Truth Magazine

By Tarry L. CluffFort

What would you think of an organization that was set up for the study of cancer research (that was its charter and reason given for their pleas to solicit funds from the public), one day while they were on their way to the research laboratory they came upon a bridge that needed repairs, so having all the funds with them they decided to pay for the repairs needed on the bridge? Their reasoning went something like this: “If we don’t fix 1 his bridge someone might get killed and what good would cancer research do for a dead person? Besides fixing the bridge would be a good work, so that must make it alright.” Or what would you think of a man in charge of repairing bridges, given thousands of tax dollars to do so, but he decided cancer is such a bad thing that he would take the money and start a cancer research program? After all, cancer research would be a good work, so he tells himself: “Surely no one would object to using the money for such a good cause.”

It should be obvious to everyone that both the cancer research organization and the bridge repair man would be guilty of misappropriation of funds. It is not a matter of what would be a good work for these people to do, but simply a matter of appropriation. The same basic question should always be asked, what were the funds appropriated for?

When you and I give to a cancer research group, we expect them to use it for that purpose. If they spend the money for something else, they have deceived us and misappropriated the funds. Such would be a violation of their charter and against the law. Likewise for the man employed to repair bridges, he would be fired from his job if he took the funds given to him and used it for something other than what he was paid to do, no matter how good the other work may seem to him.

The Bible authorizes the church to spend the Lord’s money for certain things. To spend it for something not authorized by God’s Word would be a misappropriation of the Lord’s money. Jesus has authorized the -funds of His church to be used in three categories:

1. Evangelism-converting sinners to Christ by preaching the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:8).

2. Edification-teaching members of the church (Eph. 4:15-16).

3. Benevolence-relieving the needs of members, when such needs exist (Acts 11:29).

This is the work of the church; the funds of the church are authorized for these three works only. If the church uses its funds for anything other than evangelism, edification and benevolence to needy saints, it would be misappropriating the Lord’s money, because other things are not authorized by the Lord (see 2 John 9 and Colossians 3:17).

Churches today spend thousands of dollars for things you can not read about in God’s Word. The other day I read an article of a church buying a “youth camp” for almost one hundred thousand dollars. Where in the Bible do you read of the Lord’s money being used for such a thing? Remember it is not whether a youth camp may be a “good work,” but what is the church authorized to do? The church has no business being in the entertainment field. Let us not “saddle” the church with entertainment responsibilities which rightfully belong to the home!

If you belong to a church that is spending its money for things like this, please ask them where they get their authority? Ask them to show you where in the New Testament the church ever engaged in such things. I assure you such is not found in the Bible. If they will not stop this misappropriation of funds, get out of it and look for a church interested in doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way (see 1 Peter 4:11).

Truth Magazine XXI: 9, pp.141-142
March 3, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Capital punishment as a penalty for certain crimes has fallen upon “bad times” recently. Since 1965 there have been but a handful of executions in the United States. The penalty is being reviewed by the Supreme Court as “cruel and unusual punishment” and hence unconstitutional. It is interesting, though, that as fewer criminals have had to suffer death for capital crimes, that the rate of capital crime has skyrocketed. While the two rates are not statistically related to one another by experts, this writer feels that their correlation is direct. As law loses its power to enforce moral standards, then increasingly those standards will be neglected by the citizen and fearlessly disregarded by the evil-doer.

Arguments Against Death Penalty

The arguments against the death penalty are primarilly directed against its abuse: errors of justice sometimes lead to the execution of innocent people. Sometimes the death penalty is applied unequally, mostly to the poor and the defenseless, who cannot afford lawyers, appeals, or alternate pleas.

Some Christians oppose the death penalty or declare “It may be lawful, but I wouldn’t throw the switch.” The latter view begs the question. If something is “lawful”-pleasing to God-then our squemishness or scruples place us “above” God’s will. This position is not unlike the brother who “accepts” the scripturality of church autonomy, but is not willing to make it a matter of principle as far as his life and practice is concerned. It has been said before, but we must be careful that our scruples do not surpass the Lord’s.

The former view is primarilly supported by the general pacifist arguments. Basically the idea expressed is that the Christian does not have the right to take the life of a man for whom Christ has died. The death penalty is human judgement (sending a man to perdition without ever obeying the gospel), and thusly takes from God something that belongs only to him.

This view overlooks one crucial point-the Christian (or anyone else) does not have the individual human right to take life outside of law. The question is not whether an individual may take life, for this is granted. Murder or manslaughter is certainly against the law of man and God. One may not seek vengeance by taking the life of one who has committed capital crimes as an individual. “Lynch law” or “Vigilantee justice” has always been abhorrent to God. The question is may government, state, community, the “higher power” claim the life of one who is guilty of capital crime? If the answer is yes, then the individual acting within law as a Christian may operate in any part of that process which brings death to the evil-doer: as a juror, a judge, a lawyer, a policeman, a guard, an executioner, or a lawmaker.

This power is specifically granted in Romans 13:4. Evil doers are to fear the “higher powers” because it carries the sword “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” The sword is not a symbol of punishment; it is an implement of death or execution. Government does not carry the sword without reason, Paul claimed. It was given to the government to enable that power to act as God’s minister to those who keep law in protecting the community from lawmakers by penalizing the criminal.

Why Kill the Evil Doer?

The question often arises, “Why kill the evil doer? Doesn’t life imprisonment act just as well as a deterrent to crime, and keeping the criminal off the street?” The answer is “No.” Life imprisonment is seldom for “life.” A man is eligible for parole on a life sentence after six years, and many criminals guilty of murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, assassination, lynching, bombing, treason, etc. have been freed after a few years on a “life” sentence. In the month of April in Anne Arundel county in Maryland a man attacked, raped, and almost killed a fourteen year old schoolgirl. Just seven months before, he had been released from a prison where he had served seven years for raping and brutally murdering a sixteen year old girl. This past month the kidnapping of a young boy made headlines in the Baltimore area. After two weeks the youngster was found in Virginia captive of a convicted homosexual child abuser and murderer. It was found that the . man had never been sentenced, but remanded to a state clinic because he had been judged “sick” instead of “guilty” in his earlier murder and abuse of a toddler. When he was arrested the young boy was then able to lead the police to the grave of another young boy that he had witnessed his kidnapper molest and murder. The criminal was sent back to the state “hospital” and placed under heavier security. Before, he had been able to just walk away and was not missed, till a child had turned up missing. Brethren-there are some things worthy of death.

Why Death?

Many have imbibed of the modernistic penal philosophy that criminal sentence should be primarially for the rehabilitation of the evil doer. The thought is that man is not as responsible for his condition as society is. The combined qualities of environment, race prejudice, economic deprivation, and schooling failures make criminal behaviour. “Why hold the criminal responsible for what Society has done to him?” This view of criminal behaviour eliminates God’s teaching that every man is responsible for what he does, and that all men will be judged individually for what they do, good or evil. While it is true that the criminal is in need of repentance and rehabilitation, punishment is not for his benefit.

Vengeance. Scripture tells us that punishment of the evil doer is fundamentally one of revenge. Now, vengeance is not worked individually. The Christian is not allowed to arbitrarily seek vengeance for wrongs he has sustained (Rom. 12:17, 19; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9). But the restriction God has placed on us in seeking personal revenge does not mean that revenge for evil is wrong. God has sought revenge may times against those who have wronged him (2 Cor. 10:6; Rom. 12:19; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 10:30). 1 might ask the same question that Paul did of the Romans, “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world” (Rom 3:5,6)? Vengeance belongs to God, and he has placed his sword into the hands of the state “for he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath ,upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). When one has lost someone dear due to the bloody hands of a murderer or worse, then God gives us vengeance through his minister of vengeance by the shedding of the murderer’s blood. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s, brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man” (Cf. Gen. 9:5,6; Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Matt. 26:52; Rev. 13:10).

Deterrence. Punishment is an example as well as vengeance. When God practiced divine retribution against the lies of Ananias and Saphira, the result among God’s people at their execution was that “great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 5:11). The threat of punishment by the state restrains the criminal, as well as providing reason for the law keeper to remain within law. Those who argue from statistics that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime overlook or forget that the threat of punishment is not effective unless there is an assurance of swift punishment. Today, though there are strong penalties for certain crimes, execution of punishment is seldom brought about. Criminals figure, “cop a plea” “serve time,” and then get “out on parole.” Punishment that is deferred or not enforced actually encourages crime rather than deterring it. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). In fact, in many instances the only person who suffers is the victim. What advantage is there in keeping the law when there is no penalty to be feared for breaking law? “There is a vanity which is done upon the face of the earth; that there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous” (Eccl. 8:14).

But proper sentence speedily executed without respect of persons is a very real deterrent to crime: “And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. . . and all Israel shall hear, and fear. and shall do no more any such wickedness as this among you” (Dent. 13:10, 11). “When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise” (Prov. 12:11). “Now these things were our examples (destruction of the Jews in wilderness because of sin 10:6-11) . . . now all things happened to them for ensamples” (1 Cor. 10:6, 11).

Protection of Public. Capital punishment is not only punitive, but it also is defensive. Criminals beget crime, prey on the lawkeeper and the innocent, and destroy the unity and purpose of community. Criminals lower

the value of human dignity and take away freedoms and liberties of all citizens by their abuses. Society must preserve itself from those among it that would prey on its members. We see the way in which discipline protects and keeps the church pure by isolating and negating the influence and power of the sinner (1 Cor. 5:5-8, 13). In society, the criminal who is guilty of capital crime is eliminated through execution. The expression may be crude, but not the concept: “The murderer who is put to death will never murder again.” “Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off” (Psa. 37:37, 38).

Human life belongs to God, and he is not unrighteous to take it. There are some crimes that are deserving of death (Acts 25:11). Christians should repudiate any maudlin sentimentality which does not take crime seriously. Men may try to eliminate punishment for evil doing. God will find vengeance ultimately though men fail in their appointed roles. Men may escape death at the hand of men, but they will never escape death at the hand of God.

Truth Magazine XXI: 10, pp. 140-141
March 3, 1977

By Earl E. Robertson

Introduction Of Instrumental Music

Having already observed that no apostle ever wrote anything about instrumental music in worship to God and that no New Testament church ever practiced such, we must conclude that it is not now possible to use it and walk by faith. But in the light of this conclusion and the fact that many churches do use mechanical instrumental music as worship to God, when did such a practice begin? Since it did not have its beginning with God we cannot locate its origin in Holy Writ. We must, therefore, turn to the testimony of men for this information.

“The Greek word `psallo’ is applied among the Greeks of modern times exclusively to sacred music, which in the Eastern Church has never been any other than vocal, instrumental music being unknown in that church, as it was in the primitive church (McClintock c& Strong, Vol. 8, p. 739).

“But this argument would prove that it is as much a duty to play as to sing in worship. It is questionable whether, as used in the New Testament, `psallo’ means more than to sing . . . . The absence of instrumental music from the church for some centuries after the apostles and the sentiment regarding it which pervades the writing of the fathers are unaccountable, if in the apostolic church such music was used” (Schaff-Herzog, Vol. 3, p. 1961).

“It is not, therefore, strange that instrumental music was not heard in their congregational services . . . In the early church the whole congregation joined in the singing, but instrumental music did not accompany the praise” (W. D. Killen, The Ancient Church, pp. 193, 423).

“Yet there was little temptation to undue elaboration of hymnody or music. The very spirituality of the new faith made ritual or liturgy superfluous and music almost unnecessary. Singing (there was no instrumental accompaniment) was little more than a means of expressing in a practicable, social way, the common faith and experience …. The music was purely vocal. There was no instrumental accompaniment of any kind . . . . It fell under the ban of the Christian church, as did all other instruments, because of its pagan association” (E. S. Lorenz, Church Music, pp. 217, 250, 404).

“While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal” (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54).

“All the music employed in their early services was vocal, and the rhythmic element and all gesticulation were forbidden” (Frank L. Humphreys, The Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).

The Eastern Church “Fathers” definitely occupy this same position. They could be quoted at length to support this contention that the early church did not use instrumental music in its worship. G. I. Papadopoulos wrote, “The execution of Byzantine church music by instruments, or even the accompaniment of sacred chanting by instruments, was ruled out by the Eastern Fathers as being incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ. The Fathers of the church, in accordance with the example of psalmodizing of our Savior and the holy Apostles, established that only vocal music be used in the churches and severely forbade instrumental music as being secular and hedonic, and in general as evoking pleasure without spiritual value” (A Historical Survey of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Music (in Greek”, Athens, 1904, pp. 10, 11).

“It was, however, purely vocal” (Dr. F. L. Ritter, History of Music from the Christian Era to the Present Time, p. 28).

In the absence of Christ’s disciples making use of instrumental music in their worship, there is an emphasis on the spiritual: they praised God in singing-music in their hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and with understanding (1 Cor. 14:15). Their concern was vocal rather than instrumental music. But inasmuch as instrumental music is today offered unto the Lord as worship, though such was not the case in the early church, when was instrumental music introduced into the churches? The American Encyclopedia says, “Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe about 670; but the earliest trustworthy account is that of one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of Franks in 755” (Volume 12, p. 688). The Chambers Encyclopedia (Vol. 7, p. 112) says, “The organ is said to have been introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian in 666 A.D.”

This testimony, both historical and scriptural, bears witness to the fact that instrumental music in worship to God today is a departure from the word of God and does not represent the order of divine service rendered in the early church.

Testimony of Eminent Authors

Dr. A. T. Robertson, Greek scholar of the Southern Baptist said, “The word (psalleto) originally meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord” (Studies in the Epistle James, comment on James 5:13).

Albert Barnes, the eminent Presbyterian commentator, said, “Psallo . . . is used, in the New Testament, only in Rom. 15:9 and 1 Cor. 14:15, where it is translated sing; in James 5:13, where it is rendered sing psalms, and in the place before us. The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart” (Notes on The Testament, comment on Eph.5:19).

John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian Church and an able student of Augustine’s doctrine, said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (Comment on Psalms 33).

J. W. McGarvey, long-time recognized as one of the world’s better Greek students, said, “And if any man who is a preacher believes that the apostle teaches the use of instrumental music in the church by enjoining the singing of psalms, he is one of those smatterers in Greek who can believe anything that he wishes to believe. When the wish is father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck’s back” (Biblical Criticism, p. 116).

Conybeare and Howson wrote, “When you meet, let your enjoyment consist not in fullness of wine, but fullness of the spirit; let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart; while you sing them to the praise, not of Bacchus or Venus, but of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Life and Times of the Apostle Paul, comment on Eph. 5:19).

Alzog, the Catholic Scholar, Church Historian of the University of Freiburg and champion of instrumental music in worship, was faithful to his scholarship when he wrote, “St. Ambrose and St. Gregory rendered great service to church music by the introduction of what are known as the Ambrosian and Gregorian chants . . . . Ecclesiastical chant, departing in some instances from the simple majesty of its original character, became more artistic, and, on this account, less heavenly and more profane; and the Fathers of the Church were not slow to censure this corruption of the old and honored church song. Finally, the organ, which seemed an earthly echo of the angelic choirs in heaven, added its full, rich, and inspiring notes to the beautiful simplicity of the Gregorian chant” (Universal Church History, Vol. 1, pp. 696, 697).

From this testimony one can see the process of denominational experience with this innovation. The denominations at first opposed the introduction of the instrument into their worship but finally yielded to the demand of the masses for it. This long, weary process should be enough to convince any fair-minded person that had there been one statement from the New Testament authorizing its practice or one example where any New Testament church used it under apostolic guidance, the controversy would have been forestalled.

John Kurtz, the Lutheran scholar and church historian, said, “At first church music was simple, artless, recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the introduction of instrumental accompaniment” (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 376).

Truth Magazine XXI: 10, pp. 138-139
March 3, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Sir Winston Churchill referred to Communism as “a riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Brethren who discuss division among God’s people are often bewildered. “How does it really happen? What is the real cause?”

The disciples of Christ during His personal ministry were sometimes baffled by certain realities stated by Jesus. “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? . . . Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it . . .” (John 6:60-61). He explained Himself further for the sake of those who truly desired the truth (“For whoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance” Matt. 13:12). And he knew that many things would be made plainer as certain events transpired in the passing of time (cf. John 2:19-22). Furthermore, in the case of the apostles, Christ found it necessary to withhold fully explaining some things until “the Spirit of truth is come” (John 16:12-13).

Jesus Unravels The Enigma of Judas

But in spite of every explanation, in spite of the eventual clarity and fulness of completed revelation, Christ said on one occasion, “But there are some of you that believe not,” having particular reference to Judas (John 6:64). There stands the truth like the rock of Gibraltar, but Judas did not obey it. Why? Well, we can do a lot of “interesting” things with that question. We can start by saying Judas was a complex individual. We can dissect, bisect, and intersect him-analyze, mesmerize, and computerize him. Then put him under the scientist’s microscope (maybe he had a tumor or gland trouble). next on the couch surrounded by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts. Speculate as to whether his “sex drives” made him egocentric, geo-centric, or helio-centric. He was a man of many lusts, temptations, and loyalties. And what about the fact that he hung himself, which suggests all his actions stemmed from a “guilt complex.” Which “hangup” finally hung him (suggested thesis topic for degree in pastoral counseling)? Judas had many misunderstandings, he could not be expected to “get it all right,” so maybe he is not such a bad fellow after all! Suffice it to say Judas’ fall can be examined and explained from many angles.

Wading through all that, we might stumble on an occasional truth or gain some interesting insight into his character. But when it is all said and done unbelief, not a rumor, unbelief, not a misunderstanding, unbelief, no a “sex drive,” led Judas off. “There are some of you that believe not.” No doubt Judas admired many things Jesus taught, and had a loyalty of sorts to Jesus. But Jesus did and taught some things which Judas could not bring himself to accept. He just did not believe some of the claims and teachings of Jesus-whether about the person of Jesus, the nation of Israel, or the role of a disciple. He did not see how such things could be true or necessary; in that way, he “misunderstood” the truth. But we do not have to know all the inner workings of his mind, will, or emotions to know the root cause of his fall: “there are some of you that believe not.”

Jesus put his finger on the cause of Judas’ inability to serve God faithfully. That should be sufficient for us. That is what we need to know (Deut. 29:29). There may be some interesting discussions of why Judas fell, but the most interesting and most accurate explanation is that given by the Lord himself. The riddle wrapped in an enigma is unwrapped by the Lord when he says, “But there are some of you that believe not.”

Plenty of Approaches to the Enigma of Division

What is the root cause of division among God’s people? Historians have looked at division in what we call the Restoration Movement from many angles. Different writers have different viewpoints, even different purposes in writing. Looking at all the explanations to division offered, one could get the impression that division is a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Without trying to give a “scholarly review” of these explanations, we would like to notice some of them. Elements of truth or valid observations may be found in all of them. Overlapping of explanations occurs and some writers draw on more than one of these ideas. Still it is possible to identify the main point of emphasis in differing approaches to the problem of division.

1. A secular, American history approach. This American history approach talks a lot about the “frontier experience.” Historians point out an emphasis on individualism and independence, an antagonism toward centralization. This explains the desire to break away from established government and religion. It also helps explain an inclination toward congregational autonomy. Then, belligerence on the frontier (man vs. nature and Indians, east vs. west, later north vs. south, etc.) explains the desire of early Restoration figures to debate their beliefs. Things like independence and belligerence create division.

2. A religious, American history approach. This American church history approach tries to apply the American religious experience to the Restoration Movement. This approach may criticize the above one for not observing the impact of man’s religious instinct, separate from such things as his “frontier experience.” The spiritual yearning of man may be given more attention, i.e. the Restoration Movement is an expression of man’s spiritual yearning and its divisions evidence of a continual effort to satisfy such yearnings. Or, the proliferation of sects in the 1800’s may explain the spirit of division which wrecked the unity of the movement. Then the sect-to-denomination pattern may be used. The movement began as a religious sect; but as this sect moved toward denominational status (more organized, accepted, established) new sects spun off under the leadership of minority spokesmen.

3. An economic approach. Some historians explain all history in terms of man’s economic struggle. This approach has touched the field of church history. When the Restoration Movement started out, it was small and poorly accepted and militant; poor people easily identified with this “underdog” status. But as the movement grew, many of these poor people climbed the economic ladder; also, more middle-class and wealthy people accepted the movement and began to join it. The poor and rich have inherent antipathy toward each other, so division is inevitable as the two groups mix (or rather fail to mix). This approach can simplify issues like instrumental music: the group that could not afford an organ labeled it unscriptural simply because they could not afford one. The difference between use and nonuse is the difference between being able to afford one and not being able to! Simple economics.

4. A social approach. This explanation of division overlaps easily with the last one, but is broader. Social status involves more than mere economics. Social differences include things like urban and rural, blue collar and white collar, educated and uneducated, ethnic and racial background. Division comes along social lines and for social reasons. The uneducated preachers reject what the educated ones teach because of sociological antipathy. Political and other movements in society are studied in an effort to relate them to the Restoration Movement. In other words, the Restoration Movement is seen as just another social movement. The make-up of differing groups and the cause of their division can be specified by social identifications like WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant).

5. A psychological approach. Division occurs because men have been molded along certain psychological lines or deprived of certain psychological needs. Southerners fought so hard in the Civil War because they felt guilty about slavery and were trying to hide the guilt in the allout effort required by war, according to one theory. Further the guilt was hidden by appealing to a legalistic view of the Constitution-justification through strict construction. The psychology of the Southern mind is explained by the Civil War and guilt complexes over slavery; but, especially after the war, the militant, strictconstructionist group in the Restoration was strong’ in the South. This explains the division in terms of an overall psychological pattern.

Another instance under this head is what one scholar calls “the male menopause.” Somewhere around 45 to 50 years of age, males go through a period of change, stress, doubt, and re-assessment, related to sexual changes in the body. Psychological pressures and needs at this period may cause one to change religious identification, seek new beliefs, or otherwise realign himself. Becoming a factional leader or otherwise participating in division can satisfy his psychological urges. So goes the theory.

The Bible Approach: Truth Is the Great Divider!

Well, so much for all that. The most interesting and accurate approach of all is the Bible approach! Some truth may be found in the approaches above, but the Bible does not emphasize any of them as the basic explanation of division among God’s people. The Bible approaches the problem of division from one’s attitude toward truth in general and toward specific truth in specific issues. Truth is the great divider.

Truth divides people from people. More than that, it separates men from God. Truth is the power God chose as the means to gather unto Himself an approved people and to turn away those He will not approve (Rom. 1:16; Gal. 1:8-9). He will not have those who will not have His truth.

We do not mean truth as an abstract philosophical idol of some kind-not merely a set of useful theories about life. Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We are speaking of the truth as revealed in, by, and through Christ. Christ said of the true shepherd, “the sheep hear his voice . . . the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:3-5). Then he said, “I am the good shepherd” (Joan 10:11). The fulness of “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

We do not mean Christ as a person subtracted and abstracted from the truth spoken by him personally and by him through inspired men. Christ promised to send “the Spirit of truth” to guide the apostles “into all truth” (John 16:13). He kept that promise. We have his words of truth in the Bible today. Following him means accepting his truth. Rejecting his words is rejecting him. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63).

The kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of truth. When Christ, standing before Pilate, acknowledged that He was a king, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world . . . To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37). The weapons of this warfare “are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). Christians are armed with the loin girt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:10-17). Make no mistake about it, we are in a battle for truth, a battle to the finish.

And, make no mistake about it, truth is the great divider of men. Christ is the truth, has the truth, reveals the truth in all its fulness. Devotion to him requires devotion to his truth. There are but two camps. There is no neutral army betwixt and between. A line was drawn in the dirt at the Alamo, across which those who would fight to the finish were to step. Those who crossed it stood in unity. But all who would not pass over were divided or separate from those who did. Eternal truth is the line that separates and divides asunder those whom God will have and those He will not have. The truth that unifies, divides.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matt. 10:34-36).

Men who love God will love one another, and men who love the truth of God will love one another. Devotion to Christ and his truth will overcome every obstacle. Personal preferences, opinions, and problems may arise from time to time between brethren, but constant devotion to truth will conquer all such potential barriers.

Senseless separations between brethren began occuring at Corinth; with the trumpet call of divine truth, Paul summoned them back to their senses (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:13; 4:6; 17; .11:1; 14:37). Just as Christ said, “It is impossible but that offenses will come,” Paul warned the Corinthians that their divisions over petty things could degenerate into solidified factions. Such factions are sustained not by devotion to truth, but to some selfwilled choice, some favorite opinion. “For there must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). Those who shall be approved (dokimoi-opposite of adokimoi, cf. 9:27) in God’s sight, place truth above every self-willed choice and favorite opinion. Heresy is “an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth” (Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. II, p. 217).

The Root of Division: Unbelief

Those who are not so devoted to truth as to lay aside. every personal preference, opinion, and choice are material for division. The devil is working with “all deceivableness” and finding men who receive “not the love of the truth.” Because such men love not the truth, God allows them to be deceived by “strong delusion,” “that they all might be damned who believed not the truth . . .” (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Divisive groups are “composed of those who have chosen their self-willed line and adhere to it” (Alford’s Greek Testament, Vol. III, p. 59). Such works of flesh are condemned in the severest terms: “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).

Lack of loyalty to Christ, unbelief of divine truth-that is the cause of division. When Moses both spoke to and struck the rock, God charged him with unbelief in that matter (Num. 20:12). All the explanations of his frustration and all the analyses of the pressures brought on him by the Jews will not change the fact that God called it unbelief. The root cause of this failure was unbelief. He did not fail to believe in God’s existence, but in His words. Moses’ character was such that he repented of his failings; yet God impressed upon Moses, Israel, and all of us the great sin of not obeying God’s word even in small particulars.

When brethren become wedded to their own opinions, doctrines, creeds, and preferences, those who are sound in the faith must remember that division is imminent. Sound men must preach and plead with all the heart “for the gospel’s sake.” Yet once brethren set their minds against truth, they are abiding in unbelief. The Corinthian church allowed “others” (other than Paul and other than sound men) to “be partakers” in their financial support (1 Cor. 9:12,23). After doing all he could by appeal to the truth, Paul then warned, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2. Cor. 6:14).

“Lord, Is It I?”

Division will come. It is a sin, and will be here as long as people are here to commit sin. Why do brethren divide? The ultimate answer is not found in a study of American history, religious history, economics, sociology, or psychology alone. The answer is found in God’s Word just as plain as day. Brethren are led off from time to time by all sorts of lusts of the flesh and mind, all sorts of temptations, all sorts of loyalties. We may never know all these inner workings of their minds, but we can know the key element in division. That is no enigma at all. The key element, the root cause, is unbelief of divine truth.

Brethren, let us search our hearts, diligently, daily, remembering these words, “But there are some of you that believe not.” “Lord; is it I?” Remember, our loyalty toward. the Lord and attitude toward truth are basic to the problem of division among God’s people.

Truth Magazine XXI: 9, pp. 135-138
March 4, 1977