Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: (1) Does one’s presence in a worship period conducted by institutional brethren indicate endorsement of their error or fellowship therein? (2) Can one scripturally participate with such brethren in matters scriptural without lending influence to other practices? (3) If the answer to the preceding questions is “no,” then is their presence in a worship period conducted by conservative brethren interpreted to mean approval of all that we teach and practice? If not, then why should our presence with them be so construed?

Reply: (1) One’s presence in a worship period conducted by institutional brethren is not an endorsement of their error nor is it fellowship with their error. One’s presence in such a service is not to be interpreted as a sanction of their unscriptural practices any more than one’s presence in a service conducted by some denomination. Both practice things which we believe are unscriptural, but one’s presence alone does not mean endorsement or fellowship of error. Paul visited assemblies conducted by Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 13:14). In this instance, Paul and Barnabas as visitors, first heard the reading of the law and the prophets. Did their very presence indicate their endorsement of error on the part of the Jews who conducted the service? If it be argued that Paul and Barnabas were there to teach the truth, it is agreed. But if they had not been invited to speak, would their mere presence be their consent to errors believed and taught by those who conducted the service?

(2) We can scripturally participate in a service conducted by our institutional brethren (such as during a gospel meeting), if the service is scriptural, without lending influence to their other practices which are unscriptural. We can sing scriptural songs and pray, even though the brother who leads the prayer may believe and practice some things which we do not endorse. By doing so, we are not fellowshipping their error. Paul commanded, “and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Participation with brethren in scriptural matters is no endorsement of their error in other matters.

(3) The same is true in reverse. If institutional brethren attend a worship period conducted by us, it cannot be justifiably construed to mean that they endorse our positions in areas where they disagree. Our attendance at one of their services does not indicate endorsement of things in which they are in error any more than their attendance at one of our services would indicate that they are in agreement with all that we believe and teach. Consistency demands that the same is true in both cases. It is a two way street.

What is stated above is “a far cry” from the open fellowship position as espoused by some. They are two different things. We cannot participate in, or endorse, a service of worship which is contrary to the word of God. For example, it would be wrong to participate in a period of worship in which mechanical instruments are employed. Yet if we visit the service, provided we do not participate in the worship, our mere presence is no endorsement of what is done. For instance, we may attend a funeral service that is conducted by some denomination. Although the service is not scriptural, merely being there does not indicate approval of what is said and done. A period of scriptural worship conducted by institutional brethren is not the same thing.

Contributing money to a church whose work is unscriptural is a different matter. Doing so would abet and fellowship error. Attendance and participating in scriptural worship (say in a service during a gospel meeting that is conducted by brethren who are in error on such matters as churches contributing funds to human institutions, or the sponsoring church) is not endorsing or having fellowship with error. Or, participating in worship and Bible study with brethren whom we disagree, such as the Arlington meeting a few years ago, is not endorsing or having fellowship with all that they do. We can participate with a brother in what is right without giving sanction to his error.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, p. 164
March 21, 1985

By Paul K. Williams

“‘Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults” (Psa. 19:12).

David knew he could not, at least not all of them. He had contemplated the great creation of God (Psa. 16:1-6) and the wonderful word of God (Psa. 19:7-11). Both of these wonders made him realize that God was infinitely greater than he was. God could see sins in David’s life which even David himself, with earnest searching of himself and God’s law, could not see.

Every earnest child of God has experienced the humiliating shock of discovering hidden sins in his own life. Poorly considered words have hurt when we did not know it. Our haste to be about our own business or pleasure has deafened us to the need of some brother. Perhaps only when he is an adult does our child tell us how a certain characteristic of our behavior embarrassed or hurt him when he was a child.

When these things come to our attention, we are deeply ashamed and penitent. Oh that we had realized these sins at the time! We might have been able to correct some of the damage. Now we can only pray God for forgiveness.

Other sins result from spiritual immaturity. Hebrews 5:14 says, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” This means the immature do not yet know how to discern good and evil at least not as well as the spiritually mature. And so we learn, perhaps years after our conversion, that we have been practicing in all good conscience something which is not right in the sight of God.

Many of us who lived through that searching period of the 1950s remember how we discovered that, while we were preaching that the congregation is the only unit of organization for God’s church, we were upholding church-supported orphan homes. When our earnest study of the Scriptures removed our ignorance of this sin, we repented and got our practice in line with our preaching. But we had been sinning as a result of our ignorance.

Paul wrote, “I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:4). Moses prayed, “Thou hast placed our iniquities before Thee, Our secret sins(1) in the light of Thy presence” (Psa. 90:8). And again Paul wrote, “on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16).

Our hidden faults are sins! We will be judged for them. Every deed will be judged by God. How helpless that makes us feel. How then can we ever be justified? The answer is in David’s prayer. He prayed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “Acquit me of hidden faults.” Now this was not the automatic, almost unthinking prayer we hear so often in the assembly: “Lord forgive us of all the sins we have committed since last receiving pardon.”

It was the earnest petition of one who wanted to rid himself of all sin, who wanted to discover the hidden faults so that he could turn from them. It was the cry of one who loved the word of God and searched it diligently. It was the prayer of one who wanted even the words of his mouth and the thoughts of his heart to be acceptable in God’s sight (Psa. 19:14).

Though Paul recognized that he might have committed sins of which he was unaware (1 Cor. 4:4), he was not doubtful of his salvation. In 2 Timothy 4:7-8, he asserts without qualification that the crown of life awaited him. He knew hip was acquitted of all sins, even those he might not have discovered himself. What acquitted him was not his perfect knowledge of all his sins, but his earnest state of penitence for all known and unknown sins.

When children of God love God and His word like David and Paul did, when we search the Scriptures to find our faults and strive always to live in good conscience before God and men (Acts 24:16; 2 Tim. 1:3), when we show our eagerness to turn from every sin when we learn of it (as did the Ephesian brethren in Acts 19:17-19), we can pray the prayer of David and know that God hears. He will acquit us of our hidden faults.

Endnote

1. On this verse Pulpit Commentary says: “And not only has he done this with the sins which they know of, and whereof their consciences are afraid; but he has set their secret sins also in the fight of his countenance” (p. 255).

(Editor’s Note: The article printed above was submitted to me in May 1982 by brother Williams. At the time, he and I exchanged several letters because of our difference of understanding of the prayer in Psalm 19:12. 1 understood that we both agreed not to publish the article. Brother Williams visited with me shortly before I moved from Dayton in June 1984. He and I discussed the article and I agreed to publish it with a short statement indicating that we have a different understanding of Psalm 19:12. Whether because of my move or some other reason, I forgot about this until I received a letter from him today (19 February 1985). I apologize to him for the delay in printing this. Brother Williams is a faithful gospel preacher who deserves to be heard-even when we disagree. His attitude is charitable and commendable; I hope that I can manifest the same warm spirit as he does.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 165, 184
March 21, 1985

By Spencer Miller

(Editor’s Note: The following article is written by a Christian who is a practicing attorney. Brother Miller serves in a law firm with three other attorneys, two of whom are Christians. Brother Miller has also preached quite a bit in the Kansas City, Missouri area and respects the word of God. Hence, he is amply qualified to address the question under discussion in this article.)

Most members of the body of Christ have become familiar with the civil suit in Collinsville, Oklahoma where a member of the church who had been withdrawn from received a judgment in the aggregate of $390,000.00. The theory of recovery pursued by the plaintiff in that case included the concept of invasion of privacy with a request for actual and punitive damages. Since the verdict in the Collinsville case, lawsuits against the church and/or individual members have been reported in Garden Grove, California; Lafayette, Louisiana, and Del Rio, Texas. As a result of these activities, brethren everywhere are pondering what they ought to do to prevent the possibility of a disastrous verdict against the local church where they are members. Although there is not a simple answer to that complex inquiry, this article will propose certain actions which may be taken to alleviate the problem.

Fulfilling Our Responsibility

Initially, it is noted that a proper course of conduct does not include the decision to stop withdrawing from those wayward members who need to be disciplined. As faithful members of the Lord’s church, we have a God-given responsibility to comply with the commands set forth in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5.

Shirking our responsibility is not now, nor has it ever been, a proper response to adversity.

Consistency

Now more than ever before there is a need for congregations to be consistent with their application of discipline. In the past there have been circumstances where withdrawing fellowship was applied on a hit and miss basis with no consistency at all. Such a course of conduct is not only inconsistent with sound doctrine, but it could also be used against a local church in a civil suit.

In almost every case that has been filed against various churches of Christ, there has been a claim for punitive damages. Historically, punitive damages have been allowed only in those cases where there has been intentional conduct that has been motivated by malice. Malice has been legally defined to include “hatred, ill will or spite.” Like many other matters, malice is seldom, if ever, susceptible of direct proof. Rather, there is usually an attempt to prove malice by circumstantial evidence. It could be argued that the fact that one particular member is singled out for withdrawal while others who have been guilty of similar conduct were not is circumstantial evidence of ill will directed to the person from whom the congregation has withdrawn.

In light of these circumstances, it is imperative that God’s people consistently practice God’s plan for discipline. Inconsistency will certainly not be tolerated by the Almighty and may not be tolerated by a civil jury.

Authority And The Use Of The Lord’s Money

Another threshold question that must be addressed iithe issue of what a local congregatiod may do with the Lord’s money in this context of lawsuits against the church. It is not the purpose of this article to provide an extensive analysis of this issue. However, it has been assumed that there is scriptural authority for a local congregation to own a meeting place and the property associated with it. If that is true (and the author believes that it is), then God expects us to be good stewards. We cannot squander the Lord’s assets or allow them to be misused. With this concept in mind some of the recommendations set forth herein will be more meaningful.

Insurance

Probably one of the most cost efficient methods for approaching the problem of lawsuits against the church is the procurement of a liability insurance policy which includes coverage for claims of invasion of privacy, libel, slander, defamation, etc. Such policies are available on the market. Two companies which issue such policies are Church Mutual Insurance Company and Lumberman’s Mutual. The cost is not expensive. If we have secured insurance policies in the past in order to protect against the loss of the church building by fire, then there is even a greater need to protect the Lord’s property from a rebellious member and his or her attorney.

In purchasing an insurance policy there are several important considerations. First, the policy must be designed to provide the coverage needed. It is more than just a fire insurance policy. Advice from an attorney or independent insurance agent may be necessary to insure that the policy purchased is adequate.

Second, the policy must have a very broad definition of who is an insured under the policy. The definition of “insured” should include the church collectively and those acting on behalf of the church, such as evangelists and elders. In the cases that have been filed to date, individuals have been sued as well as the church collectively. Therefore, broad coverage is essential.

Third, consideration must be given to the possibility of purchasing coverage in addition to the basic coverage. An endorsement is available with some policies which includes counseling malpractice which would involve those situations where marital counseling by the elders or the preacher results in a claim that the situation was mishandled. Also, umbrella coverage may be purchased in addition to the basic coverage which would increase the applicable limits of liability. A question to consider is related to the value of the local church’s property. It would be unwise to believe that a $100,000.00 liability insurance policy would be sufficient to protect the assets of a congregation where the fair market value of the church building and preacher’s home is in excess of $300,000.00.

By purchasing an insurance policy, one item that is covered which is extremely important is the cost of defense. That means that the attorney’s fees and associated defense costs which includes expert witness fees, deposition expenses, etc. will all be paid by the insurance company. Without an insurance policy those expenses necessary for protecting the Lord’s property will probably be paid out of the church treasury. Those expenses could be substantial and could put a strain on any church’s finances.

In The Event There Is No Insurance

Obviously, there are some situations which already exist, where a lawsuit has been filed and there is no insurance. In that event, the case must be defended. It would be improper to simply allow a rebellious member to receive a default judgment and allow the church building to be auctioned on the Courthouse steps or the Sheriff take the contribution every Sunday in order to satisfy a judgment. Action must be taken.

One pitfall that must be avoided is the selection of counsel to represent the church who will not do an adequate job defending the case. There is probably no way that any of these cases may be settled. If we are doing God’s will by withdrawing fellowship from wayward members, then we cannot pay such a member any money simply to settle a lawsuit that is filed against the church. Although it is proper to take money from the church to defend a lawsuit in order to protect the Lord’s assets, there is no authority that would allow money to be taken out of the treasury to pay a sinner for a lawsuit. Therefore, since the case will not be settled, a well qualified attorney is critical.

Perhaps, a member of the local church is an attorney who will know whom to hire. Perhaps, a member of the local church because of unrelated matters knows of a good trial lawyer. On the other hand, if information is not available in regard to the employment of an attorney, it is recommended that an attorney who is a Christian be contacted even in another city or state so that information may be obtained to aid in the selection process. A bad lawyer is almost as bad as no lawyer.

Conclusion

The popularity of lawsuits against the church will probably pass with time, but in the interim action must be taken to prepare for the possibility of such a suit. It is hoped that the information set forth in this article will assist in making the necessary preparation. We cannot allow the affairs of the world to interfere with God’s plan to keep the church pure.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 163, 183
March 21, 1985

By Guthrie Dean

Surely, “to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. . . . a time of war, a time of peace” (Eccl. 3:1,8b). I was just wondering if there will ever be a time of peace again among the brethren. Back in the late 40s and during the 1950s, the gospel was going into the highways and hedges. Churches were growing, new congregations were springing up. Unity prevailed, and we seemed to have the devil and the denominations on the run. We were often spoken of “as the fastest growing religious communion in the United States..” Many did not agree with us, but there was a respect for the church of Christ in those days. And in some places there was even envy and fear at the phenomenal growth of the “Campbellites,” as our enemies used to call us.

Dr. Ben M. Bogard, the leader of the American Baptist Association, wrote a letter of warning to his fellow Baptists entitled, “The Campbellites Are Coming.” Churches of Christ in almost every hamlet were growing. In 1950 through 1954 the church at Judsonia, Arkansas, where I was preaching, moved up from 60 members to 215. The denominations were trembling at the thought of 32 such churches of Christ in White County Arkansas alone. We moved to Bald Knob, Arkansas, still in White County. The church grew in attendance from 65 to above 200. And even in the 1970s, the work in Fort Smith (at the Park Hill church) grew, as we worked together, from 135 to 200 in regular attendance, with the contribution growing about $200 per Sunday the last six months I worked there.

This was happening to many other churches everywhere. Brother Cecil Douthitt began preaching for the Southside church in Fort Smith (having retired from full-time preaching), and they grew to such an extent that on occasions chairs had to brought in to accommodate the audience. While Olin Kern was working with the South 46th Street church, also in Fort Smith, the work and attendance were flourishing. Brother Lloyd Nash was the preacher at No. 9th in Fort Smith. And the building was full every Sunday.

But today you can go into almost any congregation and see about as many empty pews as full ones. You see the saintly, gray-haired, old timers and some others of the faithful few at gospel meetings, or at any night service. The young people have left the church in droves. War, contention, fussing, fighting, taking sides, dividing, splitting-the-split, are the rule over the past decade among us. Shame, brethren. Shame on us. Oh, but the hard-nosed Pharisee will respond, “You know the Bible says we are not to say ‘Peace, peace; where there is no peace.’ See Jeremiah 6:14; 8: 11. And you know the Bible says, ‘many are called and few chosen . . . . and strait is the gate and narrow the way.'” Fiddle-sticks! What has that got to do with the jealous, hateful attitudes that we have acquired over the past few years? First we stopped fighting the denominations, and then started fighting among ourselves; then we started fighting among the “conservatives”; and finally some have to fight it out within local churches. I have never seen so many splits over matters of so little substance, as some congregations have experienced of late.

We need peace with God and peace from God (1 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:21; Phil. 4:9). We need peace among ourselves (1 Thess. 5:13; Jas. 3:18). And inasmuch as in us lieth, let us live peaceably with all men (Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14). No, not peace at any price, but “peace that passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). “Let the peace of God rule in your hearts” (Col. 3:5). And let us discuss differences without anger, misrepresentation, or seeking to reap personal revenge upon those with whom we disagree. May we all seriously endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace Eph. 4:3). It’s high time that we started using all of these unity verses in the Bible on ourselves, and quit misapplying them to the denominations. God couldn’t care less that the denominations are divided.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 161, 184
March 21, 1985