Truth Magazine

By Bill Imrisek

Several times in the past couple of weeks I have been asked by different people a similar question that pertains to marriage and divorce. The frequency with which this question has been asked leads me to believe that others may also be interested in the principles that are involved in it. For this reason I would like to set forth the question that has been asked along with my reasons for answering it as I do.

The question is: Would you, as a preacher, knowingly join in marriage a man and a woman where either one or both of them had been married previously but involved in a divorce for unscriptural reasons? My answer to this question is, absolutely not. Let me explain why.

Some Preliminary Matters

To answer this question satisfactorily there are some matters that need clarification.

Matter 1: Performing marriages is not a responsibility imposed upon me in the scriptures by reason of my being a preacher. It is merely a privilege granted to me by the government. As a preacher, I may choose to perform a marriage ceremony if I see in it the opportunity to teach God’s truth about the marriage relationship, its obligations and responsibilities. But on the other hand, I also have the right to choose not to perform such a ceremony if, out of respect for my conscience and regard for the teaching of God’s word, I believe that the resulting marriage would be a sinful relationship. That which God condemns I cannot fellowship (Eph. 5:11).

Matter 2: To speak of a “divorce for unscriptural reasons” implies that God has something to say about the matter. And, indeed, He does. It is God who created the marriage relationship and it is God’s will that must govern it. After stating that marriage was intended by God to be a permanent relationship, i.e., until death (Matt. 19:4-6), Jesus instructs us, “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).

From this passage I learn, (1) that God allows only one ground for divorce – fornication; (2) that to divorce for any other cause and then to remarry is to commit adultery; (3) :hat a marriage contracted with the one who has been put away for fornication is deemed adulterous; and thus, (4) the only one who is free to marry again after a divorce is the one who put away his mate upon the ground of his mate’s fornication. Other passages in the New Testament that deal with this matter are: Matthew 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-11; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3.

As a preacher I am told to “preach the word” (2 Tim.4:2). If this is the truth, then this is what I must teach. The truth says that a marriage, which involves a party from a previous marriage which was dissolved for other reasons than fornication, is adulterous; and a marriage, which involves one who has previously been put away for fornication, is adulterous. To assist in the creation of such a sinful relationship by the performing of a marriage ceremony would itself be sinful (Prov. 4:14-15; Eph. 5:11).

The Heart of the Matter

When a preacher joins in marriage a man and woman who do not have a lawful right (according to God’s law) to marry, he is:

(1) Making sin appear respectable. Although the concept of a couple just “living together” without the benefits of marriage is becoming more widespread in our society, the majority of people still frown on such a relationship. They would rather see the couple get married. Marriage is still considered more respectable. But let us remember that sin is still sin, whether it is the sin of “living together” in a blatantly immoral relationship or if it is the sin of being “married together” in a relationship that God calls “adulterous.” The preacher who would join together in a marriage those who do not have a lawful right to marry from God’s viewpoint would be helping the couple camouflage sin (adultery) and would be making what is sinful appear respectable (by calling it marriage).

(2) Lending his endorsement to an adulterous relationship. Proverbs 16:30 teaches that to remain silent when an evil is being perpetrated is to “bring evil to pass.” “He that compresseth his lips bringeth evil to pass.” Rather than endorsing this relationship, the preacher ought to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). He ought to be preaching, “Let marriage be had in honor among you, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Rather than lending his endorsement to an adulterous relationship, the preacher (as well as every Christian) is to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

(3) Asking the couple to make promises which they have no right to make. In the marriage vows, the couple promise to commit themselves to each other in the relationship “until death do us part.” If this marriage is a relationship that God calls “adultery,” then the preacher is asking the couple to promise that they will commit adultery for the rest of their lives!

(4) Asking God to bless an arrangement that God condemns. Almost without fail, at some point during the marriage ceremony, the preacher will pray to God asking God to bestow His blessings upon the newlyweds. But if this relationship is adulterous, can God bless what He condemns? The prophet Balaam attempted to get God to curse those whom God had blessed (Num. 22:12; 23:8), but the preacher who would join this couple to each other would be asking God to bless something which He has already cursed (Eph. 5:3, 5).

(5) Helping them to sever their relationship to Christ and to loose all rights to heaven. This must be the most serious consequence of the actions of a preacher who would unite in marriage a man and a woman who do not have a scriptural right to marry. As for fornicators or adulterers, the Bible says, “Their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8); and again, “They who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Eph. 5:19-21). How can one be dedicated as a preacher to ministering to the souls of men and yet assist them. in severing their relationship to Christ? This reflects again the activities of Balaam who “taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel . . . and to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:14), in order to bring God’s curse upon Israel.

Rather than assisting people to sin we ought to be teaching them the truth of God’s word and be leading them out of the bondage of sin, instructing them to “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 663-664
October 16, 1980

By Mackey W. Harden

As was noted in the first article of this series, the words warn and admonish are synonyms. They are used in many cases interchangeably. Whereas the KJV employs both words, other versions would not make a distinction and would use the word admonish. W.E. Vine defines it as: “to put in mind, admonish . . . It is used, (a) of instruction, (b) of warning.” He goes on to give an important distinction between admonish and teach. Mr. Vine says, “The difference between `admonish’ and `teach’ seems to be that, whereas the former has mainly ih view of things that are wrong and call for warning (emphasis mine, mwh), the latter has to do chiefly with the impartation of positive truth, cp. Col. 3:16.” “Admonition differs from remonstrance, in that the former is warning based on instruction (emphasis mine, mwh); the latter may be little more than expostulation.”

We glean from the writings of the apostle Paul, some admonitions that he gave to the Christians of the first century. These warnings and instructions will help us tremendously in our day-to-day struggle with the forces of evil. Paul wrote these admonitions in hopes of strengthening the spiritual lives of all Christians. People in the world today should realize a very important point about Paul, viz. he did not believe in the doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” Paul knew he could fall, and that he needed to be very cautious lest he did! “But I keep under my body and bring it unto subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, l myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27). If Paul (an apostle) had the fear of sinning so as to be lost, then you and I need to realize that we can, too. This should point out to us the importance of taking heed to Paul’s admonitions.

Admonitions

We are going to examine some “Biblical Admonitions” (in general) that Paul gives in the New Testament (KJV). In the articles to come we will entertain some specific admonitions and warnings.

(1) One another. “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. And I myself am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Rom. 15:13-14). If we as Christians would admonish one another as we should, it would help us a great deal in fighting off temptations that cause us to fall. It is our responsibility to admonish one another as we strive for that eternal home. To the Christians at Colossae, Paul wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly with all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16).

(2) Elders, preachers, and teachers. It is the responsibility of these men to admonish the local church. “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you” (1 Thess. 5:12). Elders should employ admonishment as they exercise oversight of a local congregation of God’s people. Teachers should admonish their students in Bible classes-. Gospel preaching should be in such fashion as to admonish Christians to be faithful, and to be careful of the world and its lusts. Too many times there is not enough good, strong teaching and preaching going on in a congregation, to properly admonish the members to greater zeal and faithfulness.

(3) Christians who are disciplined. Paul had much to say in his two letters to the church at Thessalonica, concerning church discipline of those who walk disorderly. In closing out his. second letter he concludes by stating, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14-15). The attitude that a congregation displays toward an erring brother or sister is of utmost importance. I fear that some who have church discipline exercised upon them are treated like an enemy. This should not be! Paul says that we are to admonish him or her (warn, instruct) to return to their rightful place in the church, because he is our brother and we are concerned about his soul.

(4) Fathers to children. We who are fathers have the responsibility to admonish our children concerning the Lord. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). We should discipline our children as we raise them, and also instruct them in the ways of the Lord Jesus. If we do not admonish our children about Jesus, but allow them to be trained in the ways of the world, we will surely lose them. If this responsibility was heeded by more fathers, we would not be having many serious problems with our teenagers being unfaithful to the Lord. How about it fathers?

(5) Heretics. Paul wrote Titus, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit. 3:10-11). According to Thayer’s lexicon a heretic is a false teacher. We are to admonish and warn false teachers to cease their divisive teachings. If they do not take heed to the first admonition, then we are to admonish them a second time. If he still continues to propagate false doctrine, then we are to reject him, which means to avoid association with him.

(6) Remember Old Testament Examples. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul reviews with the Corinthians some grevious mistakes that had been made by the children of Israel hundreds of years before. The reasoning behind this was to let their mistakes serve as examples to Christians, so that we will not fall prey to them, too. “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Cor. 10:11). Yes, we can learn from the mistakes of others. If we will look to the Old Testament Scriptures and study them, we can learn many things to help keep us from falling. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 661-662
October 16, 1980

By Mike Willis

Among the things which have driven a wedge between brethren in the past twenty-five to thirty years has been the church support of orphan homes. Charges have been hurled back and forth through these years; alienation has set in; contact between brethren has been nearly completely broken. There is a call being sounded by some brethren for unity (a unity-in-diversity which simply postulates unity despite our differences). Inasmuch as some are calling for unity, it is necessary that everyone understand what has divided us. It seems rather naive to think that we can be united without discussing what divided us in the first place.

Some False Charges

Before discussing what issues actually are dividing brethren with reference to church support of orphan homes, I would like to dispose of several blatantly false charges which have sometimes been hurled at those opposed to church support of orphan homes.

1. “The anti’s do not believe in taking care of orphans.” Sometimes people have charged that we do not believe in taking care of orphans when discussing this issue. Lest someone be inclined to believe that lie, let me categorically state that I believe that God has commanded Christians to take care of widows and orphans to the best of their ability. James plainly taught this to be the responsibility of the Christian when he write, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted front the world” (Jas. 1:27). We are commanded to do good to all men, but especially to the house of God, as we have the opportunity (Gal. 6:10).

I have been busy this morning working to find a home for an orphan. In the past couple of years, I have helped to find homes for three different children. I have never known of a case of an individual in need of a home being left destitute by those who stand opposed to church support of orphan homes. As a matter of fact, I have heard several preaching brethren state that they could personally find enough homes for orphaned children to empty any orphan home presently being supported by church contributions. Hence, those who state that “the anti’s do not believe in taking care of orphans” are telling a lie. The lie is told with the intention of deceiving and prejudicing.

2. “The anti’s are trying to bind a method of orphan care not legislated by God. ” Sometimes brethren are told that this whole debate is concerned with methods. That simply is not the case. Everybody to my knowledge admits that, in caring for orphans, methods will need to be used to care for them. No one is opposed to renting or buying a house, employing a full-time doctor or using a doctor on a per visit basis, buying clothes, food, and shoes for a child. Everyone admits that in caring for orphans these things will have to be done and that judgment will dictate which method is best for accomplishing these purposes. No one is condemning anyone else for matters of judgment.

What is being discussed is which organization should provide the services, the church or a human institution? What is being discussed is whether the church or the individual Christian is obligated in these areas. However, once these two matters are determined, brethren are not divided over matters of judgment regarding mere methods or caring for orphan children. Though brethren may not agree with each other’s judgment in these regards, both sides have enough maturity to realize that judgmental matters should not divide us.

What Are The Issues?

We are then faced with the question, “What are the issues which are dividing brethren?” This is not a difficult question to answer. As a matter of fact, I think that I can summarize the differences in two points. The matters which are dividing us are as follows:

1. A difference regarding whether or not the church has an obligation to care for non-Christians. Some people call this the “general benevolence” question. The question boils down to this issue: has God placed upon the local church the obligation to care for the poor and indigents of the world? Is the church involved in the same kind of work as the Salvation Army?

Behind this question is the more general question of how involved should the church be in social works. Those who are calling for the church to be establishing and maintaining orphan homes are also calling for churches to establish and maintain colleges, old folks’ homes, medical missionaries and clinics (in other words, church supported hospitals), church sponsored recreation, and other social works. At some point in time, the question must be raised, “Is the church to be involved in social works of this nature.”

Some years ago, Luther Blackmon showed the relationship of church support of orphan homes to the general idea of church involvement in social work. He commented,

The orphan home is the key that unlocked the treasuries of the churches of Christ to human institutions. And now that the unauthorized benevolent institutions have been accepted and are defended as a part of our traditional practice, the wedge has been driven and the leak in the dike has become a flood. Now we are hearing such expressions as “where there is no pattern,” and “we do a lot of things for which we don’t have scriptural authority,” and “where does the Bible say we can’t do it this way?” Some are clamoring for “Church of Christ” hospitals. During the last lectureship at David Lipscomb College brother Marshall Keeble, well known Negro evangelist prophesied that in a few years we would have them. He allowed he would rather be shot by a Christian nurse and cut on by a Christian doctor than by some sectarian. That was his proof for “Church of Christ” hospitals. But that is as good as anyone can give for “Church of Christ” orphan homes. The same Bible that says visit the fatherless says visit the sick. If visiting the fatherless demands that the church set up orphan homes, visit the sick demands that the church set up hospitals (quoted from the tract, “Benevolence, The Brethren and The Bible”).

Brother Blackmon correctly perceived that the orphan home issue was but the tip of the iceberg of the larger issue of church involvement in the social issues of the given day.

Though the individual Christian has a responsibility to help unfortunate suffering people as he has the opportunity (Mk. 9:41; Matt. 25:31-36; 1 Tim. 6:17-18; Jas. 2:14-17; etc.), Christ has not placed upon the local church the responsibility of relieving the needs of the poor and suffering of the entire world. Rather, the work of the local church is primarily evangelistic in nature; its work of benevolence is secondary, inasmuch as it has a responsibility only to the poor among the saints. Notice that the passages which speak of church supported benevolent work speak only of the church helping saints (cf. Acts 2:43-46; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-31). Although there can be no doubt that the first century had its share of orphans and poor people, we can only read where the church helped saints from its first-day-of-the-week treasury.

If our liberal brethren are going to preach that the church should become involved in the support of such social programs, they should provide the Bible authority for the church to support poor non-Christians. In the absence of Bible authority for the church to help non-Christians, the practice of involving the church in general benevolence stands condemned.

2. The second issue which divides brethren with reference to church support of orphan homes presupposes that the church has a financial responsibility to nonbelievers. This is granted for the sake of argument, not granted as proven. Hence, the second area of disagreement is this: assuming that the church has the responsibility to care for orphans, the church is fully sufficient to take care of them without the creation of another institution to do that work for it.

This position pertains to the all-sufficiency of the church. The church is all-sufficient to accomplish whatever work God gave it to do. It is all-sufficient in the realm of evangelism; therefore, there is no need for the creation of a church supported missionary society. The church supported missionary society is created because men do not believe that the church, unaided by human institutions, can accomplish the great work of taking the gospel to the whole world. If this argument has any validity with reference to the missionary society, it has the same validity for benevolent work; the conclusion with reference to benevolence would be the same as with reference to evangelism. If it is wrong for the church to send funds to a human institution to do its work of evangelism, it is also wrong for the church to send funds to a human institution to do its work of benevolence: If God has placed the responsibility of caring for the poor and indigents of this world upon the church, His church is fully sufficient to do this job without making donations to a human institution to do the work for it.

Hence, if proposition number one is granted, the second disagreement would continue to divide us. God does not allow the church to do its work through another human institution. The church is responsible for doing the work which God gave it to do. It is fully capable of doing whatever work God has charged it with doing without depending upon a human institution to do it for the church.

The Issue And Division

The issue of church support of orphan homes is dividing us. Brethren are being forced or have been forced to choose whether to leave a given congregation which decided to contribute to some human institution to care for orphan or forsaken children, or else to violate their consciences. In some cases, the contribution to the human institution was clearly a token contribution to demonstrate where the church stood on the issue. For a congregation of 200 people to send a contribution of $25.00 per month to an orphan home was certainly not significant toward relieving the needs of orphans, assuming the church had a responsibility toward them in the first place. If the responsibility was placed on the church, a church of that size should be sendin 5-10 times that much money per month to meet its obligations. However, the contribution was sent as a token to indicate which side of the fence the church stood on. It resulted in the divison of the body of Christ!

Hence, we are divided brethren. Now, some are calling for unity – the very same unity which we called for prior to, during, and after the division occurred. There is this significant difference. The approach to unity which today’s liberals are calling for demands that we bury our heads in the sand with reference to what divides us. That kind of unity allows the sinful practice to continue; the one practicing the controverted matter which divides us not called upon to quit practicing his sin. Rather, the one opposing the practice is told to quit opposing it. If this kind of unity will work, it will work on the issue of instrumental music in worship, church support of missionary societies, and the purpose of baptism. That this is the brand of unity proposed is obvious to anyone willing to see. I have not heard any of our liberal brethren confessing that they sinned when they introduced church support of orphan homes. What I have heard is a group of brethren calling for us to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who introduced the church support of human institutions, to those who continue to send contributions to human institutions, and to those who defend as biblically authorized the practice of sending contributions from the church treasuries to human institutions as warranted by God. I can see no way for unity to exist so long as we continue to be divided over this issue.

Either the liberals were wrong in introducing the church support of orphan homes, in which case they loosed where God has bound, or we were wrong in opposing church support of orphan homes, in which case we bound where God has loosed. In either case, a full discussion of what divided us is going to be necessary before unity can be restored. Someone will have to repent of his sin before unity can be restored. Someone will have to ask God’s forgiveness before unity can be restored. Yes, the issues of church support of orphan homes continues to divide us. Beneath the issue lies the crucial difference of attitudes toward Bible authority and that is why the division continues until repentance occurs.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 659-661
October 16, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

We can give credit where it is due without thinking of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). If a man’s work must praise or shame him among his fellows, yet there are no grounds of boasting over his accomplishments (Prov. 31:31). For, “what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7, NASV). While fruit may abound to one’s account, yet the vineyard is the Lord’s alone (Jn. 15:1-10). He alone gives life, strength, and opportunities for our labors. If faithful service is rendered, still it is but that, for we are not masters but only servants. “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded ye, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

The successes and failures of other brethren should serve to instruct us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). The example of faithful service inspires – us to faithful service. Though this is a world of sin and sorrow, still there is room to share gladness and gratitude. We must constantly resist sin, temptation, and over-confidence in men. Still it is our privilege to express joy and thanks for dedicated men, sacrificial men, zealous men, “men that have hazzarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26).

The restoration of erring brethren gives great cause for rejoicing, just as the conversion of a single alien sinner does (Gal. 6:1; Lk. 15:7, 10). When erring brethren are restored to faithfulness, souls are saved from death and a multitude of sins is hidden (Jas. 5:19-20). In Second Corinthians, Paul tells how discouraged he was by the shameful conduct of certain ones. But when Titus came and told him the Corinthians had cleared themselves in obedience to the truth, Paul was greatly encouraged! Titus “told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more . . . yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all . . . I rejoice therefore that I have confidence in you in all things” (7:6-16).

In Second Timothy 4, Paul’s discouragement is seen in that “Demas hath forsaken me,” “Alexander . . . did me much evil,” and, “at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” Yet others were faithful co-laborers, retained Paul’s confidence, and were a source of encouragements to him. He looks to Timothy: “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me.” Paul sent Tychicus on an errand “to Ephesus.” Some are named as sending greeting to Timothy, and he is to give greetings to others named by Paul. Above all, Paul retained his confidence in God who cannot fail, who “will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom.”

Above all, we too must learn to put our confidence in God, and “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Still, each of us has influence for good or evil: we can encourage and edify, or discourage and destroy (1 Cor. 15:33; Rom. 14). Faithful attendance in worship provokes others “unto love and to good works”; “forsaking the assembling” makes hearts heavy and discouraged (Heb. 10:24-26). We are encouraged by those “steadfast in the faith,” discouraged by compromise, worldliness, and indifference (Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:9). Truly, “the kingdom of God is . . . righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). If there are sorrows and sufferings to endure, there is also far greater joy fulfilled in the people of God (2 Tim. 3:12; Jn. 17:13). If we must rebuke those who err from the faith, we also must thank God for faithful saints who preserve in the blood sprinkled way!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 658
October 16, 1980