Truth Magazine

By John McCort

The most popular argument used to justify instrumental music in worship is an argument drawn from the word “psalms” (psalmos) in Eph. 5:19. The argument made is that in the Old Testament psalms were sung to the instrument of music. It is claimed that the instrument of music is inherent in the singing of psalms. Several authorities can be produced which state that psalms (psalmos) were to be sung to the accompaniment of an instrument of music. (See Vine & Thayer on psalmos.)

Let us momentarily assume that their argument is correct, that the instrument of music is inherent in the word psalms. If this is true then it would be sinful, if not impossible, to sing psalms without an instrument of music. Immersion is inherent in the word baptism. Would it not then follow that it would be sinful, if not impossible, to baptize without immersing? Since all are commanded to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19), would it not also follow that all singing psalms would be required to play an instrument of music? If the instrument of music is inherent in the singing of psalms, then the instrument of music is not optional to the singing of psalms; it is demanded. Where is the authority for one person to play an instrument of music for all of the congregation, if the instrument is inherent in the singing of psalms?

1. Psalmos In The New Testament

Examine how the word “psalm” is used in the New Testament. Luke 20:42–“The Book of Psalms”; Luke 24:44–“written . . . in the Psalms”; Acts 1:20–“The Book of Psalms”; Acts 13:33–“The second Psalm”; 1 Cor. 12:26–“Everyone . . . hath a psalm”; Eph. 5:19-“Speaking . . . in psalms”; and Col. 3:16–“Admonishing . . . in psalms.”

The instrument of music is not mentioned in connection with the reading, speaking, or singing of psalms. In the Old Testament the instrument of music had to be named in addition to the word psalm. (Psa. 81:2, 98:4; 149:3) Since the instrument of music had to be named in addition to the word “psalmos’; this demonstrates that the instrument of music was not inherent in the word.

2.Psallo and Psalmos

Both psallo (making melody, Eph. 5:19; sing, Rom . 15:9) and psalmos come from the same root word “psao.” Psao means to “rub, wipe; to handle, touch.” (Thayer, p. 675.) Psallo is the verb form of psao and psalmos is the noun form. Psallo, in its virgin definition, merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang. The object of the pluck, twitch, or twang must be named in context. No object of the pluck is inherent in the word psallo. Sometimes the word psallo is used to describe the plucking of a carpenters string or the plucking of a hair. One cannot pluck (psallo) without something to pluck. Thus, there is no object inherent in the verb psallo. It is true that in the Old Testament the word psallo is often used to describe the strumming of an instrument of music. It is important to note that when the instrument of music is the object of the strum (or pluck), it is always named in addition to the word psallo. Psa. 98:4-5: . . . break forth and sing praises (psalate) for joy, yea, sing praises. Sing praises (psalate) unto Jehovah with the harp (en kithara).” Psalte is translated “sing praises” and the harp (kithara) is named in addition to the word `psalate” demonstrating the fact that the instrument of music is not inherent in the word psallo.

Note the parallel between psallo and baptizo. Baptizo, defined, means to immerse, submerge, plunge, dip, etc . . . There is no element inherent in the verb baptizo. The New Testament speaks of baptizing in water (Jn. 3:23), baptizing in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11), and baptizing in fire (Matt. 3:11), demonstrating the fact that no element is inherent in the verb baptize. Likewise, psallo merely means to pluck, twitch, or twang with no element or instrument being inherent in the word psallo.

In Eph. 5:19 both psallo and psalmos are used. “Speaking one to another in psalms (psalmois), hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody (psallontes) in your hearts to the Lord.” Notice that the object of the psallo is named. “Singing (adontes) and making melody (psallontes) in your heart (en kithara . . . .” The object of the psallo is the heart. Compare Psa. 98:4, “Sing prases (psalates) . . . with the harp (en kithara)” with Eph. 5:19, “. . . making melody (psallontes) in your heart (en kardia).” In Eph. 5:19 the “psalloing” is done in the heart. In Psa. 98:4 the “psalloing” is done on the harp.

Psalmos is nothing more than a noun form of the verb psallo. What would hold true for psallo would also hold true for psalmois. Let us momentarily assume that the words baptize and baptism are used in the same passage. Let us further suppose that the command is given to baptize with water. If the noun baptism were used in the same passage, then the baptism would be water baptism, to the exclusion of all other forms of baptism. The verb baptize describes the action and the word water is the element used in the action of baptizing. When water is specified as the element, this automatically excludes all other elements in that context. Water baptism would automatically exclude that baptism from being a baptism in fire or Holy Spirit baptism. The element water is not inherent in the word baptize, but when water is specified as the element, this automatically excludes all other elements. Baptism is nothing more than a noun form of the verb baptize. If the word baptism were used in the same passage as the phrase, “baptize with water,” the word baptism would automatically mean water baptism. The element water would automatically be transferred from the verb “baptize” to its noun form “baptism.” Would not the word baptism automatically mean water baptism to the exclusion of all other kinds of baptism in that particular context?

There is an inescapable parallel between psallo and baptizo, and between psalmos and baptisma. In Eph. 5:19 the object of the psallo, the heart, is specified. This automatically excludes all other kinds of “psalloing” (such All Things as plucking a carpenter’s string, plucking a harp) in this particular passage in the same way that the phrase pertaining to Life “baptize with water” automatically excludes all other kinds of baptizing. Psalmos is the noun form of psallo and thus the object of psallo is naturally transferred to psalm os in the same way that the element water, in the phrase “baptize with water,” would be transferred to its noun form “baptism.” Thus the instrument of music could not be included in the word psalm os since the object of psallo, the heart, has already been specified in the passage.

When the scholars define the word psalm os as being “a psalm being sung to the instrument of music” we must realize that they are giving the applied definition of the word rather than its virgin meaning. The instrument of music is not inherent in either psallo or psalmos. This can be illustrated by Thayer’s definition of the word Baptizo. “2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water;” he cites Mark 7:4. But, the ELEMENT, WATER, IS NOT INHERENT IN THE WORD BAPTIZO. The instrument of music is not in the word psalmos anymore than the element water is inherent in the word baptimos. This demonstrates that the scnolars sometimes give the applied meaning of a word rather than its virgin definition.

None of the translators have ever translated the word, psallo, in the N.T. as meaning to play an instrument of music or of even meaning to sing and play. Nowhere in the New Testament is instrumental music ever authorized in worship to God. This article has not attempted to deal with the historical evidence against instrumental music, how to establish Bible authority, or any of the other arguments against instrumental music in worship. I have merely attempted to deal with one small argument that is raised in defense of instrumental music.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 298-299
May 12, 1977

By Lewis Willis

Brethren do many things that are praiseworthy and it is fitting that such be recognized. Conversely, brethren also do some things that are downright reprehensible, and these things are deserving of notice. It is difficult to lend the proper balance to these antithetical situations. It is not easy to determine if one has become excessive in either praise or censure. Some are always ready to say we have gone too far, or not far enough. I am persuaded that all teachers, under self-examination for actions in regard to these things, have experienced some reservations about what has been done. However, this does not preclude action when it is sincerely felt such is appropriate. In this article, I have some things I wish to say that are critical of many of my brethren. They are being said in the hope that stimulated thought might be helpful in producing necessary corrective action among brethren.

Every church of which I have personal knowledge conducts Sunday and Wednesday Bible class programs. These are designed to expedite the edification of the saints. These programs, because they are subject to human wisdom, are not always what they should be. Nor do they always measure up to our desires for them. Hence, there will always be ample room for improvement. And, evaluation for the purpose of improvement is always needful and helpful. No area of this work should be exempt from examination. It should not be assumed that any part of the program is unchangeable, except the essential scripturality of that which is being studied. That must never change!

As a gospel preacher, I have been teaching classes for years. I presently teach a class with a “question-answer” format. Those in the class are at liberty to raise any Bible-related question in which they are interested. In a recent class, I was asked, “How do you respond when someone says he does not get anything out of class?” This is a timely question, and one with which every congregation known to me has had to deal. I suppose there would be no way to measure the scope of this feeling in churches of Christ today. It is likely a more widely felt concern than many would expect. What would contribute to this problem? How might it be solved so as to enhance this work? If each Christian would manifest the proper attitude toward it, it could be handled effectively in every case. Hence, allow me to share some thoughts with you on what might contribute to an ineffectual Bible Class program.

The Material

As far as I can determine, there are at least three areas where blame might lie in this circumstance. The first of these is the material. If something is scripturally wrong with the material being taught, it is obvious that this will quickly produce a very real problem. Most churches exercise great care in the selection of class material. Others send someone to the bookstore to “get something for that class.” The importance of material selection cannot be over-emphasized. Truth Magazine publishes two ‘series of literature. In the production of Truth In Life, editing for scripturalness and effectiveness was scrupulous. This work was done by brethren who are widely known for their faithfulness. Walking With God is an old series which is now owned by Truth Magazine. It is my understanding that as the old supply of booklets was depleted, some editing was done to enhance the quality of this series also. These materials are being widely used by churches in an effort to assure that truth will be taught in their programs. (Many other booklets by faithful brethren are available also).

Even so, a congregation can hardly check every single statement in a booklet in advance. Thus, qualified teachers are selected to teach the classes so that any error might be detected and corrected during the study. These booklets were written by men and women who are subject to error. No editor will succeed in eliminating every questionable statement. So, the teachers must exercise the greatest possible care in using any booklet. The congregation encourages them to point out any fundamental weakness so that other materials might be selected which will meet the needs of a particular class. I can understand the criticism under consideration here if this is the type of situation involved.

However, I quickly become concerned if the material being used is the actual Biblical text. Most adult classes study from some book of the Bible. The Bible was so revealed that we might, through diligent study, understand it. We can know the truth (Jn. 8:22). We can understand Paul’s knowledge of the mystery (Eph 3:3-4). We are to study to be approved (2 Tim. 2:15). We are to give attendance unto reading (1 Tim. 4:13). There is no reason to “get nothing out of class” insofar as the material being used in most of our adult classes is concerned. if something is wrong with the effectiveness of our class work, we certainly want to use care before attributing it to the Biblical text. Yet, brethren are heard to say, “I just don’t get anything out of studying Revelation.” We might not get everything out of a single study of Revelation. But, we will get something out of it if we try. We have a serious problem if we get nothing out of it!

The Teacher

A second possible cause for this problem is the teacher. In many instances, “I don’t get anything out of class” is but a not-too-subtle attempt to remove a teacher who is disliked. Such criticism should be wholly rejected. However, some teacher criticism is justified! There is not a teacher in any congregation’s Bible Class program who could not do better! Anytime a teacher indicates an attitude of perfection in his efforts to teach, he should, in my judgment, be removed. No teacher is perfect! Any teacher who thinks he has reached the zenith of his effectiveness and is likely to be suffering from a strong measure of self-delusion. He is certainly having a problem with arrogancy when humility should characterize his every effort. In my judgment, he is unqualified to teach. I certainly do not want to be under Brother Perfect, and I do not want my children under him either!

So, the teachers are frequently a cause for this problem. But, scarcely the cause of it. Ideally, if every teacher is well qualified, highly skilled, and a humble servant of God with a broad perception of Truth, we would be assured that this problem would never arise. Personally, though, I know of no single congregation which labors with such luxury. Therefore, we must all struggle along with well-intentioned, willing, God-fearing brethren who are trying to do the best they can. Most teachers, I believe, are trying to do their best.

The Student

The third area of potential difficulty is the student. Let us be candid in considering the materials and the teachers. But, let us be equally candid in considering the students in our classes. The best material and teacher are useless unless accompanied with the proper student attitude and conduct. Some class periods can best be described as “a three-ring circus,” and the solution fox this problem begins at home! Uncorrected, no one will get anything out of such a class. We must strive to eliminate this type of situation. The majority of our students are Christians and they should be taught to act like Christians! Sometimes students want Bible Classes to be as interesting as the Super Bowl football game. It will never be so! The absence of such excitement, though, will not justify the charge, “I don’t get anything out of class.”

Frequently, and most teachers experience continual concern here, students come to class and have not so much as looked at the booklet or Bible chapter to be studied. This is not a problem with “young people” only. It reaches all the way to the auditorium! It is inevitable that such students will get nothing out of a class. One has to put something into a class to get something out of it! A teacher should challenge students to study and become interested. But, if we think any teacher can adequately study for us, we are simply mistaken. Many people in classes never offer a single thought or comment over several weeks of study. They just sit there being bored. All too often students will miss several weeks of a study, get behind in the thought or context being discussed, and wonder why such a class is not profitable. No amount of review can overcome this problem. So, one good place to begin in investigating the cause for unprofitable Bible Classes would be the student. Quite possibly better students would inspire better teachers.Conclusion

My role involves teaching these classes. But, I would not attempt to justify every abuse of teacher responsibility. Nor would I attempt to defend every booklet that has been used in Bible Classes. These definitely have to be considered in evaluating a teaching effort. But, that evaluation is incomplete unless it also includes the student. Every teacher should be encouraged to do a better job in his teaching. And, every student should be encouraged to be more responsible and responsive in the class. Not intending to be rude, but I have no sympathy for a student who sits through class after class “like a dead fish” and then complains, “I don’t get anything out of it.” Furthermore, it is my conviction that such students should not be encouraged in their criticisms of the classes, i.e., unless we enjoy the continual state of confusion that such unjustified criticisms produce. It seems to me that we need to exercise care in regard to all of these possible areas of difficulty. Above all, let us each do everything possible to enhance the effectiveness of this area of our work together.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 296-297
May 12, 1977

By Robert Jackson

We continue our study of issues that divide us within the ranks of the body of Christ. As stated before, this is indeed a shame and a tragedy, but something that we must face and deal with and be willing to accept the Bible as the authority to solve all of out problems. In our study thus far we have given a brief survey of what caused division from the early New Testament Church, showing that it was a lack of respect for the authority of Christ. We discussed lessons on what is the church and what is a local church; and then we traced it all the way down to the dividing of the body of Christ even in our day. Now, within our ranks, in our last article, we discussed the division that was caused in regard to evangelism.

We found where some brethren wanted to get away from the missionary society that was established under a board of directors in 1849 in Cincinnati, Ohio, so they decided that we needed a sponsoring church under an eldership and this would make it right. As the same basic principle, it denies the autonomous nature of the local church, it is without any Bible authority whatsoever, it has elders overseeing work away from their work which they have no authority for, it violates 1 Peter 5; and so this has brought division within the ranks of the body of Christ. Then also, we had the Herald of Truth radio program — a nation-wide effort under the church out in Abilene, under the Highland Avenue elders’ oversight. Again, this was identified as a Sponsoring Church effort, all of it is without Bible authority, a lack of respect for the teaching of God’s word, and as a result of it, has brought division.

People who differ with them they identified as antis. They say that you are anti-evangelism, but that is not the issue. Churches today still believe in sending out the men of God, but we believe in doing it like they did it in Bible days, and that is for the church to send directly to the preacher. If there is anyone that has any Bible authority how it is any other way, I would be glad to receive the information. I would be glad to preach that and take my position along that way. But until someone can give me book, chapter and verse, I must stand opposed to the sponsoring church method and therefore, the missionary society, and say the churches of Christ ought not to have anything to do with them. As a result, they have divided the body of Christ, and they must bear the burden for this.

But then there is another thing that has lead to division within our ranks, and that is in the field of benevolence. Of course you recognize when you talk about benevolence that you get on a very emotional subject. People get all emotionally upset when you talk about taking care of widows or taking care of little orphans. So many times they let their feelings run away with their thinking of what the Bible has to say. Now first of all, we want to keep in mind as we study the subject of benevolence that we want to find out what the Bible says, and to base our feelings upon the teaching of the word of God. This is the only way that we can stand approved in the eyes of Jehovah, and it is not a complicated matter.

If you will take your Bible, you will find that the church did perform acts of benevolence. First of all, in Acts 2, you will find there was a need for the saints of God in the city of Jerusalem. Keep in mind that there were “devout Jews there from every nation” on the day of Pentecost, and when they obeyed the gospel of Christ, they remained in that city. As a result, the saints of God had need. There was a famine in their own midst because of the fact they had stayed over in Jerusalem. They had to relieve this, and how did they go about it? The Bible said in Acts 2:45, “They sold their possessions and goods and parted to all men as every man had need.”

Now the church had to raise its money and take care of its own needs, and this is the way that it ought to be done today — saints of God giving on the first day of the week, not only in the supporting of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but likewise in relieving the needy of the saints of God. If you will turn to the book of Acts, chapter 4, you will find that this met the needs of the brethren. In verse 34, “Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet, and then it was given to every man as he had need.” So then, when it was laid at the apostles’ feet, it was given into a common treasury, and then it was distributed by apostolic authority. This is exactly the way it should be today. Note again, in verse 37 of the 4th chapter, “having land sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” So then we have the pattern for the church: to sell its possessions, or if they have any money to put it into the common treasury, and let it be used by apostolic authority. Now when it said, “They laid it at the apostles’ feet,” it does not mean that they put the money under the feet of the apostles in a literal sense, but it means that it was used by apostolic

authority, and therefore, the apostolic authority was for the church to relieve its own needy.

In Acts 6, we find another case where the disciples were in need. The Bible says, “There was a murmuring between the Grecian and Hebrew widows because they were being neglected in the daily ministration.” The twelve called the multitude together, they called the church together, and said, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom whom we may appoint over this business.” Now there we find again that the church met its own need and relieved its own needy. They selected men to care for the poor, and the apostles said, “We must not leave tile word of God,” showing that the most important thing is the preaching of the word of God. But, he said these widows must be cared for, and it is the responsibility of the church to do it, so let the church take care of its own. Thus the church was able to do what God told it to do, it was able to provide for these people and carried it out and met the needs.

In Acts 11 we find another example where there were some people who were in need. Beginning at verse 27, “And in those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” Now watch it. “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea.” Watch it. “Which also they did and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Alright, now we find where brethren gave, and they sent it “to the elders” where there was need in Judea. They sent it directly to the elders, and then the elders provided for their own. This is the way that it was done in the Bible days.

Thus we have an example in Acts 4 and in Acts 6 where the church took care of its own needy, where they had men to look after their own and care for them. In Acts 11, we find where a church sent to other churches who were in need. But, keep in mind that they sent it directly to the church that was in need and the elders of that particular church had the oversight of its work and saw that every man was relieved as they had need. Now there we have the pattern of benevolence.

But then again, if you will turn over to 2 Corinthians 8, you will find where they likewise met the need of the people who were in need. When we follow the pattern in the Bible, we find that churches of Christ in New Testament days were autonomous in their nature; they had the oversight of the local congregation and that is all. They took care of their own needs. They did it in the way that God specified, where the saints of God put their money into the common treasury and relieved the needy of the saints. Now where there was a church in need away from them, they sent it directly to the church and the elders of that particular church took the oversight of it and tended to its own business. Now that is exactly the way it was done in the New Testament days, and that is the way it should be done today.

Now for an example, in taking care of the poor, there are many ways it can be done. In James 1:26-27, individuals can help do it. We are to relieve the needy. In James 1, he said, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself (or oneself) unspotted from the world.” So then I can relieve the needs of people as an individual.

But then when it comes to the need of the saints, the church ought to be able to do it, and churches can help other churches do that. But, they always sent directly to the church that was in need. Now keep this in mind: When the need was met, they stopped sending a contribution to it! Keep this in mind. You can not find in the Bible where one church went out and brought a need upon itself by going out and bringing in poor people that they could not care for, and then say it becomes the burden of the church. You cannot read about this, my friend. What you read about in the Bible was where there was a need and the church met its own needs. The church never created the need. The church never went out and brought these people in and said, “It is your responsibility.” But we find where the church met its own need like God told it to do. And this is the way that it should be done today.

In fact of business, under certain conditions, the church ought not to even be charged, as in 1 Timothy 5:16. Measure what I say by the Scriptures: “If either a man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” So there we find an example where the church ought not to even be charged, ought not to even be burdened. It is not the responsibility of the church to take care of all widows and orphans across this country. But as a result of such today, brethren are building benevolent societies and tacking these institutions on to the church. They have divided the body of Christ. In some cases they are homes for the widows. Sometimes they are orphan homes. Sometimes they are homes for unwed mothers. Then they say, “It is your responsibility to take care of them,” and as a result of this, they have divided the body of Christ. If you say, “No, there is not any Bible authority for it,” then they make the false accusation that you are anti-orphan carers, that you do not believe in caring for the poor, and this is not so.

But regarding some of these people today who say that we do not believe in helping the poor. I want you to remember what they said in days gone by. In the Gospel Advocate Quarterly of 1946, let me read to you what they said about Acts 11:27-30, 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8. Listen to it carefully: “It should be noted that there were no elaborate organizations for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the funds. This is the New Testament method of functioning.” Watch it. “We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish its work.” Why that is just as plain as it can be, and the truth. But listen again. “The self-sufficiency of the church in organization, work, worship and every function required of it by the Lord should be emphasized. This lesson is much needed today. The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibility of the Lord’s people. When brethren form organizations independent of the church to do the work of the church, however worthy their aims and right their design, they are engaged in that which is sinful.” That is what they said in 1946. Then they changed and divided the body of Christ over it. This is one of the major issues that has brought division. We will have more to say of this in our next article.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 294-296
May 12, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

Although it is common knowledge that several congregations now exist strictly for the benefit and encouragement of people with homosexual thinking, the movement continues to come more and more into the open. And, simultaneous with their advancement, morals in other areas are declining. As we look about us, one is made to wonder where the morality of this nation will be in another generation if things do not change rapidly.

The latest advancement of the lesbian movement is now within the ranks of the Episcopal Church itself. According to an article that appeared in the Gary, Indiana Post-Tribune (1-12-77), Ellen Marie Barrett has been sworn in as a priest, despite the fact she is an “avowed lesbian.” Her appointment was greeted with applause from the congregation of 200 people there to witness.

The sad part of this story is that one man did have the courage to stand up and be counted. From the congregation of 200 present, when the statement was made, “If any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now, and make it known,” “The Rev. James C. Wattley, a priest of this diocese” was the only one to come forward. Mr. Wattley opposed her ordination “on the ground of her self-proclaimed lesbianism.”

Several things come to our attention at this point. (1) There were other serious objections to be raised here as well. All Christians are to serve as priests before the Lord (I Pet. 2:5, 9), and there is certainly no Scripture to justify selecting one special class within a congregation to be appointed to such a position over the rest. (2) The fact a woman was being considered in the role of officiating over men was a clear violation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Unfortunately, neither of these points seemed to bother Mr. Wattley — first because he was already himself identified as a special “priest,” and secondly because he raised no objections as another woman was also sworn in as a priest. (3) It was interesting to note that his objection was not because of what the word of God taught on the subject, but rather because “the Church has viewed and still views homosexuality as ‘a sin against the order of the Creator and against the order of Creation.'” Since “the Church” so taught, then that made it wrong! Suppose the “Church” quit so teaching-would it then be wrong (and such is now a real possibility since they have appointed a Lesbian to be a priest)? Regardless of what “the Church” teaches, the word of God still teaches such is a perversion and sin (Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:1921; Eph. 5:4-5; etc.)!

“Bishop Moore” however was ready for the objection, and defended “Ms. Barrett” for having “not made a secret of her homosexual orientation.” His defense was based on three arguments: (I) “Many persons with homosexual tendencies are presently in the ordained ministry.” This argument is basically that sin must be all right if everyone else is doing it. However, regardless of what everyone else is doing, if the word of. God has identified it as sin, then to practice it will only send us where “everyone else” is also going (Matt. 7:13). The Lord strictly warned the nation of Israel, “You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil” (Ex. 23:1). (2) “She is highly qualified intellectually, morally and spiritually to be a priest.” Since when is one qualified to be a leader of others spiritually when they openly admit to practicing and condoning sins that will damn one’s soul in hell? Paul admonished Timothy to show himself as an example to those who believe in his speech, conduct, love, faith and purity (1 Tim. 4:12). James reminded us, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (3:1). The very fact that our actions have far greater impact, and our teachings carry more influence (whether justified or not) made this so. The Lord also reminded us, “Woe to the world because of its stumbling-blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling-blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling-block comes” (Matt. 18:7). Since Lesbianism condemns one’s soul for practicing it, to condone and tolerate it by placing such a one in a position of authority not only places a stumbling block before those thinking in that direction, but also those whom she may influence with her false teaching as well. (3) The fact that the congregation responded with a “thunderous”acceptance of Ellen Barrett as a priest “obviously in of the majority was not to be denied. Thus the word of God was repudiated that the voice of the people might be satisfied. This reminds us of the sin of David when he said, “If it seems good to you, and if it is from the Lord our God”-but then settled for the fact “the thing was right in the eyes of all the people” (1 Chron. 13:2-4). Again, we must remember that “it is not in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23), and “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).

I do not know what Mr. Wattley’s feelings were following the ordination, other than the paper quoted him as saying it was a “travesty and a scandal.” However, it is a sad day for religion in general when the word of God is passed over to support lesbianism and when those who freely admit condoning such are appointed to positions of leadership and influence. It now looks as if the “stigma” of being guilty of such perversions is seeking respectability through religion. Indeed, Satan is a clever adversary (1 Pet. 5:8)!

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 293-294
May 12, 1977