Truth Magazine

By Thomas L. Andrews

Many times society is tolerant and even encourages things that are contrary to God’s will. Such is the case concerning divorce. Jesus had the opportunity to teach the truth on the subject after being questioned by the Pharisees (Mt. 19:3-12). It is sinful to divorce, or put away, a marriage partner. The only exception to this rule is in the case of sexual unfaithfulness of one – fornication. Notice that it is a rightful conclusion to say: Every divorce involves sin.

Consider verse nine more carefully. The person (whoso) that marries the one put away commits adultery. Divorce makes it possible for more than one person to become an adulterer. When we consider that as the result of a divorce, four people could ultimately be guilty of adultery, the sinfulness of divorce is magnified.

How serious is adultery? The Bible teaches that as such an adulterer cannot inherit eternal life (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). The situation that is in existence today is heartbreaking. Knowing that no adulterer shall inherit the kingdom of God, it saddens me to find out that about half of the people I meet are divorced. Many times when we are very sympathetic concerning a matter, we try to work things out to find a solution. Dear reader, do not be guilty of trying to change God’s truth relative to the subject of marriage.

God recognizes the marriages of all people whether they are Christians or not. John the Baptist condemned Herod for taking his brother’s wife (Mk. 6:17-18). Herod was guilty of adultery even though he made no profession of trying to follow God. The matter of the Corinthians demonstrates that God recognizes the union of people while they were yet heathens (1 Cor. 7:12-13). Yes, God recognizes the moral conduct of men before they become a Christian. Repentance requires an adjustment of wrongs which a person has committed (as much as is within his power) before a person becomes justified in the sight of God. The sins a man commits before becoming a Christian will be remembered with regret after he is a child of God. The life of Paul is a clear demonstration of this fact.

Some people would say that a person may marry as many times as they wish and get as many divorces as desired before becoming a Christian. Then, after they have demoralized all the people they can, they may present themselves for baptism, and God will forgive them without them endeavoring to correct crimes they have committed prior to this time. This is one of the most dangerous and untruthful ideas a person can have. I dare not think of the outcome, if this theory were to be advocated to the young of the country. This removes any restraint that ever was and, more importantly, it is contrary to God’s will. Alas, no doubt this type of thinking has been involved in the causes for the decay of the home as we have seen in America.

No man or woman with a living wife or husband not guilty of fornication can marry another without being guilty of adultery. There is no lapse of time that will purge the cohabitation of its sinfulness. To become a child of God one must repent. This involves the confession of sins and correcting of wrongs. The illustration of the horse thief teaches a valuable lesson. The horse thief, in order to repent, must take back the horse that does not belong to him. What about the man that has a wife that does not belong to him? He must give her up! Anything short of this shows a lack of faith in the heart and a lack of genuine repentance. A service to God cannot be done half way.

After Jesus gave the commandment in Mt. 19:9, the disciples decided that it was best not to marry. Christ’s law was so different from the custom that was accepted in their day. If a man was to cleave unto his wife and remain with her all of his days, he had better think about it. Amen!

Here is the point: the trouble with the question of divorce is not a failure to understand the teaching of the Bible, but a lack of faith and courage to do what it requires. The truth of God does not change with the whims of society.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 47, p. 764
November 29, 1979

By Dudley Ross Spears

The church of Christ is very different from any other religious body or affiliation on earth. It is so different that often people have misconceptions about the church. It is so unlike the denominational concept of “the church” that it is often difficult for us to convince our friends that we are no part of denominationalism. We are sometimes called “Campbellites” by others, because some people think Alexander Campbell founded the church of Christ. This paper is written in the hope of clarifying and explaining why the church of Christ is not a denomination and not the child of any man, living or dead.

Anyone who thinks that Alexander Campbell founded the church of Christ must be mistaken – either honestly or otherwise. He was apparently quite a man in his day, but regardless of his greatness, he was still merely a man. Through his writing and preaching he sought to call men back to Christianity as it was from its infancy. He wrote a letter one time to the editor of the “Commercial Bulletin” in New Orleans and said, “I have always repudiated all human heads and human names for the people of the Lord, and shall feel very thankful if you will correct the erroneous impression which your article may have made in thus representing me as the founder of a religious denomination.” He denied till his death any connection at all with either the founding of or the participation in a human denomination.

Like all gospel preachers, Campbell and others associated with him, urged people to return to the New Testament as the only standard of religious authority. That is what those of us who are members of the church of Christ today are continuing to do. We preach that every creed of man, every manual of any kind of church, every catechism or any other human code of rules and regulations should be all laid aside. We preach that all people who want to be Christians and members of the church of Christ should discard human names, items of worship not found in the New Testament and human organizations. It is our plea that all of us return to the New Testament for our religious foundation.

It is true that Alexander Campbell had a great part in bringing New Testament Christianity to our land, but false that what he did makes the church today a “Campbellite Church.” Campbell was merely a sower of the seed, the word of God (Luke 8:11). The mere fact that he planted it by preaching it in its purity and simplicity would not make those who believed the preaching of the gospel and obedience to the gospel “Campbellites.” Brother W. Curbs Porter used the following illustration that says it very well. “The unadulterated word of God – the word of God as the only rule -when planted by Campbell, Stone, Scott, Curtis Porter or anybody else will produce nothing but Christians – members of the church of the Lord. The seed does not produce according to the man who plants it but according to the nature of the seed that is planted” (Porter-Myers Debate, p. 127). In his own very clever style he also said, “When Alexander Campbell planted that seed in the hearts of men, did it make them Campbellites? Not any more than an acorn, dropped by a woodpecker, would produce woodpeckers” (Ibid.).

The gospel is the seed which is planted in the hearts of men and women. Jesus said in Luke 8:13 that the “seed is the word of God.” When that seed is planted (preached) and received (heard with understanding), it will produce Christians today like it did in the first century when Paul. Peter and other inspired men preached it. In Brother Porter’s example, a woodpecker may drop an acorn in Kentucky that is picked up in Tennessee, but if and when that acorn germinates and grows it will produce an oak tree. It is still an oak tree because God promised that seed will always produce after its kind (Gen. 1:12).

The church of Christ began on the first Pentecost day after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. The beginning of the church of Christ is recorded in the second chapter of “Acts of the Apostles.” On the day, the first gospel sermon was preached, announcing the risen Christ. Men and women under conviction of sins, called for help from the Apostles. They asked, “What shall we do?” They were told to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). They must have understood exactly what was necessary because verse 41 says, “Then they that gladly received the word (that Peter spoke) were baptized.” It continues to say that there were about 3,000 souls saved that day, all of which were added to the church (see verse 47). This is the first reference to the church as something to which people could be added. Before this time, the church is referred to in prospect, as something coming into being, but not yet established.

This church was no part of a denomination. There was no “joining” to do – no “church covenant” to learn simply a church. The word “church” meant to them and means to us simply “the called out” or “called together” people. One can easily see that the calling was done through the gospel of Christ (read 2 Thess. 2:14). Those who obeyed the gospel of Christ with true faith in their hearts answered the call and were members of the church. It was as simple as that. The complications have come in our day. We have made the matter so complex by the departure from the original pattern that it is difficult for people to get a clear grasp of anything like the church Jesus built, the church of Christ. Someone said, “Men today have cut the pattern to fit their cloth.” How true that is! The pattern, blueprint or what you please to call it, is simply the New Testament. While the gospel may be subjected to human interpretations, no human interpretation of the gospel is the blueprint. Nothing in addition to-nor in subtraction from the gospel can be the blueprint. We do not need interpretations of the gospel. We need only to read, study and practice what it says.

The church of Christ was founded by Jesus Christ. He said to Peter, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). He promised to build His church – not your church or my church – but His church. It seems that men figured that He did not keep His promise so they began building “their” churches. If Jesus failed to build His church He did not keep His promise. Jesus did build the church. He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). After He ascended to Heaven, He became the head of the church. “And hath put all things under His feet an(I gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). In the context of this passage, Paul is extolling the power of God that was demonstrated in the raising of the body of Christ from the dead. On such a demonstration of unleashed power is the church given a head – Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the head of only the church of Christ. Since He is head of only one church it is reasonable that He is head of only one body. It would be freakish and a monstrosity for one head to be attached in any way to a plurality of bodies. Men pay money to see such things in carnivals and side shows. Jesus is not a freak, nor a side-show oddity. The inspired writers did not paint such a picture of the Lord. He promised to build His church (singular), purchased the church (singular), became head of the church (singular), and will honor only one church (read Matt. 15:13).

Jesus Christ is the bride-groom of the church of Christ. The church is called His bride (2 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). He was no polygamist, nor was He an unfaithful husband. He is the husband and groom of only one wife – His church. The church honors Christ by wearing His name. Any group professing to be the church of Christ and not wearing His name could not possibly make their claim valid. Different local churches were referred to as, “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Every local church of Christ must be identified with Christ by name if they claim to be His bride.

It is not difficult for you to understand the church of Christ, if you are willing to lay aside all human ideas, prejudices and practices and just take the New Testament as your guide for the remainder of what future you have. You can be a member of the church of Christ by doing no more or less than sincere folk did on that first Pentecost after Jesus rose from the realm of the dead. As a member, you must meet with other Christians to worship God. This is done every first day of the week when Christians meet to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-27). In the worship there is also prayer, singing and giving of our means. God is honored in the worship by the teaching of His word (Acts 2:42; Col. 3:16). If you belong to something that is not according to the pattern, this article is written to urge you to be a Christian, a member of the church of Christ, nothing more or less.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 47, pp. 762-763
November 29, 1979

By Bob Tuten

When God-fearing men of yesteryear embraced the ancient order of religious things, it would seem that nothing or no one could have hindered their purpose. One would assume only unity and peace could result from such desires among men. Yet a glance at the history of the restoration movement between 1827 and 1875 reveals that such was not the case. The bond of peace and unity of the spirit were disrupted almost before the movement was well under way. Many fine men and women who influenced thousands to forsake the sin of denominationalism for the truth of God’s Word, lived to witness a digression in another direction.

Prior to the year 1860, the innovation of the missionary society caused considerable dissension among disciples of Christ. But with the passing of time the use of instruments of music in worship took precedence over the societies and soon became the spearhead of division. And divide it did! “Division came not all at once, but gradually and surely. By 1875 the cleavage was a reality.”(1) The results of the innovation of instruments in worship stemmed from one thing: the abandonment of those attitudes toward the scriptures which motivated courage to reach out for the original pattern.

Instrumental music in Christian worship is a modern innovation, even in the Roman Catholic Church, which is the mother of all innovations. It was first introduced into that hot-bed of spiritual corruptions in the seventh century, under Pope Vitalian and it is today but a stolen idol from that sanctuary.

While the first instrument was introduced in the seventh century, there was no general adoption of it, even in corrupt Romanism, until late in the thirteenth century; which makes it a most modern innovation. Thus history pronounces: “The organ is said to have been first introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian I in 666. In 757, a great organ was sent as a present to Pepin by the Byzantine emperor, Constantine Copronymus, and placed in the church of St. Corneille at Compiegne.”(2)

Instruments were unheard of in this connection with the restoration until early in the Nineteenth Century. Reference was made to it as early as 1827 in the United States General Conference in which Barton W. Stone played a leading role. “In 1827 it passed resolutions condemning the use of the title `Reverend’ and the employment of instrumental music in public worship.”(3) There appears to have been some controversy over the question of its use as early as 1851 according to an article in the Ecclesiastical Reformer. Earl West refers to the incident by saying, “There was a brief flare-up of the issue in Kentucky as early as 1851. This affair, while it was brief, yet it was intense.”(4) Mr. West further stated that on February 22, 1851 a man who signed his name “W” wrote to J.B. Henshall, associate editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer, the following letter: “Brother Henshall – What say you of instrumental music in our churches? Should not the Christian Church have organs or Bass Viols that the great object of Psalmody might be consummated? Would not such instruments add greatly to the solemnity of worship, and cause the hearts of the saints to be raised to a higher state of devotion while the deep toned organ would swell its notes of `awful sound’?” I think it is high time that we awaken to the importance of this church music. I hope, therefore, that you will give your views in extense, on this much neglected subject.”(5)

Through the columns of the Ecclesiastical Reformer of March 15, 1851, Henshall replied by saying:

In proportion as men become worldly minded, provided they have not entirely lost the fear of God, do they begin to require helps to their devotion. That they could require such helps under a dark dispensation where they were rather led into the use of symbolic rites, than inwardly illuminated by God’s word and spirit, is not at all astonishing; but to say that we need them who live in the full light of the gospel privileges, and enjoy God’s mercies and providence over us, is to say that we have no gratitude in our hearts, and that we are every way unworthy of these benefits.(6)

After having read two of the articles written by Mr. “W” favoring instruments, one John Rogers wrote Alexander Campbell requesting him to speak out against it. John Rogers was a convert of Barton W. Stone and devoted to restoring New Testament Christianity. His letter to Campbell was as follows: “But my brother, a popular preacher has come out in two numbers in the Ecclesiastical Reformer in favor of instrumental music in the church and social dancing in our families.”(7)

Mr. Campbell replied to the letter in the next issue of the paper, with the exception of the question on instrumental music; he made no allusion to it. Later that year (October), however, he replied to an article signed “G” in which he expressed himself fully and clearly on the subject; his language being characteristic of the vigorous manner of his writings.(8)

Campbell’s reply appeared in the October 1851 issue of the Millennial Harbinger as follows:

The argument drawn from the Psalms in favor of instrumental music, is exceedingly apposite to the Roman Catholic, English Protestant, and Scotch Presbyterian churches, and even to the Methodist communities. Their church having all the world in them – that is, all the fleshly progeny of all the communicants, and being founded on the Jewish pattern of things – baptism being given to all born into the world of these politico-ecclesiastic communities – I wonder not, then, that an organ, a fiddle, or a Jews-harp, should be requisite to stir up their carnal hearts, and work into ecstasy their animal souls, else “hosannas languish or their tongues and their devotions die” and that all persons who have no spiritual discernment, taste or relish for their spiritual meditations, consolations and sympathies of renewed hearts, should call for such aid, is but natural. Pure water from the flintly rock has no attractions for the mere toper or wine-bibber. A little alcohol, or genuine Cognac brandy, or good old Madeira, is essential to the beverage to make it truly refreshing. So to those who have no real devotion or spirituality in them, and whose animal nature flags under the oppression of church service, I think with Mr. G., that instrumental music would be not only a desideratum, but an essential prerequisite to fire up their souls, to even animal devotion. But I presume, to all spiritually-minded Christians such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.(9)

ENDNOTES

1. Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences (Old Paths Book Club: Rosemead, California, 1952), p. 197.

2. E.C. Fuqua, “Instrumental Music in Worship is Sinful” (Fort Worth, Texas), p. 1.

3. W.E. Garrison, Religion Follows the Frontier, p. 236.

4. Earl West, The Search for the Ancient Order (Gospel Advocate Company: Nashville, Tennessee, 1949), Vol. 1, p. 309.

5. J.B. Henshall, “Instrumental Music,” Ecclesiastical Reformer, Vol. IV, No. 6 (March 15, 1851), p. 171.

6. J.B. Henshall, “Instrumental Music,” Ecclesiastical Reformer, Vol. IV, No. 6 (March 15, 1851), p. 171.

7. John Rogers, “Dancing”, Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, Vol. I, No. 8 (August 1851), p. 467.

8. Hailey, op. sit., p. 202

9. Alexander Campbell, “Instrumental Music,” Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, Vol. I., No. 10 (October, 1851), pp. 581, 582.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 47, pp. 761-762
November 29, 1979

By Earl Robertson

Emotionalism would not have crushed the powerful foes of the early Christians. They had conviction, knowledge of God’s wisdom, courage, and zeal. There was the power of lightning in their message and example. They did not try to destroy these strongholds with thunder. Sensationalism, excitement, and the waving of flags would never have done the job. Compromising truth in order to make friends with the dragon, the beast out of the sea, and the beast out of the earth would have led to failure. It was a fight unto the death of the weaker.

Today atheism, evolution, fornication, alcoholism, robbery, blasphemy, ignorance of the Bible, materialism, and denominationalism are as powerful as the ancient foes of Christ. Brave men who are well armed are needed now for the fight. Gideon’s army was cut down to three hundred men who would surround the innumerable host of the Midianites, hold up lighted torches, and stand in their places. God can win by few or by many. The strongholds of our day can be pulled to the ground if there can be found an army of faithful men who will faithfully follow and boldly proclaim the whole counsel of God regardless of the sacrifices.

The fornicators, social drinkers, lovers of the praise of men, blasphemers, materialists, and unconverted ignorant men are found among the influential church members in some places. If the ground should open and swallow all such nominal church members, the pure in heart that remain would make a smaller but more powerful army against the devil’s strongholds in our day. Emotionalism, compromise, and noise will not clean up our wicked world. Who has the whole armor of God at hand and a willingness to use it? The host of the Midianites heard the trumpets and saw the torches of Gideon’s three hundred brave men. The victory was not won by the men who were hidden in caves. If God be for us who can be against us?

Man is arbitrary in his ways and often refuses to allow the self-imposed law of God to govern his thinking and his life. Man’s complaint that the Lord’s actions toward him are not equal (that is, not just and right) is completely untrue and unrighteous. Repeatedly, Israel said, “The way of the Lord is not equal” (Ezek. 18:25). The prophet responded, “Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal” (Ezek. 18:25)? God’s ways are weighed out, or balanced and will completely accomplish both God’s divine objectives and man’s blessings.

There is no reason for man to doubt God. At no time has the Maker of man given ground for man’s wicked actions of doubt and unbelief. He is no respecter of persons and we should not, therefore, think that He should arbitrarily act in our behalf when such actions would violate His predetermined counsel. God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). Whatever disappointments we experience in life must not be attributed to God, but rather to our own miscomprehensions and misunderstandings. God did what was right!

His actions toward man in sin are equal. Man’s own sins are his problems (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2). God’s condemnation of the sinner is just and His actions to save are right (Rom. 3:25, 26). God is just and the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, says Paul. To believe in Jesus is to accept Him on the basis of His word. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16), but many sinners loudly declare this will not work. They have heard some preacher present a concoction of error and some truth and are now willing to live in error the remaining days of their lives. The Lord’s way of salvation is equal; it will work!

Apostasies of brethren, with all the ramifications attendant thereto, abundantly restate the same human problem found among the Israelites in Ezekiel’s day. Human institutionalism supported by church of Christ to substitute or subsidize the Lord’s way is not equal – it will not work. Man can talk about his accomplishments, in his own way, but in the end proof will exist that it did not work!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 47, p. 760
November 29, 1979