Truth Magazine

By Dennis L. Scroggins

A lecture series dealing with the subject of the Bible Fellowship (Do Not Remove the Ancient Landmark, Proverbs 22:28), was held on August 25-27, 1994, in Austin, Texas at the faithful church meeting in South Austin.

We are pleased to report the positive way in which the subject matter was presented by each scheduled speaker, their apt handling of the assigned lessons, and the good response by the large number of people who attended each session was uplifting to all. The comments by visitors ranged from. “Why hasn’t anyone put together anything like this before?” to “I really didn’t understand the magnitude of the problems facing local churches in regard to this subject until I heard all the different facets summed up in one lecture series.”

A Methodist was invited to come and hear the series on fellowship. He responded with the comment that if the lessons were just going to be another series on the wonderful attributes of the “Social Gospel” he wasn’t interested in coming. He was assured that the lessons would be Bible centered in every aspect. He came to the Thursday night lesson and stayed to hear the panel discussion that followed which dealt with questions and answers from the audience. Several members of liberal churches of Christ in the Austin area came to each session. We sent an invitation to every kind of religious group throughout the Austin area in the hope of reaching them through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our intent in holding this type of lecture series with a concentration on the Bible subject of Fellowship was initiated for three reasons:

1. The church meeting in South Austin had come under attack by members of other so-called faithful churches of Christ in our area in which the false doctrine of “Receive ye . . . on the basis of the individual’s conscience, regard-less of their repentance or not!” was being taught privately through phone calls and letters.

2. Different religious groups in the Austin area were being torn apart by the “message of tolerance” which was being preached in connection with the receiving of homosexuals into the local fellowship of their churches. We viewed this as a great opportunity to reach those in the different religious groups who stand opposed to the unrepentant homosexual being accepted into the fellow-ship of their local churches.

3. We believe that the Bible topic of Fellowship affects every aspect of the local church both in its purity and in its faithfulness to Jesus Christ the Head (Eph. 5:23-27). It was our intent to ground the members of the church meeting in South Austin in the truth of God’s word concerning the Bible subject of Fellowship.

Tom Roberts began the series with a clear and precise lesson dealing first with the world’s concept of fellowship (let us go along to get along), secondly the denominational concept of fellowship (fun and frolic, social gospel), and concluded with some of the concepts of our own. Brethren have accepted into the fellowship of a local church all kinds of unrepented sinners based on their misguided conclusions (drawn from Romans the fourteenth chapter).

Larry Hafley continued the next night with the subject of “Romans 14: Fellowship Redefined?” He was straight forward in reinforcing the biblical principle of fellowship based on objective truth found in God’s word.

Larry presented the “Elastic Gospel” concept which he pointed out to have been embraced by our own brethren who are calling for more tolerance in regard to those who continue in sin. Larry pointed out the destructive force of this “attitude of compromise” connected with the twisting of the Scriptures in Romans 14. He pressed the point of its “leavening power” which was led to the ruin and loss of many souls.

On Saturday morning, August 27th, Harry Osborne dealt with the false arguments advanced by some brethren who condemn exposing error that has been advanced by individuals outside the local church. Harry’s lesson was entitled “Fellowship, Is It Decided by the Local Church?” No doubt was left in the minds of those who were listening to this lesson that Harry was deeply concerned about any local church that would allow false teachers and their teachings to go unchallenged. He dealt with the false premise that the marking of a false teacher (who is not a member at that local church) in accordance with Romans 16:17,18; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:1-4, would some-how violate the local autonomy of that church.

Ron Halbrook continued that morning with “Fellow-ship, As Defined by God.” Ron outlined from 1 John 1:1-7, the elements of fellowship as prescribed by the word of God. Ron’s lesson exemplified the attitudes Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 11:3. Ron spoke in the “simplicity of truth” so all would realize that the subject of fellowship with all its elements can be clearly known, understood, and widely accepted even if certain ones charge that the subject of Fellowship is too controversial to be addressed in an effective manner.

Jerry Fite concluded the lecture series that afternoon with the timely lesson. “Fellowship: Who shall Be the Watchdogs?” Jerry delivered a lesson that every preacher should hear concerning the work of an evangelist. He pointed out to the listening audience our individual responsibility to be on guard for the souls of men and women, and the terrible consequences of not watching. It was at the conclusion of Jerry’s lesson that a brother in Christ came forward confessing the sin of not watching out for the spiritual welfare of his family. We wept, rejoiced, and prayed with this brother who realized the far reaching effects of not taking a spiritual lead in one’s family and a strong stand for the truth. The next day, on Sunday morning another Brother in Christ came forward and confessed the sin of buying lottery tickets. It was uplifting to see the good results of these kinds of sermons that declare the whole counsel of God.

We also saw another result of these faithful preacher’s strong and sound teachings, visitors from other faithful congregations that expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation where they are members. We believe this to be a direct result of the clear call to holiness contained in each of the lessons that were presented during the three days. The speakers’ positive attitude toward the subject of Bible fellowship should lead those who would honestly investigate the lessons presented in this series to give thanks for the far reaching effects it will have in the future for that which is good in the sight of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 9-10
October 20, 1994

By Chris Reeves

(Note: This material was taken from a larger outline entitled Out With the Old and In With the New: The Cry of the New Hermeneutic by the same author. This thirty page outline has many useful quotes and references about the New Hermeneutic, a refutation of each of the main points of the New Hermeneutic and a large bibliography. This outline can be ordered from the Guardian of Truth Bookstore.)

Like the Athenians of Paul’s day, many religious people throughout time, and some Christians recently, have been fascinated “to tell or hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21), as if that new thing were better or truer than the old things. For example, from the 3rd through the 6th centuries A.D., there was NeoPlatonism. Later among the denominations there have been such movements as New Divinity, NeoThomism, NeoOrthodoxy, NeoPentecostalism, NeoEvangelicalism, New Morality (Situation Ethics) and New Age. In my lifetime there have been several new religious trends among certain brethren such as NeoCalvinism, the New Unity Movement, and now, the New Hermeneutic.

“New” is not wrong if it comes as a result of God’s planning (Rom.6:4; 2 Cor.5:17; Heb. 8:8; Rev. 21:1,2). There is a time and place for new things in God’s plan. “New” is wrong, however, if it comes as a result of man’s planning. Someone has said, “If it is new, it is not true. If it is true, it is not new.” The apostle Paul said the same thing in other words long ago (Gal.1:610). “Old” is not always bad as some brethren today would have us believe, especially if the “old” is the “old paths” of God’s word (Jer.6:16).

Background to the New Hermeneutic Issue

The New Hermeneutic (hereafter, “NH”) that is discussed in this article is the NH advanced by some of our brethren in churches of Christ. There is another NH among the denominations. There are, however, similarities between the two, especially in the area of existential thought. The NH problem is prominent among the “institutional” churches of Christ, but it has affected some “non-institutional” churches as well (for example, Charles Holt’s group and The Examiner); and for this reason we need to learn about it and combat it.

Certain “institutional” brethren (preachers, and Bible professors at some schools operated by brethren) who claim that they are part of a “Scholarship Movement,” began calling for a NH in the late 1980s, and they continue that call at the present. They continue the process of tearing down the “Old Hermeneutic” – a process which began in the late 1960s with Thomas H. Olbricht, Restoration Quarterly, and Mission Journal. Much of the writing of these brethren has parroted the earlier works of Olbricht (Bible professor at Pepperdine University), and the more recent works of C. Leonard Allen (Bible professor at Abilene Christian University). According to the so called “Scholarship Movement,” our current hermeneutic (the “Old Hermeneutic” of command, example, and necessary inference) must be abandoned and replaced with a NH because they claim our current hermeneutic is a manmade tradition taken from the 19th century. The NH advocates have not reached a consensus as to what the NH ought to be, but they are all in agreement that the “Old Hermeneutic” must go. “Out with the old and in with the new” is the cry of the NH.

A brief critique of the NH position is in order here. First, the NH advocates make several presuppositions; their main presupposition being the dating of what they call the “Old Hermeneutic.” They assume that the “Old Hermeneutic” is a manmade tradition given to us by Alexander Campbell that dates back to the last century. This date, however, is far too late. The use of command, example and necessary inference to establish Bible authority was not given to us by Alexander Campbell in the 19th century, but by Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists in the 1st century. What the NH advocates want to abandon are in fact principles that are clearly established in Scripture and were used by Jesus and the 1st century church. Second, the principles of inductive reasoning that we use to interpret the Scriptures were not given to us by Alexander Campbell as the NH advocates assume, but by God.

Why a New Hermeneutic?

Some of our brethren have a “hidden agenda.” They have developed a NH so they don’t have to be limited in their religious practices. They have changed their hermeneutic in order to support their change in practice.

For example, some of our brethren want all marriages and divorces to be right and they allow polygamy. They want “grace only salvation.” They believe baptism to be nonessential for salvation and baptism can include sprinkling and pouring. They want the unimmersed to be recognized as “Christians.” They want to have instrumental music, women preachers and women elders. They want a more emotional worship service in the assembly with “spontaneous” worship and celebration (this includes solos and choirs, “special music,” written prayers, shouting, dancing, applause, cheering, personal testimonials or “witnessing,” “sin confessing,” “children’s church” or “junior worship,” and theatrical performances). They allow only one elder over a local church. They want to leave off the practice of taking the Lord’s supper every Sunday. They want to change the elements of the Lord’s supper from the fruit of the vine and unleavened bread to something else. They want to use the local church treasury to support literacy programs, soup kitchens, drug rehabilitation programs, homes for the homeless and prison outreach programs. They want to stop identifying the church of God with the kingdom of God; the church is now, the kingdom is yet future, they say. Other NH brethren defend homosexuality, promote the A.D. 70 theory (Jesus’ second coming was in A.D. 70), and deny that the wicked will suffer endless torment in a place called Hell.

Some of the NH brethren want unity and fellowship with other religious bodies (unity with all professing “Christians” or “believers” in the denominations). Others want to meet what they call the needs and problems of Christians in the 20th century. They also want to prepare the church to meet the so called needs and problems of Christians in the 21st century. These needs and problems are in reality wants, and their NH allows them to have what they want. “Will worship” (Col. 2:23), or worshipping the way you want, is running rampant among the NH brethren. They want change; not just in the area of expediencies, but change in what the Bible teaches.

The NH is soul damning. It needs to be exposed, rebuked and rejected! The NH is simply old modernism. It undermines Bible authority, making the Bible little more than a book of suggestions. More and more members of the church are losing their confidence in the reliability, accuracy and authority of the Bible. A few brethren today now hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, the Documentary Hypothesis, and various types of Form Criticism. The virgin birth of Christ is even questioned by some.

Rush Limbaugh said, “Any time you see the adjective `new’ employed – be it in politics, religion, or commerce – assume that the label is mere smoke and mirrors, calculated to obscure the fact that there is nothing `new’ about what is being described. Rather, it is the same old stuff simply repackaged” (See, I Told You So, 34). (This quote was brought to my attention by Forrest D. Moyer, `New’ – But the Same Old Stuff,” Gospel Anchor, March,1994.) What Rush Limbaugh said about politics, religion and commerce is certainly true about what is talking place among some churches of Christ. We are hearing a lot these days about a “new” hermeneutic. But there is nothing “new” about the NH. The NH is simply the old rejection of divine authority contained in the Scriptures repackaged in order to introduce what man wants today. The NH is no more than a smoke screen for unauthorized practices.

Hermeneutics Defined

Our English word “hermeneutics” means “the science of interpretation” (Webster, 680). According to D.R. Dungan, hermeneutics “is derived from the Greek Hermes, the messenger of the gods and the interpreter of Jupiter .. . Sacred hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures” (1). Biblical hermeneutics, therefore, is the process of interpreting the Scriptures in such a way as to find the original meaning of the text. The goal of hermeneutics is to remove the distance or differences between the author (of Bible times) and the reader (in the 20th century). G.H. Schodde said, “The moment the Bible student has in his own mind what was in the mind of the author or authors of Biblical books when these were written, he has interpreted the thought of Scripture” (1489). Biblical hermeneutics deals with the way we interpret (understand) and apply the Scripture. What, then, is the NH? A new method of interpreting and applying the Scriptures. What the new method or methods should be has not been agreed upon by the NH advocates.

What Is the Issue Over Hermeneutics?

The issue is not “Do we need a hermeneutic?” We know that the Scriptures must be interpreted. God communicated his will to us in words (Heb. 1:12; 1 Cor. 2:12f; Eph. 3:1 f). The understanding of these words is possible only by the interpretation of those words. Interpreting the Scriptures is a Bible practice (Neh. 8:8; Lk. 4:1721; Matt. 9:13; Lk. 24:1335,44f; Acts 8:30f). Interpreting the Scriptures is necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures, and the understanding of the Scriptures is necessary for our salvation.

The issue is “Which hermeneutic will we use?” The one set forth by Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists, or the various ones set forth by some of our brethren in recent years? Instead of looking to a so called “Restoration Movement Hermeneutic” (another name for the “Old Hermeneutic”) or a “New Hermeneutic” for an answer, why not let the NT solve the issue? What does the Bible say concerning the proper interpretation of Scripture? Let the NT determine how we ought to interpret the Scriptures.

Some Practices That Must Be Abandoned

According the New Hermeneutic Advocates

Since the “Old Hermeneutic” is believed by the NH advocates to be a faulty, manmade tradition of the 19th century, they feel it must be abandoned. What are some of’ the practices that we must leave behind according to the NH position?

I. Using the NT as a pattern or blueprint. According to some NH advocates the NT is not a pattern or blueprint that must be followed. C. Leonard Allen writes:

First, there is the simple and observable fact that, throughout Churches of Christ, many people are questioning and sometimes rejecting the traditional doctrinal system that for several generations gave Churches of Christ their distinctive identity. Acts and the Epistles as architectural “blueprint,” as a rigid “pattern,” as a collection of case law – these images and the interpretive method they support are steadily declining (The Cruciform Church, 19).

2. Establishing Bible authority by the use of apostolic examples or necessary inference. According to some NH advocates, the NT does not teach us by apostolic examples or necessary inferences. Christ alone is our model for teaching. Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris write:

Our hermeneutic is therefore theological and Christocentric. . . Our beginning point is the general principle of Christ centeredness, Christ centricity (The Second Incarnation, 28). Remember that everything about the church must pass the “Jesus test” to be trustworthy … (Ibid., 232).

3. Making the silence of God prohibitive. According to some NH advocates, when God is silent, that does not mean we cannot act, it means we can go ahead and do what we want. Woody Woodrow writes:

If the thesis of this paper is correct, namely, that the New Testament is not an exclusive pattern, or does not contain an exhaustive number of ways one may worship and serve God, then items which are not mentioned in this regard (expressions about which the Scripture is “silent”) are not necessarily excluded. . . In short, the silence of Scripture has no different function from silence in normal human discourse and should not be assigned prohibitive force solely on the basis of a presupposed exhaustive blueprint (The Silence of the Scriptures and Restoration Movement, 3839).

Possibly the most widely accepted view among certain frontrunners in Dallas, Fort Worth, Abilene, Nashville, San Antonio, and Searcy is that the scripture is not a constitution or code book, as envisioned by the old hermeneutic, but is a love letter from God. There is much merit in both the rejection of the former model, and the parameters of the new (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 6).

 4. Using the NT as a book of case law. According to some NH advocates we should not view the NT as a book of case law, or a constitution, but rather as a collection of “love letters.” Thomas H. Olbricht said:

5. Using reason and logic (or “inductive reasoning”) when trying to learn God’s will. According to some NH advocates, we are not to use deductive reasoning and logic to learn God’s will (that is, we are not to look for Bible “facts”) because the use of such is a manmade tradition which came to us from the Age of Enlightenment and the Restoration preachers. C. Leonard Allen writes:

The Enlightenment also exerted a profound influence on our understanding of the Bible. Many members of Churches of Christ today, while certainly viewing the Bible as divinely inspired, still think the Bible essentially a book of good common sense or even sound psychological theory. . . What is the source for this peculiar understanding of the Bible? Again, we turn to the early age of Enlightenment. Our forefathers in the faith – men like Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, Moses Lard, and J.W. McGarvey – adopted a way of reading the Bible called the “inductive method” … The Bible in this view, was a grand collection of individual “facts” . . . With such a method, its proponents thought, the Bible required little interpretation. One simply gathered and set forth the “facts” … This way of reading the Bible became a powerful tradition among Churches of Christ … Today many in Churches of Christ have moved away from this way of reading the Bible (The Worldly Church, 6063).

6. Claiming to know the truth. According to some NH advocates we should not claim to know the truth. Richard T. Hughes said:

… truth in its fullness and wholeness lies always beyond the grasp of the human mind. The search for truth, therefore, is a continuous, never-ending search, and becomes the urgent task of each new generation. Faith, therefore, is not knowledge at all, but rather trust in God in spite of our lack of knowledge. . . The word of God … was far too large to be encapsulated by the wisdom of men (The Idea of a Christian University, 67; quoted by H.A. Dobbs, “What’s Wrong? – Part 4,” Firm Foundation, April, 1991).

New Hermeneutic Proposals

Let us turn our attention now to some of the many NH proposals that have been made in recent years. NH advocates are in agreement that the “Old Hermeneutic” must go, but they have not reached a consensus as to what is to be offered in its place. Thomas Olbricht said, “The proposals by scholars are legion, but no consensus has emerged” (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 7). Most of the NH proposals that have been made in recent years have come from the annual Christian Scholars Conference hosted by universities operated by our brethren. NH proposals have also been made by C. Leonard Allen in The Cruciform Church, and Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris in The Second Incarnation. Various ones writing in Restoration Quarterly, Image and Wineskins have also made NH proposals in recent years. The NH proposals, and there are many, arise from what some scholars feel is needed among the brotherhood. The NH proposals are supposed to meet these needs. What are some of the needs and proposals of the NH advocates?

1.The need for a greater focus on God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to focus on God, Christ and Holy Spirit like we should do. Thomas H. Olbricht said:

The command example necessary inference hermeneutic focuses on the rules (that is, rules of logic), and the results, rather than on the actions of God. It gets the cart before the horse. We are committed to the book of God, but not for its own sake, but to the God of the book. The old hermeneutic may help us discover what Christ did, or what we should do in the concrete. But why not begin with the actions of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. . . The action of God through Christ and the Holy Spirit is the center of the Scriptures. . . A Biblical hermeneutic therefore starts from God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and ends up by setting forth guidelines by which scripture provides humankind with the manner of acting within specific contexts so as to be Godlike (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 1112).

2. The need to view Scripture as narrative. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to view Scripture as narrative as we should do. Michael Casey said:

Narrative is also an important literary form found in scripture. It occurs more often than commands. As the most prominent literary form of scripture, it then should be appropriate to propose the metaphor of scripture is story and the Church as a story formed community as the basis of a new hermeneutic for the restoration tradition (Scripture As Narrative and The Church A Story Form Community: A Proposal For a New Restoration Hermeneutic, 15).

3. The need to maintain our theological identity. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to focus on our theological identity, namely the Lord’s supper, as we should do. Allan J. McNicol said:

In this paper we have concentrated on . . . the Lord’s Supper. We have shown how Paul used the tradition about it operative in the early church as a hermeneutical tool to address problems in the local church. We should do the same (Theological Method On the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal, 2122).

4. The need to read the Bible like Jesus. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to read the Bible like Jesus as we should do. Gary Collier said:

So, not only is Jesus the authoritative interpreter for his church, his church is to follow his lead! … Jesus draws us to interpret the instructions of God in the brighter light of the desires of God’s heart: justice, mercy, faith, righteousness, love. The argument here is not that Jesus provides us with a new (or old) method of interpretation, but rather a perspective from which to view people in relation to God’s law . . . in Matt.12:114, Jesus shows that the real issue of Biblical hermeneutics goes beyond mere methods in deciphering a book, to an understanding of the desire of God for people. . . This is the starting point from which we must discuss specific methods (Bringing the Word to Life – Part II: The Scholarship Movement, 2627).

Evaluation of the New Hermeneutic

What about what the NH advocates want to abandon? It is obvious that our NH brethren do the very things they condemn. They practice the same things they want us to abandon. For example, they want us to abandon the NT pattern, apostolic examples, necessary inference, reason and logic, but they use patterns, examples, inferences, reason and logic to build their NH. The NH brethren remind me of the Jews of Paul’s day: “Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (Rom.2:21) What do the NH advocates offer in return? Many of them are offering pluralism, subjectivism, existentialism, agnosticism, relativism, ecumenism, antinomianism, humanism and traditionalism. “Change” and “freedom” are two words that summarize the beliefs of the NH. What the NH brethren are offering is very attractive to some, but destructive to the soul. They remind me of the false teachers of Paul’s day: “promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption. . .” (2 Pet.2: 19). The NH offers a “hidden agenda.” Beware of anyone who wants to use the Scriptures in some way other than the way Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists used the Scriptures. Their interest is not so much with a proper use of Scripture, as it is with promoting and defending their current practices. They need to promote their practices in a respectable way in order that the brotherhood won’t be alarmed, so they invent a NH which will give them the sophisticated, Biblical (?) sanction they need. They know that the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists will not support their current practices, so they have abandoned it for a NH. Let us be content to use the Scriptures in the way Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists used them. We do not need a NH. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists. Let us not abandon what is clearly established in God’s word. Let us hold fast the pattern of sound words as Paul directed, allow God to teach us the way he wants to teach us (via direct statements, examples, and implications), remain silent when God is silent, obey the law of Christ, reason from the Scriptures as Paul and others did, and let us know the truth and obey the truth.

What about the many NH proposals? While some of what the NH advocates are saying about Bible study is good and worthy of our attention, much of what they are saying about Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) is absolutely false. The NH proposals are not the result of thorough Bible study; rather they are the result of: (1) a reactionary attitude toward certain Bible principles which are clearly established in Scripture; (2) reading the scholarly works of liberal theologians; and (3) an overreaction to certain abuses of Bible study among brethren. The NH proposals sound good to the ear. They contain some Scripture but the Scriptures used are either taken out of context, or singled out and separated from the rest of Scripture to establish a particular point. Who gives these men the authority to have these needs and make these proposals? Are we to accept these needs and proposals just because the men who offer them are church of Christ scholars? No. If these needs and proposals are based upon the text of Scripture then we must accept them; if not, then we must reject them. We are not obligated to accept them just because they are offered by scholars. The NH is simply old modernism. These men cast doubt upon the Scriptures and do not define their terms. They are modernist sin the making, and they have only begun to deny the Scriptures. If a NH is needed today to properly understand and apply God’s message, then everyone who has lived before and died without the NH, died without properly understanding and applying God’s message.

Do we need a so called “Restoration Hermeneutic”? No. Do we need the contemporary NH proposals of the “Scholarship Movement”? No. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists. I appeal to all brethren to follow the example of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists, as they seek to handle accurately the word of truth today.

Works Cited

Allen, C. Leonard. The Cruciform Church. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1990.

. The Worldly Church. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1991.

Casey, Michael. “Scripture As Narrative and the Church a Story Form Community: A Proposal For a New Restoration Hermeneutic.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Collier, Gary. “Bringing the Word to Life – Part II: The Scholarship Movement.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1988.

Dungan, D.R. Hermeneutics: A Textbook. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Co., n.d.

Hughes, Richard T. “The Idea of a Christian University.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1986.

Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So. New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1993.

McNicol, Allan J. “Theological Method on the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Olbricht, Thomas H. “Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Schodde, G.H. “Interpretation.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Shelly, Rubel and Randall J. Harris. The Second Incarnation: A Theology for the 21st Century Church. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., 1992.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language.

New York, NY: The World Publishing Co., 1963.

Woodrow, Woody. “The Silence of the Scriptures and Restoration Movement.” Restoration Quarterly, Vol.28, No.1, 1986.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 21-25
October 6, 1994

By Keith Sharp

Jeff Asher, who preaches at the Dumas Drive Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas, met Dr. Charlie Arehart, Pastor of the Metropolitan Community church of the Rockies in Denver, Colorado, in two oral debates this spring on the subject of the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. Both men were unusually well prepared for the discussions and were capable in their presentation. This subject is one brethren need to be informed about. Issues that affect the world and denominations eventually affect us. There are already the first signs among the extreme left wing of institutional brethren of a willingness to fellowship practicing homosexuals. Liberal theologians are trying to achieve biblical justification for homosexuality, claiming that anti-homosexual bias led to mistranslation of the Scriptures. Thus, it is the purpose of this review to present an overview of the debates to give readers a brief introduction to the evidence for and against divine approval of homosexuality.

Qualifications of Disputants

Dr. Charlie Arehart: Dr. Arehart is a practicing homosexual and says he has been gay as long as he can remember. He was formerly a Methodist pastor and honorably transferred to the MCC. Charlie has a Master of Divinity from Asbury Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry from Iliff School of Theology. He is a member of the national Board of Elders of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a denomination that exists for the gay/lesbian community and their supporters.

Jeff Asher: Jeff Asher engaged Robert Williams, the first openly gay Episcopal priest, in a radio exchange on homosexuality on Amarillo radio in 1989 (Williams is now dead of AIDS). Jeff’s debate notes, prepared for this discussion, have been printed as a booklet entitled Out of the Closet, published by Faith & Facts. Jeff recorded a series of television exchanges with Dr. Arehart for the program of the Highlands Ranch Church of thirst in Denver. The two debates grew out of these TV discussions.

Debates and Propositions

The disputants first met for debate in the MCC building in downtown Denver April 4-7. The follow-up debate was in Amarillo May 9, 10, 12, 13. I moderated for Jeff, and, since Dr. Arehart elected not to have a moderator, I, in effect, presided over the two discussions. Both men maintained perfect order and stuck with the task of presenting the evidence each believes upholds his position. Jeff Asher affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that all sexual intercourse between human beings of the same sex is sinful.” Charlie Arehart affirmed: “The Scriptures do not teach that sexual intercourse between all human beings of the same sex is sinful since they refer positively to gay persons.”

Procedure for Review

I shall simply present the major, affirmative arguments each disputant made in the two debates to give the readers a synopsis of the issue. Since I am writing only a capsule summary of the debates, I will not present the replies each disputant made to the other’s arguments, but both debaters paid careful attention to the other’s speeches. Since Jeff was in the affirmative first, the review will begin with a summary of his affirmative arguments.

I intend to be objective in presenting the material. To help achieve this goal, both Jeff and Charlie have had the opportunity to read the review and to offer suggestions for changes.

Asher’s Affirmative

Jeff Asher presented five affirmative arguments. We will examine them in order.

First Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it violates the divine plan for the home (Matt. 19:1-9). Jesus affirmed that human sexuality is under divine authority. This authority over man inheres in the creation (Matt. 19:4-5; cf. Rom. 9:20-21). God is the one who determines who shall be joined (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13-18; Gen. 2:23-25), and Jesus exercises this authority under the New Covenant (Matt. 19:9; cf. Heb. 1:2). Men have not been granted the prerogative of setting the terms of their marriage covenants (Matt. 19:6).

Jesus restricts the expression of human sexuality to biblical marriage. The order of creation is lifetime, monogamous, heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-4; Matt. 19:8). God did not ordain any other kind of sexual relationship involving either humans or animals (Gen. 2:18-25). There is no place here for same gender sexual relationships.

Second Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it is fornication for the unmarried (1 Cor. 7:1-9). The apostle Paul reveals that marriage is a matter of liberty (vv. 1,6), he restricts sexual intercourse to biblical marriage (vv. 2-3), and he does not offer same gender sexual relationships as an option to the unmarried (v. 2). The argument concludes that Paul condemns all sexual relationships, as fornication and, therefore, sinful (1 Cor. 6:9; 7:2,9).

Third Argument: Homosexuality is sinful because it is adultery for the married (Heb. 13:4). Marriage is precious, i.e., to be had in honor (Ibid.). One holds his marriage in honor by keeping himself pure, being set apart to his wife (or husband) only (1 Thess. 4:3-7). It is marriage that is to be held in honor; and this, by definition, is a man/woman relationship (Gen. 2:24-25; Matt. 19:1-9), monogamous (Matt. 19:5), and for life (Matt. 19:6,9). Since the Hebrew writer says all marriage is to be held in honor, this is universally applicable. The conclusion is, when married men leave their wives to have sexual relations with men, or when women leave their husbands to have sexual relations with women, they commit adultery (Heb. 13:4).

Fourth Argument: It is specifically condemned in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27). Brother Asher offered an exegesis of Roman 1:18-27 in which he showed that the over-all problem of the Gentiles was the rejection of the authority of God, the same sin of which Charlie is guilty. He pointed out that Paul taught that homosexuality is self-abusive (v. 24), disgraceful (v. 26), unnatural (vv. 26-27), vulgar (v. 27), error (v. 27), forbidden (v. 24), and condemned (vv. 18,29). He charged that homosexuals received the very “recompense” of which the apostle spoke (v. 27) in their own bodies. Asher argued that homosexuality was “against nature” (v. 26) in that it violates God’s created order.

Fifth Argument: Homosexuality has always been sinful. There was never a time when men were without law from God (Rom. 4:14; 5:13). A survey of biblical history shows this is certainly true with respect to sexual behavior: the marriage law was universal from the beginning (Gen. 2:24-25; Matt. 19:8), the sinfulness of homosexuality is exemplified in every age (Gen. 19; Judg. 19; Rom. 1:18-31; 2 Pet. 3:9), it was condemned under the Mosaic code (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and was specifically condemned by Christ and his apostles (Matt. 19:1-9; 1 Cor. 7:1-9; Heb. 13:4; Rom. 1:26-27).

Arehart’s Affirmative

Dr. Arehart’s strongest argument in audience appeal was his own personal testimony. He asserted he was born gay and could not change. He told of being raised a Methodist, accepting Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade, and being called to preach. He concluded, “God called a gay to preach” and offered John 15:16 as a text to prove this calling was a divine approval of his sexual orientation. Arehart retold with pathos his several attempts to over-come being gay  including “praying through to victory,” an exorcism, and counseling by a “Christian psychologist,” a recognized Baptist scholar. He recalled that the psychologist finally told him, “You are homosexual; you are Christian; God doesn’t give a damn.” From that point on Charlie Arehart has accepted his gay orientation and the homosexual lifestyle. He described his basic theology as the four pillars of Methodism: the Scriptures, tradition, reason and personal experience.

Reliability of Scriptures: Charlie contended we cannot take the Bible as our only source of authority. He asserted that one third of the Hebrew words in the Old Testament need to be redefined as the result of recent tablet finds in Syria, emphasizing changes in vowel markings. Dr. Arehart also argued that there are a great many Greek texts for the New Testament and that widespread and important differences exist between them. He also contended that many biblical words are mistranslated. Charlie asserted that the Bible has errors in it. As examples, he asserted that the Septuagint text doesn’t match the Massoretic text, and described the vowel markings below Hebrew vowels, contending they were uncertain and that the disputed differences could greatly affect the meaning of Scriptures. He denied the dictation theory of inspiration. He said the church once condemned Galileo, and, as it was forced to change from teaching an earth centered universe, it would be forced to change on homosexuality.

Cultural Relevance: Dr. Arehart also argued that many passages are no longer culturally relevant and offered 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as one example. He called himself a “Christian evolutionist” and a “process theologian.” He said the world is maturing, while God always remains the same, but that God is actively involved in human affairs. He asserted that the human race quickly became non-monogamous, and that marriage in the Old Testament was simply a property rights issue. He asserted the Hebrew Scriptures did not condemn as adultery a Jewish man having sex with another woman than his wife unless that woman was the wife or virgin daughter of another Hebrew. He was described the Bible as a “patriarchal book” which has been used to oppress blacks, gays, and lesbians, but, more than any other group, women. He charged that the Scriptures have been employed to beat women down to chattel and to keep them subservient. He predicted the day will come when female images of God in Scripture will be universal language. He recognized that God is neither male nor female and concluded that inclusive language is in order when describing God. Charlie stated that the purpose of Matthew 19:3-9 was to elevate the status of women, and that Jesus did not intend for his teaching on marriage to be applicable to all. He contended that divorce was the “most Christian approach” for 50% of the marriages in Colorado.

Situation Ethics: He called himself a “situational ethicist” and endorsed the statement by Norman Pittinger: “Sex is good; sex with someone you know is better; sex with someone you love is best.”

Wholly of Grace: Arehart contended we are saved by grace through faith alone On. 3:16). He accused Asher of creating a “works righteousness dynamic” in which one has to be good enough to be saved.

Bias Against Gays: Dr. Arehart charged that New Testament passages which seem to condemn homosexuality were mistranslated as the result of the prejudice of the church against gays, a prejudice, he asserted, which resulted from the widespread acceptance by early Christians of the apocryphal book, “The Epistle of Barnbas,” a ridiculous work which explains Old Testament prohibitions against eating unclean animals on the basis of the supposed sexual activities of the animals.

Positive Mention of Gays: Charlie produced several biblical examples he contends are positive mention of gays. He is absolutely positive the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual (1 Sam. 18:20; 2 Sam. 1:25-26). He also presented Ruth and Naomi as likely lesbian lovers. He argued that eunuchs are passive partners in homosexual intercourse and offered Matthew 19:10-12 as Jesus’ endorsement of homosexuality and the Ethiopian eunuch as a positive example of a gay person (Acts 8:26-39). He contended that the word “servant” in Matthew 8:5-13 means “young male lover” and that, when Jesus healed him, he tacitly endorsed his homosexuality.

Conclusion

Brother Jeff Asher defended his position admirably and crushed the arguments presented by Dr. Arehart. I have never seen a debater better prepared for his opponent’s argumentation. Dr. Arehart is an able defender of his position. He relies heavily on the book Social Tolerance of Homosexuality by Yale professor Dr. John Boswell, him-self homosexual.

Both of the debates are available on video tape from Rich Hubartt, 3012 Foxfire Cir., Indianapolis, IN 46214, telephone (317) 327-1776, who has produced professional quality tapes. Be careful in viewing them with mixed audiences. Of course, the subject itself is not suitable for young children, and Dr. Arehart used language in the first debate that is not acceptable to Christians and would be very embarrassing to a mixed audience.

The first printing of Jeff Asher’s book Out of the Closet has sold out. Faith & Facts will print a second edition which will include Brother Asher’s revised debate notes. This includes material that, due to time constraints, was not presented in the debates. This will arguably be the best source book in print for a scriptural study of the subject of homosexuality and should become a classic. John Boswell’s book is the main source of the arguments by liberal theologians that passages which condemn homosexuality are mistranslated, and Asher’s debate notes thoroughly refute Boswell.

This is must material for gospel preachers. Newspapers regularly carry articles claiming homosexuality is a morally valid lifestyle. American disapproval of gays and lesbians is on the wane. This is now the point issue in the humanistic attack on biblical morals. I recommend that we join this national debate by writing letters to the editors of newspapers, refuting the articles and letters defending homosexuality, and by teaching Christians, especially our teenagers and young adults, the truth. If we do not prepare and act, our young people, who are under heavy pressure on college campuses to accept and even participate in homosexuality, will be lost to humanistic amorality.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 6-8
October 20, 1994

By J. Wiley Adams

“What doth is profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled: notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doeth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

The above passage is in a context of individual responsibilities. It depicts a situation wherein a brother or sister in Christ is in need of assistance. It also relates the case of one who, though aware of the need does not do anything about it. It also speaks of the cold indifference that some-times is true when love and mercy are called for.

Once there was a gospel preacher many years ago who was in a real bind financially. Desperately he sought to avoid asking the church for benevolence. He called first one relative and another. The stiff, cold answer was “sorry, I cannot help you.” An in-law was called who said to go to Western Union and wait. It will be there in an hour and a half. It was later learned that he borrowed the $100 needed so badly and sent it at once. He knew the person who asked him was honest so he asked no questions. “There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24). Another friend said this one time: “Friendship is the inexpressable comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words.”

There is another realm in which the “be ye warmed and filled” concept sometimes prevails. This is in the matter of preacher support. Brethren in the churches may declare they are “self-supporting.” What they mean by this is that, with respect to securing a “full-time” preacher, “that is all you are going to get” whether it is enough or not because, you see, this church is “self-supporting.” Are they? They want a full-time preacher on part-time pay because they have issued their proclamation that they are “self-supporting.”

Evangelistic support is sometimes equated with benevolence. In the Woods-Cogdill debate in Birmingham late in the ’50’s brother Woods made the mistake of saying this to Roy Cogdill to which he vehemently replied that “gospel preachers are not the object of charity.”

Let me add that there are some congregations which are not able to fully support the preacher and other churches and individuals assist. This is proper. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service” (2 Cor. 11:8). The Philippians sent “once and again” to Paul’s necessity at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16). He also said in 1 Corinthians 9:14  “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

Brethren, it is easy when an individual in need or a gospel preacher needs support in preaching the gospel to say, in fact, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled” and do nothing to help bring it to pass. It is so easy to turn down an appeal for support by faithful gospel preachers by the “be ye warmed and filled” concept. Brethren, if you can help and do not, it is not enough to say we’ll pray for you, or just have faith and the Lord will take care of you, or it is going to turn out all right, or as soon as we finish some “growth” projects, check with us again. Mercy, mercy, mercy, brethren! We can do much better about this than we often do. However, many others do well in these matters and we commend them. This article is not for them.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 5
October 20, 1994