Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

During the week of April 17-21, it was my good pleasure to attend the debate in Falmouth, Virginia, on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Originally scheduled between H. E. Phillips and Jack Gibbert, Brother Phillips had to back out under doctor’s orders due to health problems. Brother J. T. Smith was selected as his replacement, and the debate continued as scheduled. Gene Frost ably served as moderator for J. T., assisted by Bill Robinson Jr.; Bob Melear moderated for Jack Gibbert, assisted by Kenneth Cheatham. This meant that able men were present to present with force their arguments on both sides of the proposition. .

Attendance at the debate left much to be desired, perhaps due to the location, though I do not feel convenience of location has been or should be the criterion for learning truth. It was attended by brethren from Indiana and Illinois, so surely others could have been there. Friday night saw the largest crowd of about 200 present, while Monday night began with only about 100 present. Considering the implications of this doctrine and its gradual growth, I was surprised more were not interested in hearing it discussed.

Local events had also contributed much to the atmosphere of the discussion. Brother Gibbert was well known by some in the area, and was respected for the work he had done in the past. However, both Gibbert and Roland Worth Jr. had been dismissed already from their preaching assignments for the endorsement of this false doctrine (Brother Worth had already departed the area, and was not present at the debate). Thus with this background, though many felt sympathy for Gibbert and even for his arguments (how we wish they were Bible doctrine) yet the overwhelming convictions lay with the Bible and the position being defended by Brother Smith.

J. T. did, I believe, a far superior job in defending the truth in this discussion than was evident in his debate with Lovelady. This is not to say there were not blunders of speech and some lack of organization on his part, as well as blunders of speech on Gibbert’s part, which caused some distraction. However he clearly showed where the doctrine is headed and that Gibbert was running out of soap after the first night’s discussion. The final night did not see Gibbert coming anywhere close to defending his proposition, as J. T. pointed out in what was his best night of refutation of this doctrine.

Repeatedly the charges of “dividing the brotherhood” were injected into the discussion by Gibbert, perhaps partially due to his own troubles in finding a job (as if that were J. T.’s fault!). As J. T. expressed regrets that Gibbert’s teaching on this subject was causing him problems, Gibbert promptly accused him of dishonesty rather than accept the fact that his own doctrine was the reason faithful brethren were not interested in hiring him. It was also interesting to note Gibbert was quick to assert neither J. T. nor Brother Frost would be allowed access to his pulpit because of “their attitude” in pressing this doctrine, but that did not seem to apply to his own attitude. It becomes very obvious to me that these brethren will plead for open pulpits as long as it means avenues for them to teach and spread their doctrine. But if anyone brands it for what it is -rotten to the core!-and stands up to it, he has the bad attitude because they have been opposed. The attitude problem was present, but not on the part of Smith and Frost. Let me pause here to say this doctrine is not going away, and it is creeping, out of California. Unless we stand up to it and brand it for what it is and preach against it, we are going to have major problems in the brotherhood in a few years over it, and it is about time some brethren began to recognize such to be so. We have tolerated a bad situation for a long time, thinking it was not spreading, but with the introduction of Bible Forum by these brethren to promote it and their eager desires for debates to publicize it, it is obvious these brethren are on the offensive and do not intend to back off. They are asking for the battle, and it needs to be engaged that their spread of it may be put to an end!

Monday night Gibbert defended the right of the guilty put-away fornicator to remarry again without sin, using the logic that if they were not married to their first partner, they had no mate and hence to forbid them to marry was the doctrine of the devil (1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Car. 7:27-28). J. T. showed this was a clear violation of the very teaching of Matt. 19:9 and 5:32, and noted even Gibbert refused them the right to remarry until fornication had taken place, hence he too was guilty of teaching this “doctrine of the devil.” Gibbert readily accepted the validity of Matt. 19:9b, but sought to put the exception clause in both the first and second part of the passage, which just is not so. J. T. showed that although the innocent was free to remarry, the guilty was bound by the law of God which forbids such. Of course, Tuesday night placed J. T. in the affirmative that the guilty did not have a right to remarry, and the same points were pressed.

Friday night Gibbert was to defend the proposition that one put away for causes other than fornication was free to remarry, if he committed fornication and his first wife subsequently decided to put him away a second time at that point. Hence, regardless of why one may be put away, just run out and commit adultery, have your first wife announce she would not live with you any more (or at least hope she will!), and all can swap partners or whatever and be pleasing to God. Brethren, this doctrine not only makes a mockery of everything taught in the word of God on this subject, it stinks! Though the consequences may be denied, it opens the way for Hollywood style marriages in every sense, and puts a premium on sin to get whatever mate you decide you would like to have for the moment. They do not like the conclusion, but it follows as surely as the doctrine of infant damnation follows inherited sin, and there is no other way to look at it.

Thursday evening, J. T. was affirming that the one put away for causes other than fornication had to remain celibate or be reconciled, and noted it was almost identical in wording with Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:10-11. Gibbert passed over this issue to return to argue the topic of Tuesday night, and never got anywhere close to affirming his own subject for Friday night. In fact, he sought from the first night onward to remain in the negative regardless of the proposition. “What if” cases were introduced to move away from “book, chapter and verse” and loaded questions were asked and quibbled over. J. T. also pressed Gibbert hard for relying on Matt. 19:9b (and the insertion of the exception clause falsely in this part of the verse) the first two nights and then trying to disavow its validity the last two nights. He furthermore presented material showing it had a right to belong in the text, and that point was dropped.

Several points of order were made to infractions of the rules by the Gibbert-Melear-Cheatham team, including quotes from James Adams in the Gospel Guardian introduced the first night in clear violation of the terms of the discussion. Other infractions were minor and overlooked by Brother Frost until the final night when they were pointed out “for the record.” An orderly discussion prevailed on the subject, with only one real point of friction arising over what I believe was a misunderstanding in the closing announcements Thursday evening, and that was quickly pulled back and settled.

I am glad to see the churches in Virginia taking a firm stand for the truth, and also in North Carolina. I too regret these brethren have a hard time finding a place to preach due to their teaching, but would suggest before faithful brethren can recommend them they are going to have to change their doctrine to harmonize with the word of God rather than reaching a conclusion and then seeking to alter the word of God to suit their doctrine. While some points could still have benefited from better clarification, I believe the truth came through in I this discussion, and admire both Brother Smith and Frost for the fine job they did in defending the truth.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, pp. 345-346
May 25, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Georgia: “I have a question that I would appreciate your consideration of. It is a statement made by a brother in Christ, and I shall quote it as it is stated. 7 believe that 1 (or anyone else) as an individual have the liberty to privately celebrate the birth of our Lord every day or on any day of the year one might arbitrarily decide upon. (Read Rom. 14:5, 6.) In other words Paul seems to be saying that it is not a sin for a brother to observe certain days, nor is it a sin for a brother not to observe these days.’

`Do you believe this to be a correct understanding of what Paul is saying in Romans 14:5, 6? Would it be right for the individual to observe Christmas as Christ’s birthday as long as he did it privately? Or one step further, can the individual observe Christmas or any other day as a celebration of the birth of our Lord as long as he does it privately?”

Reply:

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (Rom. 14:5, 6).

Paul was discussing personal, conscientious opinions and scruples in Romans 14. Paul mentioned those “weak in the faith.” They held that: (1) certain days were to be esteemed above others; (2) and that they could not eat meat but herbs. These were “weak” brethren. The strong brethren were to: (1) walk in love; (2) not to enter into doubtful disputations; (3) not to condemn; (4) not to put a stumbling block in their brother’s way by causing him to act in violation of his conscience; (5) bear the infirmities of the weak, not pleasing themselves.

Romans 14 deals with the observance of days and the eating of meats which do not matter in and of themselves. They are harmless, private judgments of individuals. The “faith” of the weak brother is not “the faith” of Jude 3 and other passages. Their “faith” is their own private and personal conviction about incidental meats and days. They were not to go against their weak conscience and the strong brother must not do anything to cause the weak to offend or act contrary to what he conscientiously believes.

Paul did not say: “Now, in view of what I have said, you are at liberty to arbitrarily develop a weak faith and select a day to celebrate the birth of Christ.” Rather, “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Disciples are to “observe all things” Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:20). His birth does not fall in that class of commandments. So, we are not at liberty to pick out a day, because of what Paul said, and observe the birth of Christ. Romans 14 does not authorize the capricious desire to descend and develop a weak conscience.

The brother our querist describes does not fit Romans 14. He is deciding “arbitrarily” to set aside a day to observe the birth of Christ. He is not acting conscientiously as per Romans 14 but “arbitrarily,” hence, presumptuously and sinfully. The issue in this case is not privacy, i.e., how privately it is done or not done. The real point is the character of the weak brother in Romans 14 and the arbitrary decision of the brother represented in the question, who merely presumes upon the case of the weak brother to justify what is not authorized by the word of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, p. 344
May 25, 1978

By Lewis Willis

Were it not for the fact that we are inundated with so many schemes to give relevancy to the Gospel of Christ, it would indeed be shocking to see the things being promoted within “Christendom.” Inasmuch as this column is designed to look at some of these extremes in view of God’s Word, I direct your attention to the following items, both of which are done in the name of Christ.

The Puppet Ministry

One of the latest things to come along, especially within the Lord’s Church, is the “Puppet Ministry.” So widespread is this promotion, and so well entrenched is the terminology, that the North Irving Church received a circular the first of this month addressed: “Att: Puppet Ministry.” It is now automatically assumed that any up-to-date church has such a ministry — if not on TV then certainly in its Bible class program. Enterprising people see the economic impact of this idea and establish businesses to service this “ministry.” Irving is particularly blessed with such a firm and they have mailed out a 14page catalog to acquaint “Puppet Ministers” (these fellows minister to puppets, of course) with their products. At a cost ranging from $9.95 to $49.95 each, a church can embark on this latest religious fad. These “ministers” can select from The Country Crow, Cuddly Dog, a polk-a-dot dog named Tramp, Dopey Donkey or Cornie Crow. Now, any puppet minister worth his salt gets cold chills when contemplating the possibilities suggested by these cute little creatures. If he can develop the necessary voice inflections there is no end to his career opportunities in this booming religious market. (Or is it racket?) If he happens to be a ventriloquist, clown or magician, all he needs is exposure and he is off and running.

I was introduced to this new concept while living in Amarillo, Texas. Our liberal brethren (the Southwest church), with great fan-fare, entered this ministry with a 30-minute TV program on Sunday mornings. The “star” of the show was a fetching little creature called Bartholomew. ‘Ole “Bart”, you see, was a worm. The single most significant thing about Bart was that he could only read worm-words, and could not make out people words at all. Thus, everything had to be explained to him in meticulous detail. Bart’s people-word illiteracy was perfectly complemented by the Spirit-inspired-word illiteracy of the Puppet Minister. As a matter of fact, one often wondered which of the two was “pulling the strings.” If one was “turned off” by Bart, he was quickly captured by a grandmother-type people-puppet who baked cookies all the time for sick kids and actively traded cookie recipes with her TV audience. If her references to her mail volume were correct, the Post Office should send a “Thank You” note to the promoters of this nonsense, thanking them for the revenue they have generated. Truly, the modernists have had a field day among some of our brethren. They seem convinced that the Lord’s way of converting men is unworkable, even to the point of being unthinkable anymore (1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16).

A Stripper for the Lord

So reads a large headline on the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News (1 / 19 / 78). The article, by Bob Greene, relates the story of Kellie Everts who tours the country as a stripper with Minsky’s Burlesque. She says, “Besides stripping for the Lord, I go out on the street and do missionary work. I am saving all my money to build a children’s prayer chapel in Brooklyn.” As a matter of fact, this woman has even gotten God into her act! “I’ve needed a manager for many years. I knew that if only I had a manager, I would be a star. I was praying and I said to the Lord, `Are you gonna give me a manager?’ And the Lord said, `I am your manager.’ ” Can you imagine the deception that produces such an absurd view of Almighty God? He is the author of all that is pure and holy. Yet, we are supposed to believe that He is now serving as manager of a woman whose activities are immoral, vile filth!

Mr. Greene told her, “Frankly, Miss Everts, I think you are using God as a gimmick.” “That’s OK,”she said with a shrug, “The evil people never believed in Jesus, either.” For such a person to refer to others as evil is like the old adage of the pot calling the kettle black! This entire situation is a stench in the nostrils of Jehovah.

The thing that concerns me is the modern spiritual atmosphere that produces such perverted ideas as this. However, if today’s churches are going to embrace situation ethics, homosexuality, etc., these churches might just as well prepare themselves to receive such people as this into their fellowship, with all the rights and privileges afforded by that fellowship, which I am persuaded some are quite willing to do. Some time ago, I received a clipping from the Dayton (Ohio) Journal Herald religious page (1/8/77) about a United Methodist Church in Ingleside, Illinois, which had conducted “nude therapy sessions,” with about 30 men and women participants. There is not a shred of difference between this and Miss Everts, except possibly the location of the performance. Certainly, that church cannot cry out against her concepts, not while they practice the same themselves.

Conclusion

What, then, does this say to people who fear the Lord and who are working to go to Heaven? It just further illustrates the magnitude of the task before us. Each passing day reveals new excesses that enter into the battle for truth and righteousness. We can only remember the words of the Lord: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22-23). The claims will flourish from those who say they do things “in the name of the Lord.” This disclaimer from the Lord still sets the record straight.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, p. 343
May 25, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

“The art of life is to focus on difficulties and deal with them as best one can, without making psychological problems out of them that then lead to nightmares. We could also say that the art is to maintain a sense of proportion in our lives. But we can keep a sense of proportion only, when dealing with sensible proportions. For if things become so vast that the mind cannot any more encompass them, a sense of proportion becomes an impossibility.

“When we are told that there are, say, seven million unemployed in the United States, the size of the problem paralyzes our imaginations and we have our nightmares of being unable to deal with it. It would be different if we were told that there are ninety people in our neighborhood who are out of work.

“We could then focus on the problem, find out who the ninety people are, what they could do, what they would want to do. Local action would become at least conceivable.

“Maybe what we most need is a holiday from global, national, in fact from superhumanly big statistics. I and my community may be in decline while national and global totals show healthy growth. The latter is no consolation; it cannot make me satisfied with my own condition. Conversely, if I can keep my own and my community’s house in good order, I am doing all I can do, and worrying about global or even national performances that I cannot influence because they are completely out of my reach does not do anybody any good” (Schumacher, E.F., “Small is Beautiful,” Psychology Today, September 1977).

What Mr. Schumacher proposes on a physical scale for dealing with national and international, problems, might well be heeded by each Christian for dealing with spiritual problems confronted individually and in the church. There seems to be a rising propensity to see problems and their solutions as “brotherhood wide.” It is not necessary to document statements to that effect, though it would be possible to do so. The current error being discussed in print is a case in point. That such teaching is false, I would not hesitate to affirm. That many preachers have left the truth, and many brethren’s thinking has become disquieted and confused, I would not deny. But, the solution and cause of such a problem is beyond my ability to deal with on a “brotherhoodwide” basis. Some men may think that it is not beyond their ability, but I venture to say that if they approach the problem on a universal scale, they are going to be disappointed. God, in His wisdom, directs each saint through His word, to approach problems on a level that he can do something about: individually or within the local church. One of the lessons we learn from the parable of the talents is that each was responsible only for what he did (Matt. 25:14ff). Each was rewarded according to what he did with what was entrusted to him. The five-talent man and the two-talent man were not responsible to see that the one-talent man used what was given to him properly. The man answered for himself.

Is there a sinner in the church where we worship? The Lord has given us the manner with which to deal with it, and all within the bounds of the individual relationship, or within the local church (Matt. 18:15ff). We cannot, in a practical way, discipline one who is a false teacher elsewhere. We can teach regarding error, mark false teachers, and warn, “lest any come unto you with another doctrine” that those with whom we work and share in Christ might “be on guard.” But, we cannot root out the tares in the kingdom of God. This belongs to God and the judgment (Matt. 13:24-30, 38-42).

Such an attitude of respect for both congregational integrity, autonomy, and self-sufficiency and individual responsibility before God would avoid such tragedies as is illustrated in the bulletins of some churches. With this tool of evangelism and edification, churches make a local problem, a universal one. I thought, as I read in the church bulletin about who did what to who, “Now, what am I supposed to do about this?”

My same thought arose when another church mailed mimeographed letters to all the churches and preachers for which they could get an address concerning a recent split they had. A few weeks before, I had gotten another mimeographed letter from the group that had left giving their side of the conflict. It appeared as though there was plenty of wrong to go around. I wrote a letter to the elders of one of the factions and asked if I could help, in any way, by teaching and acting as a go-between for reconciliation. They responded graciously by saying “mind your own business, and you will no longer be receiving the 9625 a month support we were sending you.” Why mail something to brethren all over the United States to folks who have no stake or interest or business in the conflict, asking them to take sides?

What about a new error? Are there saints who need instruction on a “current issue”? Solomon noted by inspiration, “There is nothing new under the sun.” “Current issues” are current only in that we are discussing them now. Every error is merely a corruption or a twisting of an eternal truth. Each church and each man have Paul, John, Peter, and the other inspired writers to enable them to overcome the ignorance of error. I can only be responsible for myself and the place where I teach and worship. “Study (give diligence) to show theyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

Congregational autonomy and self-sufficiency mean just that. When one loses confidence in God’s ability to accomplish-his goals through the means he has given, then we begin to see an outgrowth of the “wisdom of men” in action. What has the church and the cause of the Lord benefitted through the various societies and institutions men have erected to evangelize, edify, or do benevolence on a scale larger than the local church? Why is it that those who have a “sure-fire” way to do personal-work, train preachers, aid the home and parent in raising kids, etc. always seem to be able to market it at a distinct personal profit? What makes those gospel papers of the past that issued “calls” for the brethren to

rally round on one project or another (churches on the move!) wrong in one generation, yet right in this one? Those rallies always seem to wander off into error somehow. Anything done on a universal scale ultimately does when led by men.

But, sitting back in the calm coolness of Bible study, we might consider the example of what God did with Abraham, Samuel, David, Elisha, and other men of faith who lived their own lives purely and with dedication. We might consider what God did with John the Baptist, the apostles, and the self-sufficient, autonomous churches of the first century. We might consider the Lord Himself, who never did His works or His teaching in a universal way-but as one man working with the power of God. We begin to see that it is through weakness that God makes strength. What men consider inadequate, unorganized, effete, unprofessional or foolish, God uses and brings about His will (1 Cor. 1:20ff).

Therefore, when considering some problem, I need to look at it in its proper dimension. What can I do about it? If it is bigger than me or the local church where I work and worship, then I must leave it in God’s hands. But, even a large problem can be dealt with by straightforward, ordinary methods. Instead of “editorializing” about the state of the church, feeling its “pulse,” issuing “calls” or trumpet blows to rally everyone around one cause or another, “as for me and my house” we will serve the Lord right here. One of the great disadvantages of seeking to do a work larger than the local church is that is it doomed from the start. And too often, because we cannot do anything about a problem universally, we wind up not doing what we can locally. I cannot deal with the widespread worldliness and decay of the family I see in the world and many churches. But, I can keep myself unspotted from the world, and help those in need of family as I have opportunity. I cannot help those who teach false doctrine in other places, unless I have opportunity to go there and teach. But, I do teach my own family right and wrong from the scriptures, and “provoke unto love and good works” those brethren where I worship. Every man must do the best he can where he is and as he has opportunity. God does not ask anymore of us.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, pp. 341-342
May 25, 1978