Truth Magazine

By Ernest A. Finley

“They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19).

Four years ago, approximately, brother Darwin Chandler conducted a gospel meeting for the Texas City church of Christ for which I was the regular evangelist. (I have known brother Chandler many years and will hereafter refer to him as Darwin.) It was a good meeting. His lessons were true to the word of God. Our association was pleasant. But in the few years since that time, a radical, change has taken place in Darwin and those who have followed him, and that not for the better.

Darwin’s preaching, writing, and conversation began to ring more and more with the words, “Pharisaism” and “legalism.” His teaching on “fellowship” and “justification” became increasingly committed to error. The problem became so intense that it became necessary for him to be released as evangelist for the House Street church in Alvin, Texas. Darwin had deluded himself into thinking that when he left the work at House Street that the whole church, with the exception of the elders, would follow him. But only a few followed him. That was in October of 1983. He made an abortive attempt to begin a church in Friendswood, but because of a division in sentiment related to church-socials and facilities for such in the church building which they had planned to build, the group was fragmented and the effort came to naught.

Next, we see Darwin and his immediate family identified with the Johnson Street church of Christ (institutional) in Alvin. Soon thereafter, he was selected to be one of their regular preachers.

On March 25, 1984, Darwin delivered a sermon at Johnson Street explaining the reason for his presence there, entitled, “How Did I Get Here?”

In the course of his presentation, he goes back to 1982 and a return trip from a meeting in Odessa in which he had led singing. He states that on the way home he “. . . prayed all day long.” Among other things that he told the Lord in his prayer was “. . . I cannot go back to that Phariseeistic, that legalistic type religion the Bible says will damn my soul.”

Special Wisdom Through The Indwelling Spirit

He further said, “Father, I believe you have given the Holy Spirit to dwell in your people for the sake of helping them

to understand the Scriptures, through whom you give them wisdom if they ask, and I don’t know how you do it, I don’t care. All I want is this wisdom. Will you help me through the Holy Spirit?”

No Distinction Between The Church And The Individual

After pointing out that “. . . the church is nothing more or less than the sum total of all those who have been immersed into Christ,” he speaks of what he alleges to be “the false distinction we have made for years between collective work and individual work; or individual work and local work…. The Bible doesn’t make any such distinction as that.”

Orphan Homes Legitimate

On the basis of the above observations, he adds, “And so, that makes orphan homes supported by the church legitimate because they can be supported by individual Christians.”

Fellowship Mesh

“Also, there is the legitimacy of cooperative efforts. And that makes fellowship meals together legitimate. . . . I’ll ten you something else, if we want to do it as a part of a worship service (emphasis mind, EAF), we can do it. ” He adds, “. . , read 1 Corinthians 11 and realize that what they were doing was having a worship service and either in close proximity to it or as a part of it, they were eating a fellowship meal . . . .”

No Pattern For Church Finances

Darwin adds, “The simple fact is, God did not tell us what to do with the money we collected in the church treasury. You don’t think that’s right? Well, consider the fact that in the first place in the New Testament you cannot read of a church treasury as such. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But try to read that if you like. Go on a hunting trip through the New Testament. It’s scriptural, good, logical.” He goes further, “. . . God doesn’t much care about how we get the money (emphasis mine, EAF). He just wanted us to get enough to do His will. Get it how you want to, get it where you want to, and accomplish His Will with it. And along with the fact that God did not tell us what to do with the money (emphasis mine, EAF) we collect, we can use it as our spiritual leaders direct.”

No Restrictions On Method

Going on, Darwin says, “Not only that, but God did not restrict the method of doing our work, so we have an option. If we want to do it all by ourselves, we can do that. If we want to cooperate with another church, we can do that because God hasn’t said how.” He says, “They’ve found a pattern somewhere. Yes, I preached the pattern. Before God I couldn’t tell you what it is now. ” He adds, “. . . they took those opinions and made them matters of faith and divided the body of Christ.” Darwin said much more than we are able to reproduce in this article. But this gives reasonably good coverage to what he taught or where he stood a year ago.

You might think, “Well, it looks like our brother Darwin Chandler is gone to ‘liberalism,’ judging by what he says.” But the end is not yet in sight on the basis of what we have pointed out to you in this article to this point.

It took the Johnson Street church (institutional) about six or eight months to recognize Darwin’s commitment to error. But before they could give him a release, he “saw the hand-writing on the wall” and resigned. After his resignation at Johnson Street, they “marked” him as a false teacher, “totally apostate from truth.”

Reports came to us of Darwin’s worshipping with various churches in the area: The Alvin Gleaner Church Pentecostal (where we “witnessed”), then Quail Valley in Houston, of recent fame for its non-identification as the church of Christ any longer, and then Darwin’s latest association was extensively publicized by mail-out and newspaper advertisement, informing the people of Alvin and surrounding area, that Darwin was to speak at the Living Stones Church (strongly charismatic) and tell the latest story of “the new change” in his life. The advertisement informed us that “Darwin” had “found the fountain of Christian youth … the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

The sermon by Darwin, dealt with in the balance of this article, was delivered March 24, 1985 at the Living Stones church, almost one year to the day since his sermon at the Johnson Street church telling folks, “How Did I Get Here?”

The substance of Darwin’s sermon at Living Stones was “Why I had to leave the church of Christ.”

One of the first things that became abundantly clear was that Darwin had become totally dissatisfied with the simplicity of the Lord’s prescribed worship. He began to discuss the services of the church of Christ. In his assessment they were “dry and dead.” No longer could he be lifted up by the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs of the saints. No longer could the humble prayers of the righteous draw him nearer to God. He observed, “There’s got to be more.” He evaluated his spiritual condition of the past 30 years, my soul (was) just as bone dry and dead as the day I came to Jesus.”

The Church Of Christ The Farthest Way

Charging the church of Christ, with whom he had fellowship for 32 years, with believing that “. . . we are the only ones who know how to worship scripturally. . . ” he adds, “Praise God, I think we were the worst ones about it, the ones furthest away from the truth of anybody I have come in contact.”

The Church Of Christ Is A Sect

Speaking further of “Why I changed,” he adds, “I didn’t have a choice.” He cites Galatians 5:20, alluding to the term ,’sects ‘or ‘!factions.” Then, “I preached for nearly twenty years against sectarianism and never knew what it was. I’m devastated to think that I was a member of a sectarian body those twenty years.” He gave the definition of a “sect” as, “Formation of a body of religious people around a specialized doctrine.” He then charged that the church of Christ bases its teaching on four or five cardinal doctrines. “But you gather those four or five things and put those together in a focalized doctrinal system and build a movement around them and you’ve got a sect. The church of Christ is a sect.” But this is not the first time the church of Christ has been called a “sect.” Paul says “the Way” was called a sect in his day (Acts 24:14). It was not so then. It is not so now! One observation in passing, you do not suppose the Pentecostals of which the Living Stones church seems to be a part, have focalized on one area of doctrine primarily, do you? Could the Living Stones church be a part of a sect? Quoting further from his sermons: “Why did I have to leave? Because I was a sectarian. The Bible says you can’t be a sectarian and go to heaven.”

Mechanical Instruments, Dancing And Shouting

Darwin alludes to “. . . all that wild, strange stuff that went on a while ago, jumping up and down, hand-clapping . . .” which preceded his sermons, insisting that while he was a member of the church of Christ there were things of that nature authorized in the Bible which he could not observe. He then goes back under the Old Covenant to justify practices that he has of late espoused. Among other things, Psalms 41:1 is cited to authorize the clapping of the hands and shouting. Psalms 98:4 is utilized to show that we are to “shout joyfully.” Psalms 149:3 is presented to justify dancing in worship: “praise his name with dancing.” Psalms 150 is introduced to support the use of various mechanical instruments in worship, as well as dancing. As he speaks of “dancing,” he exults, “I love it!” He admits to having had some difficulty in getting his feet to cooperate in getting his dancing going. He says that he privately prayed to God to “pull the nails out of my shoes,” so he could loosen up and dance. He says that he had to “put the Lord on hold” while he and his wife laughed at this particular petition. Then he adds, “the nails are out, praise God.” So he is dancing in worship now. Choir robes are authorized, he tells us, referring to 2 Chronicles 5:12-14-they wore “fine linen.” He says, “I’m gonna tell you something. If you ever want to be a part of a worship service where God comes down and fills the house with glory, you’re gonna have to do it the way He wants it done. He wanted it done with a hundred and twenty trumpets, cymbals, and whatever that thing is tambourines. . . .” These are words coming from one who decries legalism.

Darwin, discussing mechanical instruments, refers to 2 Chronicles 29:25 to answer the “straw man” that says that “David invented them but God never approved.” He then observes that “the commandment was from the Lord through His prophet.” Adding, You’d better wait a long time before you cast another stone at something that God invented.” In effect, he says we “make fun” of a commandment of the Lord, warning, “You take your life into your own hands, folks.”

New Testament Authority Claimed

Then he turns to the New Testament in a vain attempt to justify mechanical instruments in worship. Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13 are introduced. He tells his audience that Vine, Arndt and Gingrich, and Thayer or any Greek scholar all tell us that the Greek word psalmos means “to sing to the accompaniment of a musical instrument. ” He then refers to the expression “making melody’ I and affirmed that psallo, the root word from which the expression was translated means, “to play on a musical: instrument. ” His observation, “That’s what the word means, and if I intend to obey it, I’ve got to do it.” I ask you, “Is that ‘legalism’ or not?” (Note: Both Thayer and Vine make a distinction between the earlier use of the word psallo and the New Testament use or meaning of it. Thayer: “in the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song, etc.” Vine: [defining “melody,” discussing psallo] says, “denotes, in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise; in Eph. 5:19, make melody.”)

Solos And Methodist Fellowship

He seeks to defend solos in worship by appealing to 1 Corinthians 14:26 where gifts of the Spirit were exercised in the revelation of a “psalm.” He then asks, “Is it all right for me to sing a solo as I did just a while ago, and as this brother (emphasis mine, EAF) did from the Methodist (emphasis mine, EAF) church?”

Error On Justification

Darwin says, after reading Several passages from Galatians which show that the basis of our justification is not “law” but “grace through faith,” I denied that principle. I denied the most basic, fundamental truth that the whole .New Testament teaches, that salvation is by grace through faith. I denied it all my life.” He falsely asserts that he was fired at House Street for preaching the truth on this issue. “. . . they fired me for preaching the book of Galatians and for daring to make one or two applications-I hardly even got into the matter of making applications, it was just the principle they couldn’t stand. I I Strangely, Darwin then quotes Galatians 5: 1; asserting that he does not intend to be “subject to a yoke of slavery,” no doubt referring to his concept of “legalism.” This statement came from a man who, only moments before, was floundering around back under the Mosaic Covenant, trying to justify his present practices of dancing and singing with mechanical instruments. He is entangled in a “yoke of slavery.”

Baptism Of The Holy Spirit

Again, he says, “Paul said in 2 Corinthians, ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.’ That’s why there is no liberty where I’ve been. because they effectively deny the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Every single one of those churches do they shut the Holy Spirit out, they don’t want Him in Again, “I lived for twenty years in a charnal house” (note: a “charnal house” is a house for the storing of dead bodies, EAF).

Quoting John the Baptist regarding the coming of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Mark 1:8, Darwin says that this was a promise for the general populace who came to be baptized of John, “Jesus is going to come and baptize every one of you (emphasis mine, EAF) in the Holy Spirit.”

Referring to Acts 2, Darwin suggests, on the basis of verse 17, a part of Joel’s prophecy, that since the Spirit was to be for “all mankind,” that means it was for “everybody!” He refers to the statement, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” and adds, “‘prophecy’-inspired preaching-that’s where you get women preachers” (emphasis mine, EAF). Then, after quoting Acts 2:38, where the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised, Darwin says, “And in that context he’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Almost casually, he adds, “And, yes, I speak in tongues.” He fails, to perceive that they have long since passed (1 Cor. 13:8-12).

His invitation at the end of his sermon was the traditionally denominational appeal to raise your hand and trust in the Lord. Among other things that he said were these words, “If you want Jesus more than anything, would you just raise your hand right there where you are sitting?” The last words that I could hear on my tape of his sermon were, “Raise your hand.” How different from the words of Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2:36,38). How different from the words of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:16).

Conclusion

In summary, how far has Darwin Chandler drifted? What are some of the evidences of his defection? What are his views?

(1) He defends a church-sponsored “fellowship-meal,” even included in the worship.

(2) That God grants wisdom through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which makes an understanding of the Word possible.

(3) That church support of human institutions and the “sponsoring church” method of cooperation are scriptural.

(4) That there is no biblical distinction between local congregations and individual action.

(5) That you cannot find a church treasury in the New Testament, but it does not matter how the money is raised and there are no scriptural limits on its expenditure.

(6) That the church of Christ is a sect.

(7) In regard to worship, he charges the church of Christ with being the furthest from the truth of any group he knows.

(8) He defends mechanical instruments of music, dancing, clapping, shouting, etc., in worship, going back under the Law.

(9) He is ready for fellowship with anybody in -any religious system who professes to believe that Jesus is Lord, including those who practice sprinkling.

(10) He “rings” of the new unity movement concept: “Unity in diversity.”

(11) He is convinced that the name that you wear does not matter.

(12) He advocates choirs, solos, robes and the use of women preachers.

(13) He claims to have received the Holy Spirit baptism and the power to speak in tongues. He believes in present day miracles.

(14) He asserts that identification of the one body is not dependent upon baptism for the remission of sins as a criterion.

(15) He extends the common denominational invitation to raise your hand and trust in the Lord.

It saddens our hearts that another has gone out from us. It grieves us also that a few are following him. We pray that

his efforts to lead others away from the faith may be further frustrated.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 326-327, 342-343
June 6, 1985

By Mike Willis

Edward O’Neal Bragwell Added To Staff

We are happy to announce the addition of brother Ed Bragwell, Sr. to the writing staff of Guardian of Truth. Brother Bragwell will make a fine addition to our staff of writers; our readers will appreciate what he has to say.

Brother, Bragwell.was born 28 May 1936 in Franklin County, Alabama (near Russellville). In September 1955, he married his wife, Patsy. To this union, five children have been born. Their oldest son, Eddie O Bragwell, Jr. (28 years old), preaches in Anniston, Alabama. Eddie’s twin sister, Vicki is married to Doug Russell. The Bragwell’s second son, Martin Loyd (26), preaches at Martinez, Georgia. Their other two children are Carla Dawn (22) and Jonathan Tyler (11). Their four older children are Christians; the two married children are married to faithful Christians. They have four grandchildren.

Brother Bragwell has preached full-time at Pontotoc, MS; Mt. Hope, Trinity, and Hanceville, AL; Charlotte, TN; and Fultondale, AL. He has been in Fultondale since August 1970. Brother Bragwell has written in various subscription journals circulated among brethren and has published several church bulletins through the years. His work in The Reflector demonstrates his writing ability, his loyalty to the truth of God’s word, and his wisdom. Though we have not had close personal contact, I have learned to respect brother Bragwell through his writings. He is held in high esteem in Alabama. Consequently, we are happy to have him working with us in Guardian of Truth.

Diestelkamp-Patton Exchange On Forgiveness

Elsewhere in this issue (pages 16 and 17) is the first exchange between brethren Marshall Patton and Leslie Diestelkamp on the subject of forgiveness. During the latter part of last December, brother Leslie Diestelkamp, sent me two articles disagreeing with some things which I had written over a period of time on forgiveness. I had encouraged brother Diestelkamp to write an affirmative proposition which he could defend on the subject; in response, he wrote the two affirmative articles to be published in this exchange without a proposition.

After reading this exchange and some other correspondence which I was receiving, I became convinced that too much of the issue was becoming centered on Mike Willis. I asked myself, “Who besides me cares whether or not I have always been consistent? Who cares how many brethren agree or disagree with me?” The issue must always be, “What does the Bible teach?”

Consequently, I sought a means of removing Mike Willis from the center of the issue in order that the teachings of the Bible might be the center of the focus of our attention. I decided that if I could persuade someone else to reply to these articles, asking him to ignore whatever personal references to me were in the article and respond only to the doctrinal teachings, brethren would be better served by the exchange. Consequently, those comments related to what Mike Willis believes will not be replied to in the interest of a less clouded study of the Bible issue.

The two participants in this discussion, Leslie Diestelkamp and Marshall Patton, are two of the most respected brethren among us. There is an issue of significance about which brethren are disagreed, as both writers recognize and admit. In the interest of adding to our knowledge of truth in a calm study of the word of God, these brethren have written. May each of us read the exchange with an understanding of our responsibilities before God.

Finley Article Regarding Darwin Chandler

Elsewhere in this issue (pg. 6) is an article by Ernest Finley. Brother Finley has taken the time to document the apostasy of brother Darwin Chandler from the Lord. Brother Chandler left the church to work with our liberal brethren about a year ago; more recently, he left the liberal brethren to work with the Charismatic movement. Brother Finley relates the apostasy of brother Chandler as kindly as one can.

I appreciate his work. Writing such an article causes some to compare the author to a watchdog or “guardian of the truth.” There are many thankless jobs which one must do and this is one of them. I, for one, would like to commend and thank brother Finley for his work on this article. An article such as this serves several purposes: (1) it reminds each of us that he can fall from grace (1 Cor. 10:12); (2) it demonstrates that the desire to challenge the “old paths” is dangerous and ultimately leads to the acceptance of denominationalism; (3) it serves to warn others of the error in order that they might “take heed.” Brother Chandler has already led several others into his denominational errors; we should do all that we can to prevent further damage to the kingdom of God.

Brother Finley relied heavily on two taped sermons by brother Chandler. One was preached in the liberal church, explaining why he left “anti-ism”; the other was preached in a Charismatic church explaining why he left the church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 322, 341
June 6, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What do you believe about abortion? Is it murder? What about abortion for medical reasons?

Reply: The number of legal abortions in the United States each year is estimated to be between one and two million. Colorado became the first state to liberalize its abortion laws according to American Law Institute guidelines (in 1967). Very few were aware of the moral landslide that was initiated by this action. Since 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, at least 10 million unborn babies have been legally killed. By way of contrast, about 500,000 American soldiers were killed in the Civil War and about 400,000 in World War II (statistics from article by David Pratte in Gospel Anchor, July 1984, p. 15). To the thinking person, these figures are staggering and shocking.

There is no doubt about abortion on demand being sinful. If abortion on demand is right, then euthanasia can be justified. We are here considering the willful killing of the unborn infant for the purpose of population control. If the life of the unborn baby can be willfully terminated under this circumstance, then it would logically follow that the willful killing of the aged and those physically and mentally handicapped would be justified. Abortion and euthanasia are parallel in this respect. Both are nothing short of murder. President Reagan made a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in which he made the statement, “How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with . . . ? Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain — pain that is long and agonizing.” He was challenged on this; but a group of twenty-six prominent physicians have written the President, supporting his contention. They stated that, “Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies” (quoted in Stand, January 1985, No. 1).

There is much controversy as to when life actually begins, but it is my sincere conviction that it begins at conception. This is not simply the opinion of a preacher, as there are medical men who share the same conviction. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was once a strong supporter of abortion and head of New York’s first and most active clinic. Before me is a significant statement quoted from him. Now opposing what he once believed, he wrote: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd . . . . I had to face the fact that in abortion, a human life of a special order is being taken” (in an article by Ernest A. Finley, The Discerner, Dec., 198 1). Dr. Heather Morris, Canadian obstetrician and gynecologist, speaking in Ontario Canada, stated: “Abortion is a situation in which life is killed. Human life starts at conception. A complete, unique human being is the result” (quoted by Clarence R. Johnson, The Preceptor, Vol. 22, P. 219). Dr. W.W. McWhirter of Rochester, Michigan, stated in the American Medical Association News. “I believe there is no question, either scientifically, or philosophically, about when life begins. A human life begins at the moment of conception, i.e., when the ovum is fertilized. There is no question but that to destroy the product of conception at any time thereafter is to take human life . . . … Also, in the St. Louis Globe Democrat (April 18, 1969), 94 physicians published a signed statement affirming the same thing as quoted (in an article by Larry R. Devore, Truth Magazine, Vol. 15, p. 808). So, my conviction that life begins at conception is not without scientific testimony. The sanctity of human life must be regarded, both before and after birth.

The Scriptures nowhere, authorize abortion on demand. Some argue that the fetus in the mother’s womb is not yet a child, and in an effort to prove their contention, they refer to Exodus 21:22-24. The incident recorded in this passage is that of two men who are fighting, and in their struggle, a pregnant woman is accidentally hurt and her fruit (the unborn) departs. This a simple case of miscarriage. The aborted fetus does not lend any support to the advocates of “legalized” abortion on demand. For what it is worth to this study, the Hebrew word yeled is also translated “child, son, youth” (Theological Wordbook of the O.T., Vol. 1, p. 378). This same word (yeled) which refers to the unborn child also describes the child after birth (see Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3,10). Neither can it be argued that the case referred to in Exodus 21:22-24 proves that, according to the law, the abortion of the fetus was not as serious as the death of a person already born. It should be noted, however, that the harm was done to the mother. The mother was hurt to the extent that it resulted in her having a miscarriage. We can see no justification for abortion on demand from this Scripture, nor any other.

That there is life before birth is evident from Luke 1:36-44. Verse 36 is to be particularly noted where it is written, “and this is the sixth month with her. . . .” Then in verse 41, it is recorded that “the babe leaped in my womb.” These two verses indicate that there is human life in the unborn infant. The word “babe” is translated frt)m the Greek word brephos. This word identifies both the unborn child and the baby, infant (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 146). (See also Lk. 2:12,16; 18:15; Acts 7:19; 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:2.) We see in Acts 7:19 that infants were put to death by the command of Pharaoh, “that they should cast out their babes (Gr. brephos), to the end that they might not live.” To cast out infants, unborn or born for the same reason as did Pharaoh (that their lives would not be preserved to populate the earth) is murder.

As to abortion for medical reasons, I am not competent to decide; therefore, I would not attempt to offer solutions in such cases. Circumstances in these matters vary. Rather, I have dealt with the moral issue of abortion on demand. To abort a fetus that another human life will not populate the earth, or for the convenience of the mother, or because of the poverty of the parents, or to cover up fornication, etc., is murder. The Bible states, “But for the fearful and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers (my emphasis, HH.), and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

“Legalizing” abortion does not, in and of itself, justify it in the sight of God. The law of the land is not always the law of God. Human life is precious in the sight of the Lord, whether it is an infant unborn or born.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 325, 333
June 6, 1985

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you and crucified” (Gal. 3:1, NKJV).

As Christians, we are not immune from making fools of ourselves. The Galatians not only became foolish, they did it with such speed that it made Paul marvel (1:6).

In Paul’s short letter to them, he points out various ways in which they had acted foolishly and were in danger of doing so. He does this by direct reference to their foolishness or else relating the examples of others for their benefit.

Satan is no fool. If he can’t get us to play the fool one way, he will try another-even in almost opposite ways. This can be seen from Galatians.

Doctrinal Softness

The Galatians had played the fool with doctrine. They had taken the bait of false teachers (likely Judaizers) — hook, line and sinker. Having escaped the spiritual bondage of paganism, they are now about to jump into another bondage — the Judaizer’s brand of Christianity (4:8,9).

How could a people, “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly, portrayed,” act so foolishly-so quickly? Paul hints that the spirit of compromise may have had something to do with it, by relating his own experience with “false brethren.” He says that he did not “yield submission even for an hour.” This was the same Paul, who willingly yielded personal rights and advantages for the cause (1 Cor. 9), but when the truth of the gospel was in danger of being taken from his brethren-“‘yield” was out of the question, even if it meant publicly withstanding a fellow apostle to his face (Gal. 2:11-21).

The very fact that Peter was an influential figure in the church made it the more imperative that his actions not go publicly unnoticed. He was not walking uprightly and others were being influenced by him. This was no time for softness and timidity-the brethren’s relationship to the truth of the gospel was at stake. Would this make an enemy of Peter? It was a risk that Paul had to run. This public exposure of Peter’s hypocrisy did not ruin Peter’s usefulness in the Lord’s work, but rather increased it. And what about relations between the two men? We are told little of the immediate reaction, but in the long run we know about Peter’s attitude. He later wrote of “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).

Too often, mere attention is more persuasive than solid information. It has not been long since Paul had, at great personal sacrifice, supplied them with the truth of the gospel. They had been willing to pluck out their own eyes for him. Now, he asks, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” What had happened? False brethren had “come-a-courtin”‘ and had turned the heads of the Galatians by the attention given. Paul wrote, “They zealously court you, but for no good” (Gal. 4:17). The truth had not been nearly as influential as “courting” of the false brethren. Like the young man courting the young lady, care is given to saying just what he thinks she wants to hear. She enjoys every minute of it and is often swept off her feet by it, even though most of it is just “sweet nothings.” False brethren have some advantages in battle for the minds and affections of brethren. They have no problem with using means of persuasion that true teachers dare not use. They give attention to courting, while true teachers are giving “attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine . . . meditation” (1 Tim. 4:13-16).

As a young preacher, I almost ran myself up the wall trying to stay ahead of the attention that other religious people were giving to some of the brethren. A brother or sister would begin to slack off (or even become a little disgruntled) and some well-meaning soul -would find a way to tell me how much attention the preacher and/or members of the Church Down The Street had been giving these folks. The message was clear, if I didn’t get on the ball and out-do them, we would lose out in the competition. It took me a while to learn that I could not out Church Down The Street the Church Down The Street. If I had the truth, then I could. do nothing better than teach it and admonish the brother or sister to obey it. If that would not do the job, then all the courting in the world that I might do would not do it. Once I learned that lesson, preaching sure has been a lot easier on me.

Dispositional Hardness

If Satan can’t get us through the front door, he will try the back. In this same letter, where Paul urged a kind of hard-nosed approach toward false brethren and com promise, the Galatians are warned against a general hard-nosed disposition — one that showed little softness and tenderness toward brethren, but geared more toward selfish ambition.

He warns against “biting and devouring one another . . . lest you be consumed one of another.” While they were to “Stand fast in the liberty by which Christ (had) made (them) free” (5:1) – no room for softness here – they had to be careful lest their need to stand fast in, and faithfully defend their liberty in Christ, did not become an excuse to resort to the works of the flesh (5:13). It is easy to get so involved in fighting the influence of false brethren (and there is plenty of that to do) that we simply cannot find any place to quit fighting. It is so easy to turn to biting and devouring one another until we are consumed one of another.

We pay a lot of attention to some of the “works of the flesh”: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, murders, drunkenness, revelries and the like. And we should. In fact, many of us could stand to give more attention to these things in our teaching and preaching than we do. But, we may miss the very point that the writer had in bringing up this list at the time he did. The attitudes that caused them to bite and devour seem to be the real target of the apostle. These attitudes are linked to those more easily recognized works of the flesh to show these foolish Galatians the kind of company they were in by their hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions and heresies. He then lists the “fruit of the Spirit” to counter this bad disposition (5:22-24). He then says, “And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another” (emphasis mine, EOB5:24-26). In the next chapter, he calls for a spirit of gentleness in restoring brethren overtaken in faults, the bearing of one another’s burdens, the sharing with teachers in good things, the sowing to the spirit rather than the flesh, and the doing good to all men as they had opportunity (6:1-10). All this reflecting a tenderness of heart and gentleness of disposition befitting one walking after the Spirit. Thus, if they would “through love serve one another” and put aside selfish ambition and conceit, they would not likely be biting and devouring one another. They could have this soft touch and still be firm for the truth and hard against error. It might take a good balancing act, but it could and must be done.

Conclusion

Let us not be so foolish as to think that we can compromise with “false brethren” even for an hour without getting hurt. Let us not be so foolish as to think, that we can just ignore error and it will go away. Let us not be so foolish as to think that we cannot be deceived by the favorable attention (courting) of false brethren. Let us not be so foolish as to think that time is on our side in the battle for truth. Brethren can “so soon” be carried away into error.

But, neither let us be so foolish as to fall into the habit of biting and devouring one another-jumping down each other’s throats at the slightest disagreement and/or provocation. Let us not be so foolish as to allow our desire to stand fast in the faith, to cause us to become hard-nosed, unkind, unforgiving, ungentle and cold in our dealings with one another.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 323-324
June 6, 1985