Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope

I first knew him as a student when I was teaching at Freed-Hardeman College at the end of World War II. He came to us from Kenton, Tennessee. He was in school to learn and he had a mind that was receptive to every good thought any of his teachers could present. His burning desire was to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Somehow an affinity developed between us that was held steadfast through almost fifty years. I doubt that the day has passed since we first met that he has not prayed for my good health and success in the Lord’s vineyard. This was the kind of character he was then and continues to be after almost five decades since we first met. He earnestly prayed for my welfare when I left Henderson and came to Temple Terrace, Florida, to assume the Presidency of what later came to be known as Florida College.

With time’s passing this able man moved to Florida. Time and experience had matured him greatly though he held the same devotion to the Lord and his cause I had known in him when he first enrolled in my classes as a youngster fresh out of Uncle Sam’s military. I never knew him to ignore any issue he considered germane to the cause of our Lord. A gentleman in every controversial situation, he was and is, nevertheless, a tiger in defense and proclamation of gospel truth.

A few years ago he moved to Palm River where he yet lives and labors with the brethren there. Tragedy of the rankest sort has recently invaded his home. His daughter, who lived with the Needhams, died suddenly in the early morning a few weeks ago. She left a young child which becomes the ward of the Needhams and upon whom they will bestow all the love and care possible to emanate from their big hearts.

Another brother has written in earlier issues about the tragedy to which I have referred. I want to add my word of encouragement to what he has said regarding the Needham’s situation. Both James and Maria are reluctant to mention their financial need and stress. The fact remains, however, that this faithful preaching servant and his wife need financial assistance. Furthermore, they need it now! James has been in and out of the hospital yet continues to “do the work of an evangelist” in the Palm River area as he is able.

The Needhams do not know I am making this appeal in their behalf. It is not amiss for brethren who have known this faithful man and wife to keep aware of their situation. Being aware on the one hand, however, and doing something about it on the other are two distinct situations. I plead with individuals and churches which have the ability to send any support to begin such support at once.

The address of the Palm River Road church with which brother James P. Needham labors is 8015 Palm River Road, Tampa, Florida 33619 and his home address is 106 Foxwood Drive, Brandon, Florida 33510. The Palm River church is not large in numbers and has “about all it can wiggle with.” I know “first hand” of matters I report here and plead with my brethren to respond to the needs of this faithful brother. He is worthy!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 15
May 19, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

A leading lament and a chronic complaint of those who criticize the church is that “we need more preaching about the grace of God and the cross of Christ. We need less preaching about the church and baptism.” (For a detailed study of what it means to preach the cross of Christ, see the author’s four part series, “The Preaching Of The Cross,” Guardian Of Truth, May 18  July 6, 1992.)

They do greatly err who would alienate and separate the grace of the cross from baptism and the church. The love and grace of God and the death of our Lord on the cross are related to baptism and the church as the root and branch are related to the bud and the fruit. The mercy and grace of God and the cross of Christ are tied to baptism and the church as cause is to effect. If anything, they are more tightly bound and intertwined than the examples cited (Rom. 4:25; 6:3,4; 2 Cor. 8:9). J.W. McGarvey, commenting on 1 Corinthians 2:2 said:

Paul here asserts that the subject-matter of his preaching was selected from choice, or fixed design. He does not mean to say that every sermon was a description of the crucifixion of our Lord, but that all his teaching and preaching related to the atonement wrought by Christ upon the cross. This atonement, through the sacrifice of our Lord, was recognized by Paul as the foundation of the Christian system, and he here means to say that he handled no doctrine or theme at Corinth without remembering and recognizing its relation to that foundation.

Sympathy for error pulls the teeth from truth. It renders it weak and makes it apologetic in nature. Those vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind offer excuses for their less enlightened brethren who would preach the whole counsel of God. They do this with disdain and disgust for their “Neanderthal” brethren who have a “gunslinger’s mentality, always wanting to fuss and fight.” N.B. Hardeman, speaking of the need to “fight the good fight of faith” and to expose error, said:

If Jesus had but preached the truth, he would have been living till this very hour, all other things being equal. Let me tell you the fact: because Jesus Christ condemned error and exposed the wrong, those very chief priests, and scribes and Pharisees whom he had denounced went to old Caiphas and said: “That man must be killed.” Jesus Christ suffered on the tree of the cross, not for preaching the truth, but for exposing and condemning error (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. IV).

I am called upon to be a fellow-soldier, and the very word soldier carries with it the idea of fighting. Remember I am not only to put on the whole armor of God for self protection, but I am to carry the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God to enable me to fight the enemy. That soldier who goes on the battle field with an unloaded gun, or one who never shoots his gun, or one who is begging all not to shoot so as to hit the enemy is a disgrace to the army.

Yet I go to many places where many of my brethren claim to be soldiers, but they have not shot a gun at the enemy in ten years, and begin to plead with me as soon as I get there, and beg me to be careful not to shoot any gospel gun toward Baptists or Methodists, or “outsiders,” for if I do and a gospel shot hits one, they claim it will hurt his feelings and make him mad and he won’t come to church again. Many church members are more fearful of hurting the feelings of their sectarian neighbors, and regard their friendship and love far above that of God in whose army they claim to be fighting.

Brother, do you belong to this class? Then can you claim you are in fellowship with God, when you refuse to teach the gospel to those who are the Lord’s enemies, who are not only building on the sand, but are spending their time and talent in cultivating the human plants, or human churches that Christ states shall be rooted up? (J.D. Tant, The Gospel X-Ray, p. 159)

Afflicted with the spirit that desires worldly wisdom and reknown and covets acceptance from the wise of this world, compromise declares another fault and failing of “the Church of Christ as we know it.” (See chart on the next page)

1. Acts 8:5 (ChristGrace); 8:12 (ChurchBaptism): In Acts 8:5, Philip “preached Christ unto” the Samaritans. This is the only preaching that will save the souls of men! What did it include? What did Philip preach?

First, his preaching overthrew the people’s confidence in Simon the sorcerer as “the great power of God” (Acts 8:9-11). Critics of the church do not want preaching that “attacks” false teachers. They do not want the Pope or a well known Protestant preacher (Billy Graham, etc.) to be named and his doctrines rebuked and refuted. No, they are too sweet, too loving for such preaching. They say that “it drives people away.” Again, remember their problem; they do not want popular evangelical, denominational preachers exposed because they crave the limelight of the “doctors” of theology, and they feel comfortable with the loose philosophies and doctrines of men that allow participation in the evil and errors of the world. Some are misguided. Philip’s preaching destroyed confidence in Simon as a religious leader. Shall we have such preaching today? There are those in the church who say we should not have it, and if they have their way, we will not have it. What say ye?

Second, Philip preached “the kingdom of God” (Acts 8:12). He preached “the sovereign rule of God,” but in order to do this he had to preach Christ as “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). Christ has a kingdom over which he reigns as “Lord,” or “head” (Acts 2:36; Heb. 1:8). The redeemed are “translated into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). One is baptized into the kingdom On. 3:3-5). One is baptized into the church, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22,23). From Philip’s preaching, the Samaritans learned about the kingdom, the church, and they were baptized into it (Acts 8:12; Jn. 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13). If we “preach Christ” as Philip did, we will preach “the kingdom of God” and tell people how they may “enter” it. In short, we will preach baptism and the church when we preach Christ. Those who say that such preaching “ignores” the “central items” of the gospel will have to take up their complaints with Philip and the Holy Spirit. We know what Philip preached. Shall we follow Philip’s ex-ample in our preaching, or shall we listen to our critics and “take away” preaching about baptism and the church (Rev. 22:18, 19)? What say ye?

Third, Philip preached “the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). To preach the name of Jesus Christ is to preach the authority of Jesus Christ. When God raised Jesus from the dead, he gave him “a name which is above every name: (Why did God do this?) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:9-11). The bowing of the knee is the premier manifestation of the power of one over another; hence, “the name of Jesus Christ” is the power, the authority of Jesus Christ. Our text sights in on the sovereign rule of God when it refers to “the name of Jesus Christ.”

Do you want an explanation of the two paragraphs above? Here it is: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:18-20). That is the grand theme of what Philip preached when he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ.” The Samaritans were exhorted to believe that Jesus now has “all power,” all authority. Expressing their belief, they wanted to know how to be brought under the name, rule and power of Prince Immanuel (cf. Acts 2:37; 8:36; 16:30). They were “commanded” to be baptized in water into the name, body and kingdom of the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus the Christ (Acts 10:48; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:13).

In preaching Christ, Philip preached, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). If one does not preach faith, repentance and baptism, he is not preaching Christ as Philip did! Nothing is said about Philip’s preaching of the grace of God, the love of God or the blood of Christ. Should we say that men may preach Christ without those things? No; but they are not mentioned in Acts 8:5! Jesus said that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Lk. 24:47). In preaching “the name of Jesus Christ,” did Philip preach “repentance and remission of sins” unto the Samaritans? Would any dare to say that he did not? Obviously, Philip preached “repentance and remission of sins” through the “name of Jesus Christ,” and when he did, he preached baptism, for baptism is “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38).

After Philip “preached Christ” in “the city of Samaria,” the record says “that Samaria had received the word of God” (Acts 8:14). What is the significance of this statement? What bearing does it have on what it means to “preach Christ”? First, Acts 2:41 says, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.” The word they received included the command to “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Did those in Acts 2 “receive” the same “word” as those in Acts 8? Did Peter and Philip preach two different, diverse messages? You know that they did not (1 Cor. 15:11)! Thus, the reception of the word in Samaria included the reception of the word regarding baptism.

Second, Acts 11:1 says “that the Gentiles. . . received the word of God. ” The word they “received” contained “words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). These “words” included the command to (A) believe, (B) repent, (C) and be baptized in water, “in the name of the Lord,” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:43,47,48; 11:18). The Gentiles were purified “by faith”; they were saved through “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:7-11). Did the Gentiles receive the same word as did the Samaritans? Both “received the word of God” (Acts 8:14; 11:1). This “word” included faith, repentance and baptism. If one preaches Christ, he will preach these things. Shall we lower our emphasis on baptism and the church as we are advised to do? Or shall we preach as Peter and Philip did?

As we see from the example of Philip, it is impossible to preach Christ without preaching baptism and the church. Critics re-define, according to their own lusts, what it truly means to “preach Christ.” If we allow them to define the preaching of Christ, we will have to exclude the preaching of baptism and the church, but we are not willing to let them define the truth! Do not be deceived by their sentimental, superficial protestations of piety. Brethren, they will pervert the truth and change the church if we give in to them. If you own a white flag of surrender, burn it!

2. Acts 8:35 (ChristGrace); Acts 8:36-39 (ChurchBaptism): Hear J.W. McGarvey as he speaks to the point of modem critics and observe that brother McGarvey was hearing the same things one hundred years ago that we are hearing today. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

I have had people say, “Brother McGarvey, I would like your preaching better if you would just preach Christ crucified and not of baptism so often.” Well, I like to gratify my friends, but I can’t get along that way. When Philip was preaching Christ to the man, it seems that baptism was part of the sermon. Indeed, it is impossible to preach Christ fully to a sinner and leave baptism out of the sermon (emphasis mine  LRH). You have to mention baptism early in the story of Jesus…. It is a mutilated gospel that leaves baptism out of the sermons addressed to sinners (McGarvey’s Sermons).

Acts 8:35 says that Philip “preached . . . Jesus” unto the Ethiopian eunuch. Critics say that we need to do this, but that we should emphasize Christ more and baptism less. This concept does not square with Acts 8. What did the eunuch know after hearing “Jesus” preached? First, he knew Jesus was the object of Isaiah 53; he knew, therefore, of Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and exaltation (vv. 7-12). From Isaiah 53, he heard the declaration of Christ’s incarnation and coronation (vv. 2, 3, 10-12). Second, he knew he should believe in Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 2:36; 8:37). Third, he knew about baptism. What did he know about it? He knew it was in “water.” He knew he should be baptized (Acts 8:36). How did he know all of this? He knew it from hearing “Jesus” “preached unto him” (Acts 8:35).

Popular, prominent Protestant preachers (like Billy Graham) claim that they proclaim and “preach Jesus.” They lie; they do not preach Jesus! Men today do not learn what the eunuch learned when they hear these men preach; hence, they are not preaching “Jesus” as Philip did. Shall we preach Jesus as Philip did, or shall we listen to our critics and delete baptism from our preaching of Jesus? Shall we diminish grace and the cross in the gospel story? God forbid! Philip did not (Isa. 53). Shall we lighten our emphasis on baptism? God forbid! Philip did not (Acts 8:12, 36-39).

3. Acts 16:30-32 (ChristGrace); Acts 16:33 (ChurchBaptism). “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And then he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:30-33). Though nothing is said about the grace and love of God or the blood of Christ in the text above, we know these things had been preached in Philippi (Phil. 2:5-11; 3:3-10), and so must they be preached today!

Critics of the Lord’s church say that we should preach “the word of the Lord” unto sinners and not preach so much on baptism and the church. However, from the text above we learn: (1) the sinner wanted to know what he must do to be saved. He was not told that there was nothing he could do to be saved (Acts 2:40). (2) He was told to “believe.” How can he “believe”? “Faith cometh by hearing” the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, (3) “they spake unto him the word of the Lord” so he could believe. (4) Evidently, the jailer repented, for he washed their wounds. (5) He was immediately “baptized.” How did he learn to be baptized? He had only heard “the word of the Lord,” so how did he know to be baptized? “The word of the Lord” includes baptism. If not, how did the jailer know, and why was he baptized at such an inconvenient hour?

Some in the church today say we should not stress baptism; they say we should preach the word of the Lord and not baptism. Shall we preach their concept of the word of the Lord, or shall we preach it as Paul preached it? Shall we preach baptism as a natural, integral part of the word of the Lord, as Paul did, or shall we set it aside as our critics advise? What say ye? Paul told the Philippians to “do” as he had done; he told them to follow his example (Phil. 3:17; 4:9). Paul preached baptism as the word of the Lord (Acts 16:32, 33). If we “do” as he did, we will not “diminish ought from it.”

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). The jailer believed and was baptized. That is “the word of the Lord” that Paul preached. Though nothing is said about grace, the cross and blood of Christ in the account, we are not going to say that we should ignore or give less emphasis to those things. The “whole counsel of God” must be preached and that includes grace, Christ, baptism and the church (Phil. 1:1; 2:5-11; 3:3-10). (Chart #9 will be concluded in the next issue.)

Chart:

Whats Wrong With The Church of Christ?

“Need more preaching about grace & Christ

Need less about Church & Baptism”

Christ  Grace Church – Baptism

Acts 8:5 Acts 8:12

Acts 8:35 Acts 8:36-39

Acts 16:30-32 Acts 16:33

1 Cor. 2:2; 4:15; 15:1-4 Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:13; 12:13

Acts 20:24 Acts 20:21, 25, 28

Gal. 1:6 Gal. 3:26, 27

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 9, p. 9-12
May 5, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

In Grecian mythology Pandora was a woman given a box by Zeus from which all manner of human ills escaped when she opened it. The view taken by some well-known brethren in recent times concerning Romans 14 has become a modern-day Pandora’s box.

A vital passage designed to help strong and weak Christians get along until the weak can be taught better and thus become strong has been pressed into service to justify far too much. Carl Ketcherside, Edward Fudge and fellow travelers found it elastic enough to include instrumental music, sponsoring churches, premillennialism and a host of other false doctrines. Of more recent vintage, our brother Ed Harrell has found in it grounds for fellowship on marriage, divorce and remarriage (for causes other than fornication). Other highly respected brethren have joined in.

Now comes a sermon preached by a brother in Texas in which he listed 100 issues and practices which he claims would be resolved by a proper understanding and application of Romans 14. With much of his list I have no problem. But here are some of the things he listed which are a problem to me:

Abortion  Dancing  Girly Magazines  Evolution

Brewery Work  Horse Racing  Dance Bands

Square Dancing  Bartending  Social Drinking

“Low” neckline  Proms

Let’s see now, Paul said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). If I understand this brother correctly, then if one thinks it is all right to have an abortion, then she is at liberty before God to do so. Or if he wants to play in a dance band, work as a bartender, dance, promote evolution, or practice social drinking, then “let him be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It is interesting that this same brother who puts evolution in his list of 100 things which are regulated by Romans 14, has been well known for his special series on evolution. Will he now conclude such speeches by saying that God will be pleased with you whether you believe this or not and “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”?

When I read the 17 article series on “fellowship” and the use made of Romans 14 in that series, I warned then that there would be no stopping place short of the “unity in diversity” movement of Ketcherside and Fudge infamy.

Have you noticed that things which gospel preachers used to be able to clearly condemn have suddenly become “gray”? Those who still draw sharp and clear lines on these matters are disparagingly referred to as “those black and white guys.” This undermines the authority of the Scriptures. God revealed his mind in intelligible propositions which can be understood and acted upon by those fashioned in the image of God.

Of course, there is a realm in which private conscience must decide a host of things based on understanding of truth. There is room for growth. All have not grown to the same degree and there must be patience with each other. But will any of us grow to the point that God approves abortion on demand, or serving liquor, or wearing indecent apparel, or the God-dishonoring general theory of evolution? Are “girly magazines” in the realm of private scruple to which God is indifferent?

I do not believe that many of the brethren who have espoused this loose construction of Romans 14 would accept everything on this brother’s list. In fact, I am confident most of them would oppose this careless lumping together of things indifferent and those which have grave consequences. But I keep thinking about that box of Pandora. The lid is off. Brethren took it off to justify fellowship with those who teach that the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and may therefore continue to live with a marriage companion in violation of Matthew 19:9. Or those who teach that the put-away adulterer is free to marry may be retained in fellowship. My brethren, Romans 14 was never intended as an excuse for every form of doctrinal and practical error.

Our situation is rapidly becoming analagous to those men in the institutional movement who opened the gate just enough to let church support of schools and benevolent institutions into the church budget and argued that we did not need Bible authority for all we do, or else misappropriated Scripture in a vain attempt to defend their cause. But now they have a rampaging stampede which they are powerless to stop. From the social gospel (in full bloom) to the new hermeneutic, they are dismayed at what came in through that gate. Now the hinges are off and the fence is down.

Brethren, will we ever learn? Older men may open the gate just a little out of personal friendship for esteemed brethren, cite Romans 14 as precedent and mean to stop there. But a younger generation will not stop there. They will pick up the erroneous conclusion and take it to the limit of false teaching and practice. When they are done with it, you will not recognize what is left. Already there is a noticeable aversion to controversial preaching, to debating teachers of error. Will Romans 14 become the dividing line? Will we polarize according to what we want to include in that noble chapter? At our house, we have a room in the basement which we call affectionately “the goat’s belly.” There we throw things we don’t know what else to do with until it gets too full and we have to make some disposition of them. These are the things of which yard sales are made. Now brethren, is that what we will do with Romans 14? Don’t know what to do about abortion? Just toss it in Romans 14. What about social drinking? Romans 14! Can’t decide about girly magazines or the theory of evolution? Romans 14! Come on folks, we can do better than that. And for the future welfare of the cause for which our Lord died, we had better do better than that.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 3-4
December 15, 1994

By Kevin Campbell

Elsewhere in this issue of Guardian of Truth is an article by David Edwin Harrell, Jr., entitled “Some Practical Observations on the Middle-of-the-Road.” It is an article reprinted from the September 5, 1968 issue of The Gospel Guardian. I would encourage the reader to read brother Harrell’s article before proceeding in this article.

First of all, I would like to commend brother Harrell’s article. His assault on the “middle-of-the-road” approach to the institutional/liberal controversies of the ’50s and ’60s is commendable. As brother Harrell points out in his article, there were quite a few brethren back during that controversy who were attempting to ride the fence and stand in the “middle-of-the-road.” He plainly states that “the middle-of-the-roader is no friend to the Lord, or to those who insist on the absolute adherence to his Word.” Later in the same article, he said regarding the “middle-of-the-road” approach that “it is a position of error and it is a position that is here to stay.” That type of militancy against error is to be applauded for it is the only way to stifle the spread of the error.

Preachers of the gospel have a grave responsibility to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Often this involves controversy and the necessity of taking a stand which may or may not be popular. Warnings must be sounded against innovation and digression (Acts 20:31; Col. 1:28; Matt. 3:7). Often, however, when brethren faithfully warn against error, the cry will go up “Brotherhood watchdog!” The image is called to mind of a vicious, snarling and snapping beast, ready to rend and tear others to shreds. The truth of the matter is, preachers are to “watch (thou) in all things” (2 Tim. 4:5). Isaiah rebuked those of his day who refused to watch and called them “dumb dogs” that “cannot bark” (Isa. 56:10). One who derides the faithful evangelist who is doing his duty reveals a lack of understanding regarding the nature of the evangelist’s work.

Being a young preacher of 25 years of age, I have not personally witnessed many of the battles that brethren have fought against error. I am slowly becoming aware of the dangers posed by well-intentioned men who nevertheless open the door of digression. It is for this reason that I am thankful that brethren like Ed Harrell took the unpopular stand years ago against the institutional error. The firm, uncompromising line that he and others held helped rescue many from the snare of the devil. Some-times it is easy for young men like myself to disregard and disrespect the sacrifice that men of an older generation made for the truth. At the same time, those of us who are younger must realize that we may be called upon to make similar sacrifices and to take similar stands today to ensure sound and faithful churches for the next generation. I must also guard against the possibility that as I get older, I may lose my militancy and zeal for the truth and become concerned with defending brethren who teach error because of our past association. Paul said that we are “not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6). As evangelists, our aim should be to uphold that truth at all costs.

Sadly, I have watched over the past five years as a great controversy has been brewing regarding the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. I really do not think that the fact that there would be a controversy has surprised anyone. As divorce has rapidly increased in the world, brethren have realized that the matter would have to be dealt with more and more. This is because of two factors. First of all, divorce and remarriage have gained wider acceptance in the world. Secondly, a few brethren through the years have held erroneous views on the subject contrary to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. These combined elements have increased the spread of false doctrine regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Therefore the issues have demanded greater attention and false views have received increased opposition. Thus we now find ourselves involved in controversy once again. What will be the outcome? Already churches are dividing over these issues, and brothers and sisters in Christ are being alienated from one another. The only solution to the problem is to “hold fast the form of sound words . . . in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13).

Today we again find division occurring just as it did in the institutional controversy. Some brethren are openly advocating and promoting false doctrines on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Others are just as adamant in trying to stem the tide of digression by striking out at the error wherever it appears. Sadly, we find another group advocating a “unity-in-diversity” based on a false application of Romans 14. Ironically, this concept was fostered by Ed Harrell in the pages of Christianity Magazine beginning almost five years ago. Tragically, those that are teaching the error are receiving some unintentional encouragement from those who are advocating the “unity-in-diversity” concept based upon a perversion of Romans 14.

As brother Harrell pointed out in his article “Some Practical Observations on the Middle-of-the-road” (Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, pp. 273-278), the same thing occurred in the institutional division of the 1950s and ’60s. Liberal brethren were advocating that human institutions be employed to do the work of the church while others were attempting to stop the flood of digression at every opportunity. A third group however, that brother Harrell referred to as the “middle-of-the-road brethren,” contended for acceptance of the practices on the grounds of expediency and unity-in-diversity. Many of the middle-of-the-road brethren were never “committed to the principles underlying innovation” (Harrell, p. 273) but still advocated unity with those who were committed to the invocation. Today we see that history is repeating itself; this time with the issues involved in marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Men today who do not believe the error involved in the divorce and remarriage controversy are attempting to hold the middle ground and extend fellowship to those who are promoting the false teaching. This is precisely the same approach that brother Harrell has advocated in the current controversy although he condemned that very method in the institutional division.

When I first came across the article by brother Harrell from The Gospel Guardian, I was amazed at the apparent discrepancy in his approach to the two controversies. I believe brother Harrell would contend that the two matters are different in the underlying causes. In fact, he wrote in the August 2, 1990 issue of The Guardian of Truth that he was disturbed “that many who espoused this new idea on fellowship (regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage) equated all disagreement with the institutional division of the 1950s. Such simplistic notions, I believe, reveal a troubling misunderstanding of the institutional division.” Brother Harrell seems to imply by this statement, as well as other quotations from his tract Emergence of the “Church of Christ” Denomination, that the institutional division was not primarily over theological differences but more over sociological differences. One quotation from his article in The Gospel Guardian however hits the nail on the head regarding the reason for the division. About three-quarters of the way through the article he says, “The division is doctrinal; we practice being a Christian in different ways.” To borrow a Catholic expression, “Bingo!” Just as brethren back then were violating the doctrine of Christ by introducing organizational innovations unknown to the New Testament, brethren today are advancing concepts of marriage, divorce and remarriage that are equally unknown to the New Testament. The present controversy, to use brother Harrell’s own words, “is a doctrinal” controversy.

There is one major difference between the institutional division and the present conflict: time. At the time that brother Harrell wrote his article, the institutional division was almost complete. He was able to look with hindsight and recognize the trends that lead to the liberalism and the formation of the “middle-of-the-road” approach. Today however, we are still on the front end of the conflict over marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The digression has not yet reached the proportions that it did in the institutional flight. But with the seed of compromise being sown by those who are advocating the “unity-in-diversity” approach, we must ask the question “Where will it lead us in the years to come?” What kind of churches will be left for our children and grandchildren. It is not simply this one subject alone but there is a growing softness towards sinful practices in many places. The atmosphere is ripe for continued compromise and deviation from the truth on a whole host of matters.

Brother Harrell, in calling to mind the failures of brethren to stop the nineteenth century innovations, said that the middle-of-the-roaders “lacked the foresight, or candor, or courage to stop the liberalism at the only place it could be stopped  in the beginning.” Today, brethren with fore-sight and courage have been attempting to stop the present digression “in the beginning.” Learning from the mistakes of brethren in the past, these men have been attempting to thwart the effects of false teachers who would compromise the truth on marriage, divorce and remarriage. What has been brother Harrell’s response? The magazine of which he is a co-editor (Christianity Magazine) has, “in the beginning,” labelled these men who are openly fighting this battle as “extremists” who “have their own cause to promote” and who are “attempting to line up followers” and “create a party.” These very same charges were leveled at those who were opposing the liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s. Additionally, brother Harrell “in the beginning” said that these men were making “unheroic personal assaults on an eighty-five-year-old warrior.” In-stead of coming to the aid of those who have been directly affected by this teaching, brother Harrell has chosen to attack the motives of those who are attempting to, “in the beginning,” stem the tide of digression. In the article referred to, brother Harrell wrote, “My protesting, I pray, has never been a personal crusade against anyone. I have not taken my stand because of person – differences with anyone and, consequently, personal friendship cannot solve the problems” (The Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, p. 275). Yet brother Harrell has done exactly that in this case, charging brethren who are opposing the error with “making an unheroic personal assault on an 85-year-old warrior” (Christianity Magazine, November, 1988, p. 6).

For the sake of truth and Bible unity, I plead with brother Harrell to examine the path he and others have recently chosen. I beg him to return to the same militant and uncompromising attitude that he displayed during the fight with the liberals in the 50s and 60s. Regarding those who stood firm against the doctrinal error of that era, he said:

Convictions run too deep and courage too unsubdued to close the mouths of those who have committed them-selves to the defense of the principles of consistent scriptural effort to restore the first century church. Surely we have long ago recognized that we can have peace with anyone if we will stop attacking the religious error which they teach. It is far too late now to try to squelch the conviction that the mission of the gospel preacher is not only to teach the truth but also to attack error no matter whence its source (The Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, p. 275).

Brethren today have not attempted to make personal assaults on anyone but have rather had the same deep convictions and unsubdued courage in seeking to hold fast the New Testament pattern of teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Truly, error must be attacked  “no matter whence its source.”

It is my desire that brother Harrell would repudiate the false “unity-in-diversity” concept that he has espoused based on his inaccurate application of Romans 14 to matters of the revealed faith. May he recognize the dangerous precedent he has set. Others will not be content with the limited application of “unity-in-diversity” for which brother Harrell has contended. The circle of “tolerable differences” (my term  KC) will only grow increasingly larger, embracing other false doctrines such as instrumental music, institutionalism, premillennialism, etc. The danger for brother Harrell is that he may have said so much already that it would be difficult for him to go back. Commenting on this very dilemma in the Gospel Guardian, he said, “If a moderate’s craw finally becomes so full that he cannot go on, he has said so much that he cannot go back.” I wonder if brother Harrell today is still willing to stand by his articles that advocate the “unity-in-diversity” approach towards these matters. Can he “go back” or has he “said so much that he cannot go back”? I pray that he will go back and realize the serious effects of the door that he has opened with his misapplication of Romans 14.

The call today is for faithful men who will stand firm against error. With the wide acceptance of divorce in today’s society, coupled with the emotional nature of the issue itself, the time is ripe for further digression from the biblical pattern. May we have the courage, candor, and conviction to speak boldly against his error and to oppose the compromise of the gospel  “no matter whence its source.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 9, p. 21-23
May 5, 1994