Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

One of the areas in which Christianity and heathen ethics is in conflict is with reference to sexual conduct. That heathen ethic is gaining a greater percentage of the population than Christianity is seen in what conduct is displayed on television and in the movies. Sexual activity is frequently portrayed on television. Nothing is too intimate to be barred from television; television producers and actor have no sense of shame. The sexual activity which is portrayed or intimated is most frequently fornication or adultery; rarely is sexual activity intimated within the legitimate family relationship of husband and wife.

The stance of heathen ethics is reflected by the direct statement of humanism. The Humanist Manifesto II stated:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression(1), neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one (p. 18).

As this concept toward sexual activity becomes more widely accepted, th society in which we live will look with greater approval at fornication homosexuality, adultery, pornography, and prostitution. Christians will b, looked upon as prudes, out of touch and step with these modern times. Our children will be subjected to ridicule and temptation in this area with mor intensity than most of us faced as adolescents. We need to be reminded o the teachings of God’s word regarding sexual conduct.

The Conduct Of An Immoral Woman

The book of Proverbs contains the instructions of a father to his son. Repeatedly, the writer urges his son to listen to the wisdom and instruction of his father and mother. In several of the early chapters, the father warns his son of the dangers which an evil woman presents (2:16-19; 5:1-23; 6:24-35; 9:13-18). His repeated warnings remind us of what a danger sexual sin is for young people.(2) Although the Proverbs are written from the point of view of a father warning his son of the dangers of an immoral woman, the lesson are just as applicable when understood from the point of view of a mother warning her daughter of the dangers of an immoral man.

1. An immoral woman uses flattery. “For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil” (Prov. 5:3) She “flattereth with her words” (Prov. 2:16; 6:24). “With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him” (7:21). An evil woman who is seeking to seduce a man and an evil man which is trying to seduce a maiden uses flattery and smooth, sweet talk to lure the victim.

2. She flirts with her eyes. The wise man warned the young man not to allow the evil woman to “take thee with her eyelids” (6:25). Without a word being spoken, a young woman can indicate her willingness to participate through “body language.”

3. She draws attention to her body by her dress. The wise man warned the young man not to “lust after her beauty in thine heart” (6:25) and indicated that she would wear the “attire of an harlot” (7:10).

4. She is forward and bold. The evil woman has laid aside the reserved demeanor characteristic of a godly woman who has shamefacedness and modesty. “She is loud and stubborn” (7:11). “So she caught him, and kissed him, and with impudent face said . . . . ” (7:13). Notice the bold, unreserved and forward character displayed by the immoral woman.

5. She has no commitment to her marriage bond. She is ready to “forsake the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God” (2:17). The “guide of her youth” is her husband; the “covenant of her God” is the marriage covenant.(3) The fact that an immoral woman is married means nothing to her. If she desires to have an affair with another man, she is willing to turn her back on her previous commitment in favor of another man.

Reasons To Avoid The Evil Woman

Having described the conduct of the immoral woman, the wise man listed a number of reasons why the young man should avoid her. Here are some of them:

1. It is difficult to quit practicing the sin. “None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life” (2:19). Those who have tasted the forbidden fruit will return to it again and again. To bring the adulterer and fornicator to repentance is nearly impossible. They “shall be holden with the cords of his sin” (5:22).

2. The end result of this conduct is bitter. “For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead . . . . But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell” (2:18; 5:4-5). What seemed like pleasure at the beginning ends up in anguish, bitterness and sorrow. Laying aside the eternal aspects of the sin, the temporal aspects of a relationship with an immoral woman are enough reason to avoid her. She will be no more faithful to one man than another. She will dump you just as quickly as she dumped another to be with you.

3. One gives his honor, strength, and wealth to strangers. “Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: lest thou give thine honor unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labors be in the house of a stranger” (5:8-10). “The meaning of the verse is that a life of impurity transfers the profligate’s substance, his wealth and possessions, to others, who will be satiated at his expense, and, being strangers, are indifferent to his ruin.”(4) The clothes, jewelry, and money which are given to an immoral woman are thrown away. She has no loyalty to her benefactor. She will dump you and keep your substance.

4. He contacts social diseases. “And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed” (5:11). Associating with the ungodly, immoral woman will bring social diseases which will destroy the body.

5. He will have mental anguish as he remembers his rejection of divine instruction. As the ungodly sits with his head in his hand reaping his harvest after sowing to the flesh, he will remember the warnings given to him “and say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; and have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!” (5:12-13).

6. He will suffer the problems of jealousy. When a man commits adultery with another’s wife or girl friend, he must deal with the rage of an offended person. “For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts” (6:34-35). Those who run with the immoral frequently find themselves dealing with an enraged boy friend who wants to settle the score.

Eternal Consequences

Having described the temporal results of sexual immorality, let us also be reminded that sexual immorality has eternal results. “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings” (5:21). “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbor’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent” (6:27-29). Fornication is one of the sins which keeps a person out of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

Conclusion

Whatever attitude our society might develop toward sexual activity does not change God’s law on the matter. Sexual activity outside the marriage bed is sinful, a violation of God’s eternal law. If all of the world decides that homosexuality is a legitimate alternative life style, premarital sexual activity is acceptable and prepares one for marriage, and extra-martial sexual activity might help a marriage, Christians must realize that they are not going to be judged on the basis of what the world thinks but on the basis of what God says! Let those who respect God and His word be careful to avoid becoming involved in sexual sins.

Endnotes

1. Humanists state their opposition to exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression but do not explain why exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression are wrong. Is humanism manifesting an “intolerant attitude” when opposing exploitive, denigrating sexual expression! is humanism an “orthodox religion” or pan of a “puritanical culture” which unduly limits legitimate sexual expression when it opposes “exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression”? What one humanist labels “exploitive, denigrating” is just another humanists’ personal preference! Humanism is most inconsistent in this area.

2. What is happening among preachers, elders, deacons, Bible class teachers and others reminds us that the sin is not limited to the young people. Husbands and wives who have been married for 15-25 years are divorcing each other in order to seek another companion. Hence, the lesson of Proverbs are as applicable to us older sons and daughters as to younger sons and daughters.

3. Compare Jesus’ statement that God joins two together in marriage (Matt. 19:6).

4. W.J. Deane, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. IX, p. 110.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, pp. 450, 471
August 2, 1984

By Irven Lee

When we read the Bible, we should read with special interest because of the depth of wisdom that is there for us. The doctrine of Christ can be a blessing in any community and to any individual if there is an eagerness to learn and apply the teaching. His message is precious for any attentive student anywhere in the world in any century. This is true because the message is from our Creator who knows our need. Its universal application is proof of the divine origin of the word.

Christians are to be watchful or vigilant. One way to look around and see what is going on is to read about what others are doing. I get several papers that are published by men or churches that have their recreational centers and support some of the big central collecting and spending agencies. Some churches are publishing books of sermons. The fact that churches are publishing books interests me, but the content of some of these books interests me very much. Many of these papers and the sermons in these books are very able presentations of truth on many different subjects. Much Scripture is used in these lessons. There seems to be sincere earnestness and an eager desire to arouse all to the seriousness of our responsibility. The writings I have seen lately are not promoting the “bus ministry” craze or even referring to their “family life” buildings. Neither are they telling of the wonderful accomplishments of Herald of Truth or of their merit in building institutional homes for orphans and the aged. Topics they deal with are denominational error, worldliness and indifference among members, and of the need for more workers with knowledge, courage, and determination to spread the truth. They may have a whole book of sermons without one cutting remark about “anti-cooperationists” or about us under any other title. This reading interests me very much and leaves me wondering where we go from here. Some of their radio sermons interest me also.

The hate and bitterness of two or three decades ago built up a wall that is both sound proof and opaque. People on that side of the wall may hardly know we are over here. We must put forth some effort to know what is going on over there. When I hear that some “Church of Christ” has won a soft ball game it played with the “Church of God,” I have little desire to attend worship services at either place. It then amazes me to hear that the “pulpit minister” at that church has an excellent knowledge of the Bible and preaches the truth very effectively. These better preachers among them may be losing their zeal for these unscriptural carnal additions. It would not be easy to get them to defend in public debate the very things that brought about the pathetic division and built the wall between us.

The bus ministry, picnics, games, and steak suppers brought growth to many churches where preachers were skilled as entertainers, but this growth was cancerous. Such unhealthy growth left these churches very sick in many cases. Maybe the promoters of the bus ministry have had treatment in mental health clinics or maybe the bankers from the banks where the churches do business talked to them. It may be that the wild behavior of children brought in by the excitement of bus trips to Opryland or Six Flags, stops by the ice cream store, and cash prizes hidden under the bus seats scared parents who wanted their children to have reverence. Something, whatever it was, seems to have gotten through to these sensational promoters. they seem to be quiet now as far as I know.

Some of the churches never did buy buses, build kitchens, or organize ball teams. They just gave to Herald of Truth, some orphan home, or to some sponsoring church that had assumed the oversight of preachers in some foreign country. They were also taught to say “fanatics,” “trouble makers,” and “antis” when referring to those thus labeled by some of the influential editors and preachers. In their preaching, some never made so much change.

Some preachers became defenders of denominationalism rather than of the faith. They copied the teaching of Calvinistic commentaries and modernistic protestants until they now are a part of the crowd. They are even changing the marks of identity on the signboards in front of their buildings. They are gone. Any comments about their parents and former brethren are critical. Papers they send out should be sent to the Baptists or Presbyterians because they would be more acceptable to them.

A few men ran backward past Jerusalem and on to Jericho. So many of their scruples are made laws that they find very few followers. It is a long way from this position of these ultra strict people to the sons and daughters of church members who have become defenders of modern Protestantism, which no longer protests. No bridge will ever span this gulf. The church grew rapidly during the depression years and the war years, but there came a sort of explosion about thirty years ago. Former brethren were scattered in all directions. The Christ was put to an open shame (Heb. 6:6).

I have written to a few of my old school mates who write good articles and send their papers to me. The usual response is absolute silence. No answer is returned. I have sent copies of my book, Preaching In A Changing World, and asked them to point out errors in it. No response comes from this request, either. On a few occasions I have found men who would preach on some subject like benevolence or the sponsoring church immediately after I have preached on the same subject. The two of us would preach on the same subject to the same audience on the same night. Audiences on such occasions have been large, courteous, and attentive.

It may be that many individuals will return to the old paths. Some have returned, including some whole congregations. The only satisfactory way for us to get together is by teaching and conversion. Evidently, the more conservative among- them are not far away. They would not have to make many changes to be much appreciated brethren among us.

The apostasy of the Herald of Truth opens the way back. Some have lost all respect for this expensive project. Now that colleges can appeal to churches for money without opposition, the keen drive to build institutional homes for the aged and orphans has ended. The “homes” that are in existence generally have large amount on savings. They are quiet.

A word to devout young Christians may be in order. They need to be well informed on the principles that are involved lest they be deceived. With much patience they may reach a few. It will not be easy because so many have been taught to be blind and deaf to us. Social ties will make it very hard for any who decide they should reject the things that are without scriptural authority. The sermons and articles that are true to the book and evidently common among them give some room for hope. Compromise is no good solution to any problem. Good sermons from heretics may do much harm.

A word of caution is very much in order. Young people who have grown up since the digression of thirty years ago may visit the churches that practice several unscriptural or unauthorized things, but they may hear a few good sermons and suppose that all is well. First they should notice the announcements and look at the financial report. Is that church going beyond the doctrine of Christ? (See 2 John 9-11). If it has already added a few things, it may add others any time. If it does not hesitate to go beyond that which is written it is already in trouble. See that you walk circumspectly (Eph. 5:15). Beliefs, attitudes, and practices will have to change before they are in the safe way. Preachers of the Christian Church may no longer preach on instrumental music, but it still practices it and many other unscriptural things.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, pp. 464-465
August 2, 1984

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Please give your understanding of 1 Corinthians 7. 10, 11. I do not feel that Paul meant that one has the right to separate just because he does not want to live with his spouse any longer.

Reply: In this section of Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, he is dealing with some matters about which the Corinthian brethren had written to him (7:1). Specifically, he is dealing with some inquiries regarding the marriage relationship.

The verses under consideration read: “But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife” (1 Cor. 7: 10,11).

This is a direct simple charge from the Lord. The wife is not to depart from her husband. This is the general rule which is explicitly laid down and must be obeyed. The idea is that marriage was never intended to be on a “trial” basis, separation allowed for any reason upon which the parties may agree. The seriousness of marriage is emphasized. Two people have made a commitment to each other for life and these vows are to be honored. A wife who simply decides to walk out on her husband and no longer fulfill her marriage contract is forbidden to do so in these verses. The wife is not to depart from her husband.

The first part of the next sentence is parenthetical, (“but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband”) and then follows the rest of the verse, “and that the husband leave not his wife.” The general teaching of not separating applies to the husband as well as the wife. It is “a two way street.” Jesus had repeated what is said in Genesis 2:24 when He asked, “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4,5). So, the parallel of this basic principle of marriage is simple. The wife is not to depart from her husband and the husband is not to depart from his wife.

The parenthetical clause of verse eleven presents an exception, but Paul in no way is encouraging separation without a cause. Marriage is not always without difficulties; but, when both marriage partners are Christians, they have a common tie. They are both children of God, who can pray together and have the word of God to guide them. When each partner has the proper attitude, problems of the most difficult kind can be solved. Too many married couples fail to respect the teaching of God’s word on marriage. They either fail or refuse to recognize that marriage is for as long as both shall live. “For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth . . .” (Rom. 7:2). So, the exception in the parenthetical clause of verse eleven is to the basic or general principle of marriage. If, for instance, the marriage should reach such incompatibility (severe physical abuse, etc.) that it could no longer be peaceful and harmonious, one may resort to departing; or both parties may agree to separate. However, separation itself does not give either one a scriptural right to remarry. To simply separate and remarry would constitute adultery. The marriage is not dissolved by mere separation. Civil law allows divorce and remarriage for incompatibility and other causes than adultery, however Jesus gave but one exception: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). In the event of separation, Paul declares, “let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:11). She is not to marry someone else. The same applies, of course, to the husband. It is either live a single life or be reconciled.

The idea of the two verses (1 Cor. 7:10, 11) is not to condone the idea of separation simply because one marriage partner decides that he does not wish to continue living with the other. Many marriages fail because couples first think about separation as the solution to their problems instead of first trying to work out their problems and be reconciled. Every effort should be made to continue the marriage, and separation should be only the last resort after all efforts of reconciliation have failed. If this procedure were followed, no doubt many more marriages could be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, p. 453
August 2, 1984

By Emerson L. Flannerv

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These sixteen words in our Constitution were unique and have proven to be most beneficial to both church and state for 200 years.

One great American jurist, David Dudley Field, in 1893 wrote: “The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of church and state. If we had nothing else to boast of, we could lay claim with justice that first among the nations we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his Maker were a private concern, into which other men have no right to intrude. To measure the stride thus made for the Emancipation of the race, we have only to look back over the centuries that have gone before us, and recall the dreadful persecutions in the name of religion that have filled the world” (“American Progress,” Jurisprudence, New York, Martin B. Brown, 1893, p. 6).

From ancient times the priests and kings jostled for top position, for total power over the inhabitants. It was a battle in which first one then the other held the upper hand. Times were most dangerous to the citizens when there was a “marriage” of priest and king (church and state), where the state carried out the will of the church. This can be clearly seen in the history of Egypt, Mesopotamian empires, pre-Christian Rome and following civil governments.

Christianity Oppressed

In its early history, Rome exhibited a great tolerance to religions. Worship of state gods was expected of its citizens; but in addition, private family cults were tolerated, as long as they did not intervene in the political arena, where the state religion enjoyed a monopoly. But by the time emperor-worship was fully established, much of this tolerance had disappeared. The Roman rulers, noting the Jews’ adherence to monotheism, burned their cities, destroyed their places of worship, and scattered them throughout the empire. Eventually they softened a bit, saying the Jews need not pray to the emperor, but only pray for him.

The early Christians, too, suffered much at the hands of the Roman rulers. Nero persecuted Christians as arsonists, but by the time of Trajan, simply to be a Christian was a criminal offense – the name itself constituting the offense! Under Valerian the church was declared to be an illicit corporation. Its property was confiscated, its meetings forbidden, its “clergy” declared guilty of conspiracy to commit treason. Finally, the Edict of Milan, 312-313 A.D., declared that “liberty of worship shall not be denied to any, but that the mind and will of every individual shall be free to manage divine affairs according to his own choice.”

The Church Becomes The Oppressor

Within seven years of the Edict of Milan the pendulum was swinging the other way, and the “church” became the oppressor. The “clergy” was freed from public burdens. They got the state to forbid heathen sacrifices. Two years later they got the state to declare the “Christian Sunday” a legal holiday, and urban citizens were forbidden to work on that day. In the year 346, all non-Christian temples were ordered closed and the death penalty was meted out to all who offered sacrifices. The “heretics” (those who do not agree with the “church”) could not build church buildings, hold religious assemblies, or even teach their doctrines privately. “The principle that religious unity ought to be imposed in one way or another dominates the whole of the Christian Middle Ages, and finds a concise and rigorous sanction in civil as well as in ecclesiastical legislation” (Francesco Ruffini, Religious Liberty, London, Williams and Norgate, 1912, p. 36). This position was pushed by Augustine, who stated, “When error prevails, it is right to invoke liberty of conscience; but when, on the contrary, the truth predominates, it is just to use coercion” (M. Searles Bates, Religious Liberty: An Inquiry, New York, 1945, p. 139).

What Augustine was saying is that in countries where the Catholics are in the minority they should be granted religious freedom because of their conscience; but in countries where they are in the majority (say Italy or Argentina) religious freedom should be denied to the minority on the grounds they arr. in “error” and that this minority should meet with coercion. (The late president Franklin D. Roosevelt believed and said the same thing, asking fundamentalist evangelists to come home from Argentina.)

Some Problems As To Separation Today

In drawing the line of separation between church and state, there are some “gray” areas – some matters of difficulty as to who has the jurisdiction. Our civil authorities observe the results of Jonesville, the falsifying by certain cults, children dying because their parents’ religion forbids blood transfusions, innoculations, radiation treatment, etc. Does “religion” have the right to force on minor children a practice that will lead to the death of the child? Has it not become a “civil” right in such cases? If so, the state should interveNow, religion has done so, and some are still doing so. But if religion should be dealing with spiritual matters, should not the discipline (punishment) be of a spiripal nature? We personally believe (and we take the New Testament as our standard in religion) that no religion, no congregation has the authority of capital or corporal punishment. The state should interfere with any religion, any church, that sought to do so. Freedom of religion does not mean the church may ignore the building codes enacted for the safety of all. The fireman should have the right to check church houses to see that they are meeting the fire codes. It seems to me, since the church benefits by police and fire protection, by streets leading to our meeting house, that we should pay our fair taxes to the state for these services. Otherwise we are preaching “separation of church and state” while asking the state to give these services as a donation to the church. As Jesus said, we must “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21).

Civil Government Is God-ordained

Christians ought to have a respect for civil government for it is God-ordained. Paul wrote the Christians in Rome (58 A.D.), “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power (government), resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. . . ” (Romans 13:1-4a). It is good to have civil government! Civil government was meant by God to be a terror to evil men, and a praiser of those citizens who do good. But to exist, civil government must have taxes, soldiers, policemen and civil servants. Christians ought not to oppose the government in these things, but cooperate in every way they can.

The Church Is Ordained Of God

In the spiritual realm, Christ purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), and He Himself became the head of the church, having all authority (Eph. 1:20-23). His church was to be directed by elders (we speak of the local congregation) who met the qualifications He Himself laid down in His word (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1). Their oversight was limited to the one congregation that had selected and appointed them (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Christ instructed the elders to feed the flock (church). They were to maintain the moral purity in the congregation by withdrawing fellowship from members who violated Christ’s teaching. Paul wrote, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:1-5). And in this same chapter Paul continues, “But now I have written unto you to keep company, if any man that is called a brother (in Christ, ELF) be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not to eat . . . . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:11-13). So elders and congregations have been ordered by Christ through the inspired apostles to discipline members who have become “wicked persons”, and he has stated what constitutes wickedness.

Conflicts arise between church and state when either invades the realm of the other. When the state leaves the realm of civil government and gets into moral issues; approving what the New Testament condemns – abortion, homosexuality, atheism, etc. – the state cannot silence the church by claiming these are political matters, an arena the church should not enter. These are spiritual and moral matters, the very arena the church must enter and fight with all her might. When the church leaves the realm of spiritual matters and enters the realm of the political and state, then the church is out of place and a conflict is bound to occur.

Recent Lawsuits Against the Church

Did the state of Oklahoma interfere in church matters recently when the courts of that state rendered a judgment of $390,000 against the elders and the members of the Collinsville Church of Christ for withdrawing from a member who confessed to being a fornicator, according to a report in Time (March 26, 1984, p. 70)? Marian Guinn, who filed the suit, objected to the elders reading a letter to the congregation stating why she was being withdrawn from, charging it was “an invasion of her privacy, intentionally causing emotional distress and shattering her “whole world!” It is well to remember the elders dealt with a congregational matter. They did what the New Testament teaches a congregation must do in such cases (see above). It was, actually, none of the state of Oklahoma’s business, for Mrs. Guinn’s civil rights were not infringed upon. Any embarrassment she suffered was caused by her own actions. The elders had to take the action they did or disobey Christ’s teaching.

Here is the letter the elders at Collinsville mailed to Mrs. Guinn, as reported in Weekly World News (April 3, p. 5): “It is with tremendous concern for your soul and the welfare of the Lord’s Church that we exhort you to consider the impact of the results of the course you have elected to pursue. We have, and will continue, to follow the instructions set forth in the scriptures in dealing with matters of church discipline . . . We have confronted you personally; however, to date you have not responded, so you leave us no alternative but to ‘tell it to the church.’ If by the close of the worship services Sunday morning, Sept. 27, you have not indicated a penitent heart by public acknowledgment of your sin of fornication, a statement will be read aloud to the congregation, with an exhortation for each to make contact with you for the purpose of encouragement, that you might ‘hear them’ and repent. If you so choose not to heed these exhortations, by the close of the worship services Sunday morning, Oct. 4, a statement will be read by the elders, to exclude you from the fellowship of the Body of Christ, and notify sister congregations, which means not to associate with you . . . Our purpose in exercising this discipline is to “save your soul.”‘

The only punishment by the congregation was the excluding from fellowship of a member who was a fornicator and who admitted it. That is the only punishment a church can ever use in withdrawing from an unfaithful or wicked member who will not repent. Albert Barnes commented on 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which tells us to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,” as follows: “We cease to have fellowship with him. We do not regard him any longer as a Christian brother. We separate from him. We do not seek to affect him in any other respect; we do not injure his name or standing as a man, or hold him up to reprobation; we do not follow him with a denunciation or a spirit of revenge; we simply cease to recognize him as a Christian brother, when he shows that he is no longer worthy to be regarded as such. We do not deliver him over to the civil arm; we do not inflict any positive punishment on him; we leave him unmolested in all his rights as a citizen, a man, a neighbor, a husband, a father, and simply say that he is no longer one of us as a Christian” (Barnes On The New Testament, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, p. 99).

The suit of Marian Guinn for $1.3 million in which the courts granted her a settlement of $390,000, is a blatant crossing by the state into church affairs. This has already spawned other suits. Such decisions will cause the churches that practice New Testament discipline among its members to lose its property, its income, its ability to function in the work of the church. A congregation cannot function without discipline. A state cannot continue to exist that does not or will not protect the civil rights of its citizens. It would not deserve to continue. There are some gray areas concerning the separation of church and state and these should be pursued. But the congregation action of withdrawing from an ungodly member is not one of the gray area issues. Let us maintain separation of church and state.

We are pleased to report $1 million will have been contributed by May 6th to enable this Oklahoma case to be appealed to the Supreme Court by the Collinsville church, and several good attorneys, some of whom are Christians, have

volunteered their services in this appeal. Let us hope (and pray) the appeal will be a successful one.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, pp. 451-452, 470
August 2, 1984