Truth Magazine

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

By O.C. Birdwell

A sermon was preached in which sin, repentance, and forgiveness were discussed. The subject was the Corinthians, their sins, Paul’s rebuke of them, and their repentance. Some of the sins of these people were listed as follows: The “sins committed were numerous.” There was “factionalism,” “carnality,” and “unnecessary lawsuits.” They were “harboring an incestuous man.” They were “either deliberately or ignorantly violating the consciences of others. ” They were “not partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but conducting their own with over indulgences and excesses.” There was “failure to properly exercise spiritual gifts,” and “error regarding the resurrection” was taught.

The Corinthians “became arrogant” and “had not mourned.” It was affirmed that Paul’s letter “produced godly sorrow in them.” The letter was designed “to change their thinking.” They then “approved themselves to be pure.” Quite clearly this was after their sin, Paul’s first letter, and their repentance (2 Cor. 7: 11). It was shown that this case illustrates “genuine repentance.” It was also stated that “repentance is not genuine until the offense is stopped” and “there can be no forgiveness without repentance.”

This all sounds good and is scriptural, but the sermon was not over. The preacher went on to affirm that Paul’s letter was designed to change their thinking and keep them in the way of “being saved, ” and that “the lesson we must learn from this is what the Corinthians did in order to stay in the way that leads to ultimate salvation.” It was clearly inferred that while they were committing all the sins listed, at the same time, they stood before God in a saved relationship. It was affirmed that “true repentance removes any regrets and causes one to say, ‘I stopped it because it is, wrong and would eventually result in my eternal misery.”‘

I have no problem with the statement, “We are all in the process of being saved,’ 1 if by that it is meant that we are in the process of trying to go to heaven. The question I insist on being answered is, “Were those people, who were guilty of the above sins, standing before God in a saved relationship before their repentance? If they had died before their repentance, would they go to heaven?”

My Bible indicates that the guilty Corinthians, who were children of God, stood before God in a lost condition because of their sins. Those who were guilty of “factionalism” and “carnality” committed the sins of “envy, strife, and division” (1 Cor. 3:3) – sins listed by Paul in the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 which keep a Christian out of the kingdom of heaven. To those who were defiling the temple of God by division, Paul said, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy” (1 Cor. 3:16). To those involved in lawsuits, Paul said, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Those who cause a weak brother to stumble, “sin” against their brethren and “sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). The misuse of one’s liberties was still under discussion when Paul said, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27) and “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10: 12).

Regarding those who denied the resurrection, Paul had considerable to say. He identified the resurrection as fundamental to the doctrine of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Those who deny the bodily resurrection, also denied Christ’s resurrection by implication. Their false doctrines were dangerous, even to those who followed them with a good conscience. Paul warned, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). Those who did not keep the resurrection as part of their faith did not stay saved (1 Cor. 15:1-3). This is not a problem peculiar to the first century. There are brethren today who deny that there is a future second coming of Jesus and bodily resurrection. Are these false teachers in the “process of being saved”? Surely a gospel preacher could not describe those who deny the resurrection as being in the “process of being saved”!

Our Baptist friends have argued “once in grace, always in grace” for years. When one asks them about a person who was saved becoming involved in a sin, they sometimes reply, “He never was saved to start with.” Some of our brethren are not much different. They argue that a child of God who becomes involved in sin remains in the “process of being saved” in spite of his sins. If one raises the question of what would happen to this man if he is confronted with his sin and chooses to remain in it, these preachers begin to answer like our Baptist friends. If this man in the “process of being saved” commits a sin, they say he remains in a saved relationship with God. When you confront him and he decides to continue in his sin, he becomes lost. Hence, why should I tell him about his sin? My confronting him with his sin might cause him to become lost! There response is this: “If he chooses to stay in his sin, he never was saved to start with” (i.e., he never was good, honest, and sincere). The differences in these two positions are too small for me to distinguish.

If one will tell us plainly where the child of God stands before God, after he sins and before he repents, I believe the discussion on this subject will be over. Gospel preachers have fallen on hard times when they can’t tell a person who is guilty of carnality, factionalism, harboring an incestuous man, denying the resurrection of the body, and going to law with a brother whether or not they stand justified before God!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 166-167
March 21, 1985