Truth Magazine

By Steve Wallace

For many years now there has been controversy over marriage, divorce and remarriage among those in the Lord’s church. Many debates, discussions, and studies have taken place over such propositions as, “The guilty party in a divorce may remarry,” “Alien sinners are not under God’s marriage laws,” and “The word ‘adultery’ refers to a legal rather than a physical, sexual act.” Through such studies it has been established that those who would affirm the previ- ous propositions are in error and that their doctrine leads to and defends people committing adultery. Also, many who believe and teach such error have been identified.

As time has passed, two different views have developed of brethren who teach and practice the above doctrines. Some believe that they are in error and need to repent of their false teaching or be treated in accordance with 2 John 9-11 and Romans 16:17-18. Others look at them in quite another way. This can be seen by looking at what they have taught. It has been taught that such differences as we have with these brethren are the kind Paul addresses in Romans 14. Also, it has been pointed out that we have had differences on the Christian’s participation in carnal warfare and the woman’s head covering, and have not divided over them or called one another false teacher because of such differences. From this fact it has been argued that we should likewise not divide with those who teach clear error on marriage, divorce and remarriage or call such brethren false teachers. Yet another argument on how we should view such brethren is currently being advanced. I am hearing it more and more. We address it in this article.

How does the Bible’s teaching on local church autonomy fit into this discussion? When asked about the errors we are facing on marriage, divorce and remarriage, some preachers will reply, “I believe in local church autonomy” as if that somehow answers the question. Brethren will state their convictions on unscriptural remarriage, speaking the truth of the Bible, and then say, “But I am not going to get into what (error) is being taught on this subject in another autonomous local church.” You can talk to brethren about a church hiring or using a known false teacher and they will say, “That was their decision as an autonomous local church.” Churches who teach error on divorce and remarriage have argued that their autonomy allows them to do so. If a brother in one church tries to warn another church about an errant preacher that church is considering using, some will cite the “restraining implications” of church autonomy as showing that no one is “to have authority beyond the local church.”

Such views of local church autonomy as those above hold some pretty serious consequences in the present cli- mate among us. This concept allows some brethren to say that they will not be a part of a church that accepts those in adulterous marriages, but then stop short of condemning those who are a part of such a church. It allows other brethren to say that their autonomy allows them to teach error. This view gives still other brethren a basis for hiring a preacher who is sound on these remarriage questions while refusing to condemn a church that hires someone who is unsound. The church autonomy argument muddies the waters in the current controversies on marriage, divorce and remarriage. It is leading many brethren to view those in error with indifference. It will cause churches to invite those who teach error to hold gospel meetings, in contradiction to the plain teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11). It will gradually lead to such brethren being accepted as if they were sound brethren. After all, if they are not viewed as being in error in the churches where they presently hold membership (and they are not according to this view), how can we view them as being in error when they come to preach or be members at the local church where we live and worship? Further, it seeks to stop the mouths of those who are teaching truth by answering a false teacher in another church, thereby al- lowing those “whose mouths must be stopped” to continue their erroneous teaching (Tit. 1:10-11).

In light of these very real consequences we must ask, Are the above mentioned arguments proper applications of the Bible’s teaching on church autonomy? We answer in the negative for the following reasons:

1. It says that one is limited as to whom he can teach the Bible. The Bible gives freedom in this area (Matt. 28:19-20).

2. The Bible allows the practice of identifying false teachers in another church. When Paul told the Philippians to “beware of dogs” (Phil. 3:2), he was clearly warning them of Judaizers in other churches. There is no mention of any such problem at Philippi and the Judaizers were clearly active in other churches (cf. epistle to the Galatians). The brethren at Philippi were to be aware of false teachers in other churches.

3. It allows each church to make its own laws on matters of faith. The Bible says there is one law for all churches (1 Cor. 4:17, cf. Matt. 28:18). No church can use its autonomy to do that for which there is no authority!

4. It implies that one does wrong in passing information of error in a local church to another party who might try to help that church. The Bible clearly allows this practice (1 Cor. 1:11; 5:1; 11:18).

5. It says that one cannot warn another church about a false teacher it may be thinking of using to work with it. Clearly, the brethren in Ephesus did no wrong when they wrote to the brethren in Achaia exhorting them to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). In light of this, how could it be wrong if, in the event Apollos was a false teacher, the brethren in Ephesus wrote to the brethren in Achaia exhorting them not to receive him? Why would one be infringing on a local church’s autonomy and the other clearly authorized?

6. It implies that truth is relative and regional rather than objective and universal. The same Gospel that is to be preached to all men is also to be abided in by all and it will judge all (Mark 16:15; 2 John 9; John 12:48). If what is preached and believed by many on the West Coast with regards to MDR is wrong in the Midwest or South, it is also wrong to those on the West Coast! The fact that many autonomous local churches in this area of the U.S. have made the decision to teach and practice these errors does not somehow make it “right for them.”

Conclusion

Before closing, let us all recognize that, after all that can be done has been done in applying the above points, local churches will have to make their own decisions as to the course they will choose in the present controversy. Churches in the first century had to make their own choices between righteousness and sin (Rev. 2:16; Matt. 7:13-14). The regrettable choices of erring brethren in the divisions over instrumental music and institutionalism show us that, in the end, a local church will decide where it stands. If it decides to embrace error the faithful can keep trying to teach and reach those in such churches, but no organization exists to control them. We see herein a difference between trying to bring a church under Christ’s control (teaching) and trying to bring it under the control of some humanly devised hierarchy, such as exists in Roman Catholicism.

After all is said and done, Christ will judge all men. He will do so by his word (John 12:48; Rom. 2:16). Let us all encourage one another to obey and follow his word. Let there be no strife among us on this issue, for we be brethren. We are right to seek to teach and instruct those in other local churches to help them come out of error. This is as much an act of love as when we try to teach an alien sinner in another state or country. Let us not be cowed by those who refuse to help their brethren who are lost or erring!

By Kenneth D. Sils

During the second week of December in 1997, Clinton Douglas of South Bend, Indiana and I had the blessed opportunity to preach the gospel on the island of Jamaica in the Caribbean Sea. Brother Douglas has preached the gospel in Jamaica a few times and asked me if I would like to get involved in the work of our Lord with him on the island. Never before have I ventured out of America to preach, so after much thought and prayer, I was ready to embark on this most excellent adventure.

On Monday, December 8, we landed in Montego Bay where Errol Lawson, the preacher working with the Cave church of Christ, picked us up and away we went to our preaching destination that evening. Since it takes about an hour and a half to drive 30 miles through the hill country of Jamaica, we had plenty of time to talk about our agenda for the week and to help settle the “culture shock” I experienced at the airport. The plan for the week was for us to preach two gospel meetings: one with the Cave church of Christ on Monday through Thursday on the south side of the island and the other was with the church of Christ at Montego Bay on the northwest side of the Island.

There are many churches of Christ on the island of Jamaica, yet I was made aware of only three congregations that were standing against the institutional practices that have plagued our Lord’s body over the past 50 years. There are two congregations on the southwest side of the island. The church of Christ at Savanna-La-Mar where J.S. Lawson preaches and the Cave church of Christ at Cave where Errol Lawton, J.S.Lawton’s son, preaches. Many preachers from America have been involved in planting the seed of Jesus in these areas, especially in the Cave area, and our Lord has blessed their efforts with an increase of souls. Brother Andy Alexander eloquently wrote about this work in the Guardian of Truth last March and described the evangelism which took place at Cave in 1996. Two years ago, their meeting house consisted of only a foundation with two-by-fours that had a canvas overlapping them. Now, the walls are up and their building is very nice compared to Jamaican standards. Two years ago, this congregation averaged 20-25, but now in two years, their membership is in the mid-forties and still moving up.

Each night of the meeting at Cave, the building was filled with members and visitors alike. One couple that is burned in my memory had just obeyed the gospel three weeks earlier and was so happy that they had found Jesus and knew they could now go to heaven. They were in their eighties! Clinton and I preached each evening and spoke on the basics, including the work of the church and the dangers of using the institutions of men in an attempt to do the work of a congregation. Although we didn’t have any baptisms at Cave, we did have some very promising personal Bible studies with people in that area. A few told us they were going to get baptized if they could get to church on Sunday; yet, it rained on Sunday which makes it difficult for people to come out on the Jamaica roadways.

Over the weekend in Jamaica, we preached a meeting with the church which meets in Montego Bay where Jerry Angelo has been preaching for eight years. The church in Montego Bay meets at the YMCA in town and is about 30 in number. On Saturday, the church decided to meet at Jerry’s house and have a marathon Bible study. One of the young members brought a friend named Keyn and he pounded Clinton and me with questions for almost two hours. There is a lot of denominational doctrine on the island and most of the Jamaicans I met know about Jesus, yet are filled with the doctrines of men, much like people in this country. However, Jamaicans appear eager to listen to other views, especially if you are from America. On Sunday, Clinton spoke at Savanna-La-Mar in the morning and I spoke at Cave. On Sunday evening, both Clinton and I spoke at Montego Bay  where we had a very good crowd, nearing 50! Upon returning, I had several snapshots developed and placed on overhead transparencies to explain the work in detail to the congregation I am working with in South Bend. If you are interested in viewing this presentation about the work in Jamaica, I will do what I can to secure a VCR copy.

The church of Christ appears to be thriving in Jamaica. Although the number of members are small, about 100 for three individual congregations, the heart of the people are zealous and dedicated in serving the Lord. Brother J.S.D. Lawton and his son, Errol are hard working servants of the Lord worthy of our support and prayers. Without their efforts, both congregations on the south side of Jamaica would be greatly hindered. The same can be said for the work of brother Angelo among the congregation in Montego Bay. All three of these men spend a great deal of their personal resources to help members get to worship and provide spiritual leadership and teaching of the doctrine of Christ to make Jamaicans children of our King.

 

The Christians in Jamaica are very much encouraged when their brothers and sisters in America express an interest in their spiritual well-being. In many ways, the church has the same fight of faith that we have in America and they take up this challenge with courage, love and dedication to Christ. Jesus encouraged his apostles to take the gospel of Christ to every creature (Mark 16:15). It was a joy to my heart to see the most precious faith of Christ residing in the hearts of men and women far away from our land and culture. Pray for them and let’s remember to be busy following in the footsteps of Jesus here at home by, “seeking and saving the lost” (Luke 19:10).”

By Floyd D. Chappelear

A ruling by the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court in December has let stand a lower court ruling which allows the state to decide whether or not a parent’s Christian faith might be harmful to the emotional and mental health of his/her own children.

In the case of Kendall vs. Kendall, differences over religion led to the breakdown of Jeffrey and Barbara Kendall’s marriage. When they were married in 1988, the Kendalls agreed to raise the children in the Jewish faith. But tension developed in 1991 when Mr. Kendall joined the Boston Church of Christ, and the gulf between the Kendalls’ religious views widened in 1994 when Ms. Kendall adopted Orthodox Judaism. Although the two were awarded joint legal custody of their three children, Ms. Kendall had obtained physical custody during divorce proceedings.

At the beginning of those proceedings, Ms. Kendall, the plaintiff, sought to have her husband’s ability to share his faith with the children limited. She was upset because her husband was teaching the children that only people who put their trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God would go to heaven. Mrs. Kendall wanted him to stop.

The lower court agreed, concurring with a previous deci- sion (Melton vs. Melton) which stated that “some limitation of the liberties of one or the other of the parents” could occur in order to “serve the best interests of the children.” Those “best interests,” the court made clear, would be determined by the state of Massachusetts.

Specifically, the court agreed that the children were being “harmed by exposure to [Mr. Kendall’s] religious beliefs” when the father implied that Ms. Kendall would go to hell if she didn’t put her faith in Christ. The Court reasoned that the resulting mental strain and emotional anxiety in the children justified limiting Mr. Kendall’s religious freedom.

As a result, the court ruled that Mr. Kendall “shall not take the children to his church (whether to church services or Sunday School or church education programs); nor engage them in prayer or Bible study if it promotes rejection rather than acceptance, of their mother or their own Jewish self-identity.

“The [defendant] shall not share his religious beliefs with the children if those beliefs cause the children significant emotional distress or worry about their mother or themselves,” the court said. Furthermore, the court ruled that if a disagreement arose between the Kendalls as to Mr. Kendall’s religious activities with the children, then a court appointed interloper would “address the inter-religious conflict.”

Brian Fahling, attorney at American Family Association Law Center, said the implications of this ruling were frightening. “First, the state has taken upon itself the authority to determine when a parent can express his faith to his children and when he cannot,” Fahling said. “The U.S. Constitution grants no such authority to a judge or any other governmental representative.

“Second, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has put a potentially lethal weapon into the hands of those who despise Christianity. With this precedent, a judge can rule that, if Christian teaching causes a child — and ultimately anyone — emotional discomfort, such Christian teaching can be prohibited,” he said.

The consequences of such a ruling could be expanded in unlimited fashion, Fahling said. “What if mom leaves her Christian husband for another woman? Could the father tell his children that homosexuality was a sin?” he asked. “Could a divorced Christian mother tell her children that daddy’s use of pornography is a sin?”

Fahling added that he has never heard of such an insidious ruling, except in Communist countries like the former Soviet Union, where parents were forbidden to teach their minor children about Christ. Communist doctrine insisted that Christianity was a mental illness, and thus dangerous to the health of a child.