Truth Magazine

By Steven Wallace

Some among us have argued for a subjective approach to unity with those who teach error on divorce and remarriage. This approach is different from simply seeking unity based on truth (Eph. 4:3; John 8:31-32) and allows for unity-in-diversity among brethren who teach and practice opposing views. A recent news story demonstrates the weakness of the subjective approach to unity:

Witches prompt walkout

CHICAGO  Diversity died in harmony when an Orthodox Christian group walked out of a religious conference because it included witches.

The goal of the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions was to promote harmony among the world’s major faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

But Orthodox Christian representatives dropped out of the eight-day conference that began Saturday to protest the participation of Wicca believers, or witches, and other neo-pagan groups.

“It would be inconceivable for Orthodox Christianity to establish a perceived relationship with groups which profess no belief in God or a supreme being,” the Orthodox Christian Host Committee said in a letter dated Monday (The Stars and Stripes, 3 September 1993).

While we recognize that the above mentioned “Christians” are not New Testament Christians, we believe that this story shows some weaknesses in the subjective approach to unity among brethren. Please consider the following lessons that it teaches:

1. The subjective approach to unity rests upon what man “conceives.” “It would be inconceivable … ” (above). The word “subjective” means, “of, affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feeling or temperament of the subject, or person thinking, rather than the attributes of the object thought of; as, a subjective judgment” (Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, p.1813). If the “Orthodox Christian Host Committee” had been using an objective standard, such as the Bible or their particular creed, they would have cited the place where their basis of judgment could be found (cf., “It is written,” Matt. 4:4). Instead they spoke of what they could “conceive.” Whether you are dealing with unity among the Lord’s people or relation-ships among world religions, the subjective approach to unity rests upon what man conceives. Let us all remember that “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

2. The subjective approach is a rejection of the Bible as the standard for determining whom we should accept or reject. It is instructive that the above Christian group could apparently “conceive” of a “relationship” with Jews, Moslems, Hindus, and Buddhists. There is no more Scripture for unity with such people than there is for unity with witches (2 John 9-11). However, this manifestly shows that the subjective approach rejects the Bible as its ultimate grounds of appeal. This is similar to the position our brethren find themselves in when arguing for the subjective approach to unity with regards to divorce and remarriage: The Bible teaches that we should treat as erring brethren both those whose teaching leads others to commit fornication and those who commit fornication themselves (Rev. 2:14-16; 1 Cor. 5:11). However, brethren who use the subjective approach to unity will argue that we should accept such brethren. (Note: The definition of the word “fornication” includes adultery [Thayer, pp. 531-532; Arndt and Gingrich, p. 693].) There is no more Scripture for unity with those who teach or commit adultery than with those who practice homosexuality. (Note: The definition of the word “fornication” also includes homosexuality, Thayer, and Amdt and Gingrich, Ibid.) However, this manifestly shows that the subjective approach rejects the Bible as its ultimate grounds of appeal. Those who use the subjective approach may still use the Bible as a standard of appeal. The “Orthodox Christian Host Committee” rested their decision to reject the “Wicca believers” on the Bible principle that man must believe in God (Heb. 11:6). Ed Harrell has argued that the false teacher on divorce and remarriage whom he would accept must be “honest” (Christianity Magazine, Sept., 1989, p. 6; cf. Eph. 4:25). In both cases the Bible is reduced to being a standard for determining our relationship with others instead of being the standard for determining our relationship with others (Rom. 16:17-18; Gal. 2:14; Jas. 5:19; 2 John 9- 1).

3. When one gives up the Bible as the final basis of appeal anything is possible. The Bible is the only valid basis for Christians to use in determining with whom to have unity (2 John 4-6,9-11; Rom. 16:17-18). The above article shows us that the subjective approach allows for broader-than-Bible “relationships.” While we do not believe that brethren presently arguing for such an approach to unity among Christians will be so broad in their thinking as to accept Jews, Moslems, Hindus, and Buddhists, the point we make here is valid: If we stop using the Scriptures as our final basis of appeal, anything is possible (2 Tim. 4:4). With reference to unity-in-diversity, one need only look at where others have ended up who have gone down this road to see the validity of the point we make here: Such brethren have united with those involved in the errors of institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, and even denominationalism.

Conclusion

The appeal for unity with Christ and Christians begins and ends with the word of God (1 John 1:1-7). I plead with the lost to enter into this unity on the basis of at the word says (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38). We recognize that erring Christians have departed from the truth (Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 4:1) and exhort them to return to this unity based on what the word says (Gal. 1:6-9; Jas. 5:19-20). We base our common and individual efforts and lives upon the word of God (Eph. 4:3; Phil. 1:27; 2 John 4-6). To use the subjective approach in any of these areas is manifestly an appeal to something other than the word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 5-6
May 4, 1995

By William C. Sexton

Eight months have rapidly passed since I came to work with the congregation that meets at 711 Access Road in Van Buren, Arkansas. Some good things have happened:

1. We have had several families be identified with us. After observing and listening, they have decided to be a part of the congregation  to work and worship with us. Most of them are young families. For them we are so grateful and anticipate that the future looks bright for the Lord’s church in this location.

2. We baptized one person in the community. She worships and works with us. In addition, I had the privilege of baptizing one of my granddaughters (Sheryl Harden) over the new year’s week end holiday. She was visiting from Wichita, Kansas and desired to be baptized. That’s a thrill for a grandfather to be able to baptize his granddaughter.

3. On the last Lord’s day of February (the 26th) elders were installed. Two men, Louis Brown and Bill Sexton, were appointed to serve as elders/bishops in the congregation. We hope that shortly deacons can be installed and we’ll become a “fully scripturally organized congregation.”

The congregation is at peace: each member manifests love and respect for each other. We are a family of the Lord, wanting to serve him faithfully as the Bible teaches. The congregation meets in a new building, in a growing part of the city and county. New houses are all around the building, new houses are going up all the time.

We are located at a good place for anyone traveling from Little Rock to Oklahoma City on Route I-40. We hope if you are traveling this route, that you’ll plan to worship with us. Where is Van Buren Arkansas: Just across the river from Fort Smith, about five miles or so east of the Oklahoma line. Should you be moving to the area, please investigate the congregation here at 711 Access Road. I was surprised to find that this part of the country is growing as fast as it is. Crawford county (of which Van Buren is the county seat) is one of the fastest growing places in the vicinity, I’m told. We believe that the church here is poised to stand firmly for the truth of God’s word for time to come.

Last summer we had a number of visitors from other parts of the county. We hope that this year we’ll have the privilege of meeting more of you passing down I-40, either going east or west. Also, should you be traveling north or south on Highway 59 or 71, we would be easily found. You’ll find a very friendly group of God’s people glad to have you visit with us, determined to hold fast to the teachings of the New Testament (1 Thess. 5:21). There is a large “Truck Stop” at I-40 and 59. Last summer a few truck drivers left their truck at the stop and walked down to worship with us. There are two motels located at this intersection: Motel Six and Motel Eight I believe they are. So, come by and see us.

If we can be of help to you, let us know (ph. 501-474-2617). Call (501) 471-5801 and you’ll get a recording that tells of our times of worship, etc., if we are not at the building.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 12
May 4, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

The poignant words that serve as our title were taken from Matthew 26:75. They are found in a passage that will serve to recall the situation to the mind’s eye. “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.” Doubtless the great fisherman apostle never forgot that moment. Tears and time did not erase the agony and remorse of the regretful event.

Perhaps there is no connection; it may be but a coincidence of Scripture, if there be any such thing, but in the second epistle by the same apostle we find the repetition of the word “remembrance.” “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. . . . Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance” (2 Pet. 1:12-15). “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful” (2 Pet. 3:1, 2). Peter once forgot the word of Jesus. It came crashing to his remembrance in a painful manner. When the Lord looked at him after that rooster crowed the third time, it pierced his heart, “and he went out, and wept bitterly.”

Could it be that Peter wanted no one to endure the thing that haunted him? He knew what it meant to be reminded of the words of Jesus. He understood the way of sin when the word of Jesus is forgotten. Therefore, he was not negligent to put the brethren “always in remembrance” of the word of God as delivered by the apostles and prophets. It is an engaging and intriguing thought. But regardless of whether or not that was the compelling idea behind Peter’s words, let us not fail to do as he urged, that is, remember the word of Christ. “Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119: 11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 4
May 4, 1995

By Mike Rogacs

A recent article of mine, “Painful Observations,” appeared in the January 5, 1995 issue of this magazine. The results of that article have overwhelmed me. I wish to share some of my thoughts concerning those results.

Firstly, I wish to thank brother Willis for his agreement to print the article. The observations are blunt and painful and potentially controversial. I respect him for his work with GOT and thank him for his help in getting my thoughts aired.

What has overwhelmed me are the many letters, phone calls and comments of brethren both locally and elsewhere. In almost every letter there were comments of encouragement for me and/or thankfulness that I returned to faithfulness. Above everything else, these comments moved me deeply.

But that is not the point of this second article.

Briefly, I remind the reader that in “Painful Observations” I referred to the very obvious decline of growth in the Lord’s church and other unhealthy changes that have come to pass in the past quarter century. I attributed much of this to laziness, bickering among brethren, declining spirituality and other factors which make it look like the church is bent upon self-destruction. The result has been a hindrance to the main mission of the Lord’s people, teaching and saving souls, and also a decline in the vitality of the church itself.

In the letters and comments that resulted, a few brethren agreed with some of the observations, but the majority strongly or totally agreed.

The brethren who only partially agreed were preachers. All others (which included a few preachers, too) totally agreed. The preachers seemed bent upon justifying, or explaining why, these weaknesses and problems exist. It was suggested that I was too hard on my brethren. In one letter, a brother wrote that if some are leaving the church perhaps we should, indeed, reexamine our methods and motives. He went on to add, “But there have always been people leaving the church in disgust.” Well, of course! It is never right for brethren to “quit” or leave our Lord. But my point was that many people are leaving in disgust because of the bickering (locally and nationally), complacency, lack of zeal, the poor attempts at preaching to the lost and the lack of attacking the enemies of our Lord outside of the church.

Another preacher indicated that in a certain part of the country, congregations were shrinking because jobs were being lost and brethren were moving away. I remember brethren used to say that churches were not growing because the economy was too good! Actually, this observation only proves my observations. We are not teaching the gospel to the lost around us. If some brethren leave to go elsewhere (as they did in the book of Acts), all the better, if we were doing our work. The gospel would be spread elsewhere. And if brethren must move away, we would still be converting and growing, if we were doing our work. Instead, we seem to hope the saved will move to our towns to help our congregations grow.

Let me be blunt. We have become a church full of people who have made excuse making an art. We have become a church that has too many members who find it easier to fight among ourselves than to fight the enemy outside the church. It has become easier to preach to the “already saved” than to reach out effectively to the unsaved.

In contrast, read now some of the comments from the majority of letters. One sister, who said that in the seven years that she has read the Guardian of Truth she had not felt compelled to respond to any other article, wrote the following: “The spirituality (or lack thereof) of the church today frightens me. If you’re an alarmist, then an alarmist is what we need. May God send us more.”

This next respondent wrote a quick note on a post card and said, “I’m also distressed to learn of the all-to-frequent bickering and sniping by brethren instead of fighting the enemy.”

Another brother wrote, “I too am saddened by the flow some of the brethren are moving into. I believe your painful observations are well founded. Sadly, brethren in the U.S.A. have become at ease.”

Another brother, who said that he read the article three times, wrote, “I see the same things down here” in his part of the country. Among many other comments he added, “the problem is us, not the Lord or his word. We need to get up and get to work.”

And another: “Your observations were painful to you, me, and I have an idea to many others, too. Painful because they are true.”

There were many more such comments.

I have written these two articles out of the desire to motivate us all to reevaluate the condition of the church as it is today. There must be changes. I stand by every statement of my painful observations. And let it be clearly understood: I am not saying that we should compromise the truth. Those who really know me will confirm this. We must always teach against error among brethren. But I strongly believe that we have gotten lost in that effort. We must remember that, for the most part, the enemy is outside and not within. Too many of us are caught up in acting like “defenders of the faith” and seem to forget that we are to be “proclaimers of the faith.” The lost go untaught and unsaved, many of our brothers and sisters are discouraged, and the kingdom of our Lord is suffering and shrinking.

Let’s stop excuse making. Let’s figure out how to most effectively, and scripturally, reach the lost and let’s do it. The enemies of God who call themselves believers and have never known the truth are stealing away those who might believe if they were taught. Let’s fight those enemies of the truth. Can we do it or will we be doomed to continue the status quo?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 7
May 4, 1995