 fault no one in the path they choose and the route they take in life. (Truthfully, I have at times wished I was financially independent, and not dependent upon the brethren for wages and a livelihood.) Some “part-time” preachers and some “fulltime” ones are lazy, trifling, and indolent. But I do know that every one of us shall give account to God at the judgment bar of Jesus for our time, abilities, work and attitude toward Jesus and His kingdom (Matt. 25:1-13; Rev. 20:11-15; Ecc. 12:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10-12). For myself I long ago chose the course which you call “fulltime” preaching, completely dependent upon the brethren for my livelihood. I would not and could not now choose any other course. You have chosen, at present, the way of service to Christ by schooling, work or teaching for a livelihood. You hope to be an elder of a congregation sometime, somewhere, preaching the gospel all the while in these years of preparation. This is fine. I admire you and am happy for you. You can save your soul by so doing, if this use of your life and time is the very best use you can make of it, and you can render the best and fullest service to our Father in this manner.

In my observations, however, brother _____________, I have noted that it is generally true (there are exceptions) that the men who are “full-time” preachers are the ones who do the most, hardest, and best studying, the best writing, the best debating, the most teaching and preaching, and exert the most influence (for good or for bad) in the Lord’s kingdom. This was true in the days of the apostles, and it has been true in the history of the church in our own country. Paul said to Timothy, “Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine . . . Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all” (1 Tim. 4:12-16). This inspired advice is the best advice. This is not to argue that such men (“full-time” preachers) are more valuable than others. I’m not saying that. But I am saying that in my judgment, in the over-all picture, the men who have the most time to use their minds, time, tongues and pens in learning and disseminating the truth of Christ, do the better job of it. So many, many brethren have told me through the years how they wish they had begun preaching I when they were younger, and wish they had given “fulltime” to the work of preaching. There are drawbacks and discouragements, problems and setbacks, no matter what we do in fife, whatever work, calling or profession we have, or try to accomplish. Even in being an elder of a congregation there are problems, as you will rind out later if you attain to your goal. Do your best. Do all you can. Be faithful, and endure hardships as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 2:3-4; 1 Cor. 4:2). (To be continued.)

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 521-523
September 5, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: How do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct, and other churches who claim to follow the Bible and live according to the Scriptures, are in error and lost?

Reply: There are many difficult passages in the Bible, and in some instances, various views or interpretations are given as to the meaning of those passages. It is not always possible to know which view is correct in regard to some particular verse or verses. This, we readily admit.

On the other hand, there are many plain simple truths which need no interpretation. They are plain simple facts. With reference to these, it is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of either believing them and accepting them, or not believing them and accepting them. It is a simple matter of authority. The reason for religious division and human churches is the failure to recognize and adhere to divine authority.

When it comes to human redemption (the salvation of the human soul), the New Testament furnishes ample teaching which would require help to misunderstand. In other words, God has not left man in the dark as to the answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” God’s matchless love sent Jesus, His only begotten Son, into this world to die for it (Jn. 3:16). It was His grace and mercy which made this possible (Eph. 2:8; Tit. 2:11; etc.). The blood of Christ was shed in our behalf that we might be redeemed from sin (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1: 18,19). His precious blood purchased the church (Acts 20:28). God, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:10-12), made it possible to know this; and the same Holy Spirit has revealed to us through the Scriptures what we must do to be saved. He has not only made it known, but He has revealed it in such simple language that all accountable persons can understand it (Eph. 5:17). What has God revealed to us by the Holy Spirit? He has revealed to us that we must come to God by faith (Heb. 11:6), and that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). He has revealed to us that all must repent (Acts 17:30, 31), confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10) and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Those who comply with these terms are added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47). The book of Acts furnishes us examples of people who did these things (Acts 2,8,9,10,16,18:8, ch. 19; etc.). In this paragraph we have illustrated the plain truths of what God requires of people to be saved and examples of them. The same applies to our work, life and worship after we become Christians. Space does not permit a detailed account. (See 1 Cor. 15:58; Rom. 12:1,2; Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16, etc.)

Just as simple as is God’s plan for man’s salvation, so is the church. It was promised by Christ (Mt. 16:18), was built by Christ (same verse) and was purchased by His blood (Acts 20:28). He is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22,23; 5:23; Col. 1:18), and the savior of His church which is His body (Eph. 5:23). There is only one body (Eph. 4:4), and the church is that body (Eph. 1:22,23; 4:23; Col. 1:18); therefore, there is only one church. It is not our church but the church that belongs to Christ. There are many human churches but only one divine church, and that is the one described in the pages of Sacred Writ.

The above is furnished by the Scriptures, not man (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The above facts, commands and examples need no interpretation. It is only a matter of whether we accept the truth or reject it. So you see, this is not our interpretation. In fact, it is not interpretation. The old common expression, “We cannot all see the Bible alike,” is not true. When it comes to difficult passages (passages which do not relate to our salvation), none of us may understand them. But when it comes to the will of God as to the salvation of our souls, all can understand. It is not a question of understanding it “alike,” for if we understand it, we are in agreement. If there is disagreement, it is not a matter of “not seeing alike,” but rather it is simply that some understand and some do not, or that all do not understand. Or it may be, as often is the case, that some understand but they refuse to believe it. Or, they may believe it, but refuse to obey it. To say that men cannot understand God’s word “alike” means that God either was not able to reveal it so they could, or being able, He did not want to do it. Who but an infidel would say either? It is only a matter of believing or not believing, obeying or not obeying.

Our querist mentions “other churches” who claim to follow the B1ble, and how do we know they are lost? In the first place, claiming to be right does not make us right (Mt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46). We have already seen from the plain Scriptures that there is only one divine church, only one that is authorized by the Scriptures. The “other churches” are not authorized by the Scriptures because they are not identified by the Scriptures. This is how we know they are in error. They are human churches and cannot be authorized by Christ. He built only one and He is the head of it. That human churches are in error is not our judgment, but that of God’s word. It is by that word that we shall all be judged at the last day (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12). The issue will be “righteousness” (Acts 17:30,31). We are thankful that it is not our prerogative to do the judging, but the Lord’s. We can understand the will of the Lord (Eph. 5:17). We shall all be judged as to whether we have or have not accepted God’s word by believing it, obeying it, worshiping according to it and living by it.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 518
September 5, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

Women, wives, and mothers are to be honored as the special creation of God. When God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion. . .,” he was not talking about the male only. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27). Male-and female reflect the image of God Himself, not a fleshly image but a spiritual image. That image includes a spirit that never ceases to exist and which reflects free moral agency, initiative, and forethought. It includes both intellect and emotion.

Man without the woman has no suitable helper and no adequate companion in all the universe. Women, wives, and mothers are to be honored as a special blessing to man. She was made from man’s rib by a miracle of God-and like man’s rib, she is to be at his side, not under his feet or over his head. Man is to make a unique place in his heart and life for his wife: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:18-24). The man who breaks these promises to make his wife first, to keep himself to her alone, and to blend his life with hers is himself a dishonor to all that is holy and good. He is to seek her well being and to share every blessing he has with her. He is to protect her and provide her every need. In blessing her, he blesses himself, for she is an honor to him! She can enlarge and enhance everything about him, for good or for bad.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.” Proverbs 31:10-31 honors woman her faithfulness to her family, for her diligence in duties of life, for her bounty to those in need, and for her good name among all who know her. Her greatest honor is not physical beauty, but above all, “a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.” She is beautiful for what she is and wh she does.

A man honors his wife by loving her as Christ loved the church — with an unselfish love. Christ is not a tyrant a dictator, yet He has full authority in the church. ow is this? It is because He won our hearts by emptying Himself in every way in order to save us. That is exactly how a man attains to his proper role as head the house. Our physical head does not direct the parts o the body to harm each other. When a man tries to be head of his wife by threats, shouts, beatings or any kind of abuse, he defeats and destroys himself. He weakens the love and respect which make it possible for him to lead. “Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (see Eph. 5:22-33). “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7).

When men and women worship together as the church of God, the woman’s honor is not to lead men but to recognize man’s role as the leader. She does not exercise authority over men as a teacher or in any other way. She participates as a learner and a follower of those who lead. Honor is not found by making a display of her body before the eyes of men in the assembly, but her honor is in her modest habits of dress which reflect soberness and godliness of heart (1 Tim. 2:8-15).

Woman’s Greatest Honor

1 Timothy 2:14-15 stresses a proper understanding of woman’s true honor. Eve stepped out of her role as a submissive and cooperative companion when she was deceived by Satan. Satan deluded her with promises of the power and authority which belong to God, and she acted as a leader in tempting her husband to sin. The result was a blight of sin and death on all the earth until this day. What a lesson in the dangers of assuming powers not authorized by God! In this, woman cursed mankind.

But, to balance the pictures, the Holy Spirit also points out her redeeming work on earth and her greatest blessing to mankind: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” This does not discuss the conditions of pardon for individuals who sin, but speaks of the saving quality or redeeming work of women in general. The woman’s greatest role is to live a life of faith, charity, holiness, and sobriety so as to raise children of the same character. She may choose not to marry or may not raise a family, and can still go to heaven. Great honors may be attained in this world outside the home without sin. But, her greatest honor comes from blessing this sad world with godly children as she herself lives a godly life.

Women bring honor to themselves and to their husbands when they encourage and support their husbands in spiritual growth. Men cannot serve as elders and deacons if their wives are materialistic, spiritually indifferent, and ungodly. “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). No man ever developed into a true elder or deacon without the constant encouragement of a godly wife. Men appointed to these offices of trust and service will function effectively only so long as their wives support them.

Honorable, aged women uphold the very highest standards of holiness, avoid gossip, are never intoxicated, and always seek opportunities to teach the truth. They especially delight to “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). Aged women who exercise themselves unto godliness are especially effective in teaching these vital lessons. Those who do this privately and publicly are due honor.

Wives and mothers are to be honored who cooperate with their husbands, and yet who must serve the Lord without the leadership of their husbands in spiritual matters. Such women discuss the Word of God with their husbands as opportunity permits, without badgering them or being overbearing. Even “without the word,” the habits of such women in dress, speech, and faithful attention to spiritual duties become another avenue of teaching their husbands (1 Pet. 3:16). To the credit of some such women, their husbands obey the gospel. To the credit of others, they continue serving the Lord in spite of their husband’s rejection of Christ and by special diligence are able to raise up men and women with the character of a Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5).

Postscript: Welcome Home

Our godless society has done everything possible to destroy woman’s true honor and to hold up before her idolatrous images of success and accomplishment. Women have been deceived by the lie that the real meaning of life will pass them by if they put their heart into their home life. The influence of truth is felt at times beyond the realm of the Lord’s church as people run into dead end streets on the road of life. It is a good sign that many people are realizing they have been lied to and are searching for answers. A healthy “Back to Basics” movement has affected people’s attitudes toward education, the work ethic, politics, and homelife. Such trends can help to prepare people to see their need for God (1 Cor. 1:21).

Women who focus their interest and energy on the home and family life are doing an honorable work. My sister-in-law, who is encouraging women in that kind of an effort, is Marsha Halbrook (3840 Glenbrook Rd., Fairfax, VA 22031). She has consented for Guardian of Truth to publish her article entitled . . . Mothers At Home’ Organize,” telling about a new group called “Mothers At Home” and a new journal called Welcome Home. Being non-religious, it occasionally contains something Christians could not approve (such as an article on taking teenagers to the beach for mixed swimming), but by and large it is filled with helpful, healthy, and happy material which reflects Bible principles on home life.

Martha is a staff writer. Mothers At Home published an article which is now a brochure by Marsha on “Miscarriage: A brief look at its frequency, causes, emotional impact, recovery process and dealing with its grief.” She commented to me on this little discussed subject:

While society views miscarriage as “only a miscarriage” (it was for the best, you can try again, etc.), for the victim it is the death of a child. Through my writings on the subject and their distribution and use by area hospitals and physicians as well as other doctors nationwide (even St. Mary’s Hospital in London), I have been able to put my losses in perspective and use my experiences to help, comfort and support others.

People who have this high regard for life and who love children will find our society’s wide-open approval of abortion repulsive. Efforts such as the Mothers At Home group and Welcome Home not only share counsel and comfort, but also strengthen the moral fiber of our nation.

As a sample of the good things included in Welcome Home, we got permission to reprint in the Guardian of Truth Dr. John W. Greene’s article on “Raising Teenagers. ” We wish to publicly thank both the journal and Dr. Greene.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, pp. 494-495
August 15, 1985

By Olen Holderby

It was my privilege to attend two “unity meetings” held in Dublin, California on January 15, 1985, and on May 14, 1985. I had intended to say something about the first of these two meetings. However, after learning that there was to be a second such meeting, and having no desire to adversely affect that second effort, I waited until after the second meeting. These two meetings involved “conservative” and “liberal” brethren, with speakers from both sides. Past experience caused me to attend these meetings with certain reservations. My desire for unity among God’s people, I believe, is as strong as anyone’s; and I willingly participate in any scriptural and reasonable effort to achieve that unity.

My good friend and fellow gospel preacher, Bobby Witherington, has also written concerning these two meetings; his article will appear in Gospel Anchor. The reader’s attention is called to brother Witherington’s article because he touches on some things about which I say little or nothing. It is a good article. There may be some others who plan to write about these meetings; their impressions may differ from mine. However, I give you my honest impressions as well as sincere thoughts, allowing that I may be mistaken at least in a few of them.

The Meeting On Janum7 15, 1985

This meeting dealt with these topics: What Do We Have In Common?, Unity Of The Body, Unity Of Faith, Unity Of Spirit, Unity Of Doctrine, and Where Do We Go From Here? A question period followed each topic except the last. Although attitudes are difficult to assess, it seemed to me, that good attitudes prevailed throughout the day. Most of what was said needed to be said, and heeded. The beginning topic, “What Do We Have In Common?” was well handled, with force and clarity; though, it seemed to me to be ignored by the speakers that followed.

Enthusiasm was high “on both sides the fence” and, as it seemed to me, this enthusiasm produced, to say the least, some inaccurate statements. Several times throughout the day I heard statements about what “great good” had been accomplished just by that one meeting. I did not then, nor do I now, share that conclusion. This is not to say that no good at all was accomplished by this effort. The very fact that the two sides did get together and talk was a step in the right direction. The opportunity to get better acquainted with brethren in general surely could be an asset. Brethren, throughout this first meeting, seemed to think that changes had occurred that would permit unity today. Perhaps so, but I ask, “What is it that has changed? And, who was changed? Is the change the right kind of change?”

My general impression of this first meeting was this: I saw two sides speaking and acting very cautiously, seemingly trying to “set up” the other for some future effort. The restraint was obvious; and, perhaps, this meeting did lay a foundation for the second one.

The Meeting On May 14, 1985

This meeting dealt with the topics: Presuppositions Alter Your Conclusions, Autonomy (two speakers), Parameters Of Fellowship, and Romans 14-Fellowship. A question period also followed each of these topics.

Like brother Witherington, I heard more “uncertain” sounds in this meeting than in the former. There was not the same measure of restraint in this meeting as in the former; speakers did, for the most part, address their topics more pointedly and plainly. This fact was very revealing. It revealed that there was absolutely no change in the attitude of our “liberal” brethren. They still use the same old arguments, have the same attitudes toward the truth, and demonstrate no willingness to change.

The fifty-minute speech by brother Don White on “Presuppositions” may be summed up in one simple statement: There is no binding pattern or standard and the only unity that is possible is “unity in diversity.” There were no scriptural arguments presented in this lesson; perhaps none were intended. This lesson would lead one to believe that Christ can be separated from His Word, as the “doctrine of God” was played down and the person of Christ was uplifted. Brother White argued that there is no “explicit scriptural basis for a restoration principle” and that “Doctrine is a framework, not a reality.” During a break following this lesson, one of brother White’s fellow preachers passed by my table and remarked, “He didn’t learn that in the Bay Area School of Preaching.” I might add, he didn’t learn it from the Bible either.

Brother Clyde Wilson did an excellent job on the subject of “Autonomy,” setting forth in plain and forceful terms, the need for authority and respect for the God-given pattern. Anyone missing his points must have had a desire to miss them. Brother Ken Sterling did a fine job in presenting his lesson on Romans 14, clearly showing that Romans 14 did not allow nor did it teach “unity in diversity.”

In the speech on “Parameters of Fellowship,” I heard very little that was in harmony with Scripture, though many passages were introduced. However, the speaker on this subject made his points plainly; you may disagree but could not easily misunderstand. He ended his lesson with a plea for us to accept even those whom we consider to be in error.

Obviously, I have not said all that might be said about the presentations and the reader may notice that I have said nothing about the questions and answers following the lessons.

Perhaps it would be of some value to give some remarks made during those question periods. Brother Don White asked, “Does a return to the New Testament pattern mean a return to specific forms of worship?” He did not think so! Further he said, the “church was born into a Jewish cradle,” and he referred to some acts of worship as Jewish in origin. Brother Jim Ferguson said, “Under some circumstances I would not object to one congregation placing itself under the eldership of another congregation.” In answer to a question about worshiping with a congregation that uses mechanical instruments of music, brother Hal Hougey replied, “Do we love each other?” Earlier brother Hougey had told of him and his wife leaving a congregation because the instrument had been introduced. Yet, he would continue his plea for “unity in diversity.” In a reply to a question about where to worship, brother Hougey’s solution was, “Go where he feels most harmonious.” All these fellows, at the same time, were arguing that “unity should not be compromised.”

The above is typical of replies heard throughout the question periods. However, these were not the only questions and answers that proved to be disturbing. One questioner used the expression, “intercongregational fellowship.” I wonder if the questioner believes in one congregation withdrawing from another congregation. If such fellowship can be established, can it not be broken? If not, why not?

Some answers given in these question periods left a lot to be desired; others being downright disturbing. Maybe the circumstances were more the determining factor than it should have been. In any case, it seemed to me that one truth was being made less important than others, in some instances. This may not have been the intent, but the impression was there. Brother Don White had (mis)used Matthew 23:23 in an effort to support his idea that, “We have assumed that all truth in the New Testament is on the same level of importance.” Are we falling victim to this same fallacy?

All of this, perhaps, illustrates the complex nature of such meetings, and the frustrations that can result, at least to all who sincerely desire the unity for which Jesus prayed.

Addendum

Following the meeting of January 15, I wrote thusly, “I sincerely trust there shall be further such meetings and that they can soon Ie9d into the practical applications that need so badly to be made. ” I would still hope for such an effort, but I am not so naive as to expect it, especially on the part of our “liberal” brethren. Those wearing the “battle scars” of the past do not get too excited about this hope, even though they would share that hope with those less scarred.

I do not see such meetings as accomplishing the unity as taught in the Scriptures – At best they might possibly change the thinking of some in attendance, so as to help begin a trend in the right direction. Even if unity among all the preachers attending such meetings could be achieved, what of the congregations from which they came? I understand unity, based on Scripture, to focus on the local congregation, as given in such passages as 1 Corinthians 1:10. The basis for this unity is given by God (Eph. 4:1-14). We could, in fact, say that the unity is already there; it is up to us to respect and to maintain that unity as given by God. Since the local congregation is the only unit of “church function,” how can unity be otherwise than local? When each local church respects the unity given by the Lord, there will be no difficulty between churches. Yes, there is a standard and a pattern (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All that God said on any subject is the pattern for that thingl To say that we cannot understand that pattern is to question both the wisdom and justice of God. May God hasten the day when such practice will be erased from the hearts and lips of every one of us.

John 17:20-2 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 10- 13; Ephesians 4:1-14; 5:11; Philippians 3:16; 1 John 1:3-7; and 2 John 9:11 are all still there, and they shall stand as a rebuke to those who would force “unity in diversity” upon God’s people anywhere. Brother Jim Ferguson said, “If we are ever going to find unity we will have to find it because we love each other in Jesus Christ.” The idea is to love each other enough to overlook anything that we consider error-an idea that even its perpetrators will not follow to its logical end!

I am not sure that such meetings make the right impression on younger preachers, those who are not old enough to have experienced any of the “liberal” opposition of the 1950s. I fear for the tolerant attitudes that seem to have taken hold on some. I know of one young preacher who now takes the position that it would not be wrong for one who believes it to be right to worship with the instrument to go among the members of a local church and teach his views, providing he did not force it on others. Now it ought to be obvious that if he was not doing anything wrong, the elders (or anyone else) would not have a right to rebuke, stop, or othewise prevent his activity. Are the burdens of division, immorality, permissiveness, and rebellion against God weighing so heavily that we are willing to compromise our stand for truth and right? God forbid?

I have no information regarding any future meetings, but it shall be interesting to watch for the outcome of any such meetings. May all our efforts redound to His Glory!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, pp. 490-491
August 15, 1985