Truth Magazine

By H. E. Phillips

Law is necessary to obedience. Obedience is required to receive the blessings of God. The wrath of God is upon all who disobey him.

Man does not know the way of life. It must be revealed unto him. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jere. 10:23). “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 16:25).

Some hold to the idea that to be free we must resist the shackles of “legalism” and reject that rigid code of law found in the New Testament. They pervert what Paul and other apostles said about law, obedience and salvation and replace it with words like “freedom,” “love,” “tolerance of others” and “unity in diversity.” They stress the prayer of Jesus for unity among his disciples and tell us that the rigid adherence to the New Testament will not accomplish unity. The “legalist” mind is without love and mercy and will never be in harmony with the mind of Christ. They tell us that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 is blocked by the legalism preached and practiced by the divisive branch of churches of Christ.

If No Law, No Sin

If there is no law, there is no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). “. . . for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). “. . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). “. . . but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). Law defines sin (Rom. 7:7).

It is not true that obedience to “Law” is a system that tries to merit salvation. The forgiveness of one single sin is far beyond any human effort. We are saved by “grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8). Faith must be a live, obedient faith in order to justify. That is well established in the second chapter of James. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14) It is answered by demonstrating the futility of one saying to a brother or sister, naked and destitute of daily needs, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:16) The conclusion is definite: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). Again in verse 20 he says: “But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) He who says that one is saved without works is ignorant of the Bible meaning of faith.

God gave a commandment to the first man whom he had created: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:15-17).

Did God intend for Adam to be a “legalist” to strictly interpret and obey that commandment? The question is answered by the consequences that fell upon Adam and Eve when they transgressed that law. They were driven from the garden and “died” according to the promise of God for their disobedience to his command. From the dawn of creation God intended for mankind to understand and obey his word. In every law and dispensation since Adam God has required the same obedience. Disobedience to the commands of God brought death to the first man and woman.

Under the law of Moses, God severely punished those of his own people who transgressed his laws to them. Twenty three thousand died in one day for the sin of fornication (1 Cor. 10:8). That was written to us as an example under the New Testament. Do not try to tell us that God does not rule by law; he does!

Some people do not like rules to regulate their lives. They want “freedom” to do as they please. These who want to be “free” from the rigid shackles of the law of the New Testament, want to be regarded as children of God with all the blessings that accompany that relationship, but they despise the law of the New Testament. Jesus said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). To know God and be in him, we must keep his commandments. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 John 2:3-5).

Justified By Faith That Works

Abraham is given as the example of being justified by faith that worked. Romans four contains the nature of Abraham’s faith that justified him (Rom. 4:21-25). He offered his son Isaac upon the altar just as God had commanded him to do. Abraham would never have been justified if he had not obeyed the command of God to offer that son.

Romans 4:1-5 and James 2:21-24 both discuss the same subject: justification by faith. Both passages use Abraham’s faith as the example of justification. Both show Abraham’s faith to be essential to his justification. Romans 4:1-5 shows that Abraham was justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses, by which no flesh could be saved (Rom. 3:20).

James 2:21-24 says that Abraham was not justified by faith only (dead faith without works of obedience), but by works (faith that moved one to obey God). His active faith that obeyed God did count for righteousness. James 2:21-24 is discussing the nature of acceptable faith in God, and Abraham is given as an example of that obedient faith in God. We are to walk in the steps of Abraham (Rom. 4:12). The gospel is the system of faith that justifies.

James 2:23 says, “Abraham believed God , and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” Romans 4:3 says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Abraham is used in both passages to show justification by faith. In one “works” are prohibited; in the other “works” are demanded. The difference is that in Romans the “works” are merit works of the law of Moses. In James the “works” are works of obedience to the commands under the covenant that grants remission. That which makes both cases apply to Abraham was that “he believed God” and acted in obedience to the will of God. By faith Abraham obeyed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness (Heb.11:8). If Abraham had not obeyed God, he would not have been justified. But without the gospel no flesh can be justified. It is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth, both the Jew and Gentile (Rom. 1:16).

Jesus taught that the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is “he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:23). Those who have the right to the tree of life and will enter into the city of God are those who do his commandments (Rev. 22:14).

The truth is that the obedience to any part of the law of God does not merit salvation to any degree. What we do is not done to merit salvation to any degree. It is only “by grace are ye saved through faith,” but that faith must work the obedience of God, who imputes our obedient faith for righteousness. Disobedient faith avails nothing!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 3-4
January 20, 1994

By Sherrel A. Mercer

A Christian will endeavor to give cheerfully and responsibly to the local church of which he is a member. His conscience will be his sole guide, both in the gift he makes, and in his reporting of his annual contribution as a deduction. No other party is involved, since churches of Christ, in adhering to scriptural standards, normally have no direct accountability to the Internal Revenue Service concerning the contribution received from their members.

It is fitting and proper for a Christian to claim his correct itemized deduction for religious contributions. By so doing, the wages he earns will have its greatest value, since more of it will be available to do good works. But some individuals have abused the privilege of giving, and as a result, new IRS regulations effective in 1994 will require a change in the way churches handle the contribution received from members.

Effective January 1, any contribution of $250.00 or more to a church will be excluded from the IRS as a deduction unless a signed receipt is obtained from the receiving church. A cancelled check will no longer be sufficient to substantiate such contribution, and the testimony of knowledgeable individuals will not be accepted! In addition, if a group of checks, each of which is less than $250, is given on the same day, the deduction for those checks will be excluded if no receipt is obtained.

The vast majority of contributions in support of churches of Christ are under $250 each. But consider these scenarios that do regularly happen:

1. A family takes a four-week vacation, and provides the contribution for four Sundays on the last Sunday before they leave. The parents regularly contribute $75 each week. The contribution for the four weeks together amounts to $300. Their contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

2. A sizeable gift is made to the congregation in memory of a departed member. If $250 or more, the contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

The new law places no responsibility on churches, but rather on individuals who make gifts of $250 or more. But clearly, churches must make adjustments in how they handle the offering in order to assist members in preserving their privilege under the tax law. And the adjustments need to maintain the privacy of the offering in order to be consistent with the scripture.

The IRS is seeking to prevent, for example, a person from writing a check of $300 to a church, and then receiving $250 in change from the collection plate. Such a person in the past could declare the $300 as contribution, when in reality his gift was only $50. (This actually was happening!) Since churches are not accountable to the IRS, no one was the wiser.

In 1994, it will be important for churches to put in practice one or more of the following changes:

1. The persons who count the contribution must be pre-pared to issue a signed receipt to anyone who gives $250 or more on any occasion. The receipt must include the name of the church, the date received, and a statement that no goods or services other than intangible religious benefit was received by the giver in exchange for his offering. The receipt must be signed. Or,

2. The endorsement stamp used on the back of personal checks could be worded as above to make the endorsement a valid receipt when signed. For example, it could say: “This check was received by the Any town Church of Christ as contribution on (date) . The donor received no goods for services other than intangible religious benefit for his gift. Deposit to account number 123456 of the Hometown Bank. Signed

3. In addition, as additional protection of the rights of the giver, my advisors say that the one who signs the receipt or the receipt stamp should not be a close relative of the one who issues the check.

4. Finally, these changes need to be explained to the members of the congregation, so that there will be no surprises if someone is audited by the IRS.

The rules seem to indicate that the receipt could be given at a later time, so long as the receipt is in hand by the time a person files his personal income tax return.

A local congregation could choose to do nothing in preparation for these changes, and hope that the need for a receipt will not arise. That seems tantamount to hoping a large contribution will never arrive! Brethren, leadership demands that those in positions of responsibility initiate actions that serve to defend against undue criticism.

We are fortunate to live in a great country which allows churches to function without monitoring or interference from the government. There are forces at work that will, I am sure, make many more changes in the way churches function in the next twenty years. The 1994 changes seem to be reasonable, but churches must respond in order to assist their members to be the best possible stewards of the funds they possess.

(Information is from the RIA Analysis of the 1993 Federal Law Changes.) GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 14
January 6, 1994

By Jeff Asher

On the nights of August 9, 10, 12 and 13 brother James L. Zachary met Mr. Russell Henson in Mountain View, Arkansas on four propositions regarding miracles and the number of persons in the Godhead. The debate was well attended by both Christians and Pentecostals. Each of the disputants was well prepared and behavior during the debate by all was exemplary. This debate was conducted on the highest plain all week and made a favorable impression in the community by the Eastside church for truth among denominations other than the Pentecostals.

Monday Evening

The proposition Monday night was:

The Scriptures teach miracles are being performed today in the same way they were performed in the New Testament.

Mr. Henson set out to prove the proposition by affirming that God had performed miracles in ages past and was capable of performing miracles now. Then he undertook to enlist the assistance of the audience by asking that those who had received miraculous healing to stand. He also gave his own personal testimony concerning healing. Brother Zachary was quick to point out that the proposition did not have anything to do with what God had done in the past or with the unsubstantiated subjective testimony of the audience or himself. Rather, Mr. Henson was under obligation to prove that the Scriptures teach that miracles are being done today in the same way as God did them in the past.

The principle argument offered by Mr. Henson regarding miraculous healing today concerned Isaiah 53:4-5,

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Henson argued that the atonement of Christ purchased for all Christians the healing of diseases, as well as the forgiveness of sins. He cited Matthew 8:17 as proof that the passage has reference to physical healing.

Zachary first pointed out that Henson’s proof text did not sustain his argument because in Matthew the miracles of healing under consideration were those of Jews under the law before the atonement was offered, not Christians under the gospel after the atonement was made. Thus, Matthew 8:17 could not possibly mean that Isaiah 53:4-5 has anything to do with the physical healing of Christians today.

Brother Zachary went on to give the inspired commentary on Isaiah 53:4-5 and Matthew 8:17 from 1 Peter 2:24,

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

It was shown that the “healing” in Isaiah 53 was the forgiveness of sins and not the removal of physical infirmity. Thus, Matthew 8:17 had in view the personal ministry of Christ which included miracle working as a part of the proof that He was the Son of God and the one who would bear our sins to the cross (see: Matt. 9:2-8). This truth was further demonstrated from New Testament examples of faithful Christians who had sickness (2 Cor. 12:7-10; 2 Tim. 4:20; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23).

Tuesday Night

The next proposition discussed was:

The Scriptures teach that miraculous gifts have ceased.

This proposition is a little unusual, since Pentecostals are generally unwilling to sign a proposition framed so closely to biblical language (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). However, it states precisely the issue that exists between Christians and Pentecostals.

Throughout the first two nights Zachary pressed the issue of “in the same way.” Henson was presented miracles of healings, tongues, resurrections, snakes, poison, curses and nature along with the question: “Are they being performed today in the same way?” He was asked for a demonstration on Monday night; yet, on Tuesday evening the request was rescinded because “the Scriptures teach miraculous gifts have ceased.” Zachary made his case from two passages 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and Ephesians 4:11-13.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 was shown to teach that miraculous gifts would cease when the revelation of the mystery of the gospel was completed. This was done by making it clear that the thing which is “perfect” in this text is that which brings our knowledge to perfection (cf. 13:12). There is one perfect thing, the completed revelation of Jesus Christ (Jas. 1;25; John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Jude 3). Mr. Henson was pressed on whether or not he believed the Bible was perfect.

The emphasis in Ephesians 4:11-13 was upon the proposition “till.” It was shown that the word demanded duration. Thus, the argument was made that all the gifts were to last as long as any of the gifts, and that duration was conditioned upon four things. These were: (1) unity of the faith, (2) knowledge of the Son, (3) perfection of the body, (4) the measure of Christ. Zachary showed quite well that it is the Word of God that satisfies each of these conditions (Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:2,3; 2 Tim. 3:16).

The best argument that Mr. Henson could make in response to the affirmative material was to say, “If you have been born again, then you have experienced a miracle.” In response to Zachary pointed out that Mr. Henson and his people had not had the same experience that was manifested on Pentecost and Cornelius’ house which he claimed was the new birth, nor did Pentecostals practice what he was preaching relative to the new birth in that some water baptized members of his church had not received the experience of tongues. Zachary went on to point out how the Spirit works in conversion and why this is not a miracle. This was just another of Henson’s many blunders.

Wednesday Night

On Wednesday the debate was recessed. The brethren at Eastside have an assembly in the evening, and it was a very edifying time. The singing was wonderful.

Many brethren had come from all over the state and from out of state. Thus, the house was full of visitors. Among these was brother Ed Dye from Pine Bluff, Zachary’s moderator, and brother Keith Sharp who joined us at the table. These brethren were indispensable during the week in the study sessions. Brother Dye did a magnificent job in keeping order. This is one of the few debates with Pentecostals where there have been no points of order called. I attribute this in large part to brother Dye.

I had the pleasure and honor of addressing the assembly that evening on the subject “Divine Encouragement for Holy Living” taken from 1 Peter 1:13-2:5. This was my first time to preach at Mountain View though I have known several in the church for many years. It was certainly good to be with such a fine church who showed not only love for the brethren by their hospitality, but for the truth as well by their stedfast support of Jim during the debate.

Thursday Night

The subject changed on Thursday evening to the Godhead, and so did the order of speakers, Zachary moved to the affirmative with this proposition 

The Scriptures teach the Godhead is three persons, namely the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Zachary made it clear that he was not affirming that there were three Gods, but only that the one God exists in three persons. Frankly, this is a difficult concept even for our own brethren to grasp at times. However, Zachary got to the real issue at stake when the pointed out that the Pentecostal position denies the Son and brings the condemnation of 1 John 2:22-24,

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

The Bible teaches one must believe in the Father and the Son, not the Father who is the Son. This is why this issue merits being debated. Souls are at stake (John 8:24).

Zachary made several arguments that were very effective in showing the truth of the nature of the Godhead. First, he introduced John 8:16-18, which reads,

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mr. Henson was asked, “Do you believe Jesus when he said that he was not alone and that there was a second witness?” The response was, “The flesh of Jesus was one witness and the Spirit of Jesus was the other witness.” Now, this left Mr. Henson with quite a dilemma for he was called upon to explain whether or not Jesus had two spirits, one human and the other divine. And, if having two spirits, that is, the Holy Spirit indwelling the man Jesus, why Henson himself was not “God” since he claimed to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in himself. Zachary then answered the question for the audience showing that Luke 23:46 teaches that Jesus had only one spirit, and necessarily, Mr. Henson’s problem was not resolved.

When Zachary introduced Ephesians 4:1-5 into the discussion to show that there was one Spirit, one Lord and one Father which necessarily indicates three persons, Mr. Henson replied that the text did not say “and” which would indicate addition would be proper. Brother Zachary thanked Mr. Henson for that and produced the following passages which had the “and” as required:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me (John 8:16).

Friday Night

The last night of the debate had Mr. Henson affirming:

The Scriptures teach that the Godhead is Jesus only, and the words “in Jesus’ name” must be recited at baptism.

This night was the best attended, I thank that the Pentecostals may have outnumbered the brethren this night. However, we had heard that they regarded this to be the proposition with which Mr.. Henson would do his best.

However, Mr. Henson did not escape the careful examination of his position in the negative. Brother Zachary was well prepared introducing again in every speech as he had done the night before, and that several times, a chart in which the “facts are overwhelming” in support of three persons in the Godhead. There were 43 passages which clearly distinguish between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These passages can only be understood when one accepts that there is one God who exists in three Persons.

Mr. Henson introduced twelve “one God” passages as he called them from the Old Testament. Zachary showed that in each case the text referred to one Deity and in eleven instances the context dealt with the worship of the true God over pagan deities.

Henson also had the obligation to show that a certain baptismal formula was to be used. He cited the various cases of conversion in Acts where men were said to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g. Acts 19:5). Brother Zachary pointed out that no one can produce a passage that tells what the baptizer said at baptism. The passages produced by Mr. Henson only tell what was done, they were baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). Furthermore, only one time are we told what was said at a baptism by the baptized in Acts 8:37,38 

And Philip said, if thou believest with all thing heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The person being baptized confessed the name of Jesus Christ and not the person doing the baptizing. This is exactly what Christians practice. Mr. Henson’s proposition failed.

Brother Zachary did a wonderful work the week of the debate. His success was directly attributable to the fact that the was obviously well prepared by careful study of the Word. I commend brother Zachary for his work and heartily recommend that the churches use him in future discussions with the Pentecostals or in meeting work. He is certainly doing the work of an evangelist in Mountain View. I also commend the good Eastside church for their faithful sup-port of God’s servants during the debate. It is encouraging to see brethren rally to the defense of the Lord, his church and the Word in an effort to save souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 6-8
January 20, 1994

By Anonymous

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). This passage has been the center of controversy on the divorce and remarriage issue for many years. While I still believe this subject is very easy to understand, for the honest heart who desires to do the Lord’s will, I would like to address this passage from a different aspect.

Let me state clearly what I believe on this subject, to avoid any misunderstandings by the readers of this article. From a close study of this subject, attending numerous debates over the past four years, and living in a place where error on this subject has been preached for almost three decades, my conclusions have not been reached without much thought, study, and prayer. According to the scriptures the only cause for divorce is adultery (Matt. 19:1-12; 5:32). The doctrine of brother Homer Hailey concerning Matthew 19, I believe to be error. Olan Hicks, Jerry Bassett, and Jack Freeman all have different slants, but all are full of errors, according to the scriptures. I’ve listened to all three men defend their doctrines, without success. I love them as brothers, but must oppose what they teach because of my love for the truth. The doctrine of desertion, according to a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15, I also believe to be in violation of the sacred scriptures. My prayer is that these men, along with many others, may wake up to the damage their teachings are doing to the souls of men and women all across this country. I have witnessed first hand results of this error being taught unchecked for decades. It brings tears to my eyes, and breaks my heart; the results are devastating!

However, my purpose in writing this article is not to debate this issue. Let me explain more fully where I am coming from. In August of 1982, my first wife left me and moved in with another man. In December of that same year, she asked to come back home, and I took her back. In February 1983, she decided she “was happy but not con-tent.” After a meeting with this man in her home town, she left the second time that same month. What should I do? Following much prayer, tears, and soul searching, I divorced her in April 1983 for the cause of adultery. Later that year she sought to return a third time, for reasons I will fully explain later, but I could not take her back. Since this time I have remarried a woman who went through a similar situation (much more hurtful and public than my own) and also is a Christian. Ten years have passed, you have the background, and now the reason for this article.

Let me begin by telling you, I have the same attitude about divorce that God does. “For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16). Divorce is a terrible experience for anyone to go through, even when he has grounds from God for doing so. Still I well understand why God made this the only cause for divorce. When a mate has been unfaithful, it does something to the other mate. It is a deep scar that remains for a very long time. Speaking from my experience, it took me six months to get over the hurt. How did I feel? Numb! I cried for hours, blamed myself for everything, and yes I even hated my wife! I understand that God tells me very plainly that I have no right to hate anyone, but that is the way I felt. When you truly love someone, this process is much worse than losing a mate in death. Death is final, divorce is not! My life was an emotional roller coaster. My faith in God, was not weakened, but my faith in myself was. Do you know when it hurt me the most? At the services of the church! When I saw other couples, friends we had made over the years and their children who played with my kids, the emptiness gnawed at my soul! Now I was an outsider, a third wheel. I no longer fit in. I believe I was even a little jealous! What did I do? Unfortunately, I drew away from my spiritual family.

If you think this was bad, it gets worse. In this same process I lost something else, my kids! My daughter was five at the time and my son was almost four. In the state of my residence the mother retains custody of the children, unless she can be proven to be unfit. (Sexual immorality does not make one unfit in the eyes of the courts!) Going into those empty rooms was a pain I cannot begin to explain. Brethren I did not bring children into this world to watch them grow up from a distance! Family life was important to me, and I loved being a father. To be fair, it was nowhere as bad for me, as it was for them! God intended for parents to bring up their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). This cannot be done properly in a broken home! Why? From my experience, when one home is not a Christian home and the other is, it teaches two sets of values. How does a young person cope? To this day, this is a situation I have great difficulty accepting. It is my “thorn in the flesh.” I was in the military at this time. When my wife’s “boyfriend” came down to move “our” belongings, I had to watch. Then this man came to me and told me he would “treat my kids kindly.” If not for being a child of God, I would have … I don’t even want to think about it!

How has my life been since? My wife is a wonderful woman, and I thank God each day we have each other. I have two step daughters whom I love just like I do my son and daughter. The girls live with us and my kids live with their mother. I see them two months in the summer, I call them often, and pray for and think of them always. Yet, the hurt is not over. My children are brought up in a home where God is not mentioned. Their mother has remarried, to a man who does believe in a Supreme Being, but does not see the need for religion in his life or theirs! On many occasions, he has told my children my values and teachings are “outdated” and just my opinions. Living together is not a sin, teaching kids to use condoms and such, is teaching them “personal responsibility.” I would like to quote a statement my daughter’s mother made tome a few months ago: “I have no false notion that our daughter will graduate from high school a virgin!” My dear friend I have more confidence in my daughter! Yet, with the values, examples, and teachings at home, it’s going to be an uphill battle. What can I do? Not one thing about what they are taught at their mother’s home. I have no say!

A few years ago my son was in my garage crying. “What’s the matter?” I asked. He said he didn’t want to talk about it. After some prodding he finally told me. “Dad I want it like it used to be, when we were all together.” Tears ran down my cheeks that day, and even now as I write. What answer can a person give a nine-year-old boy who loves both his father and mother? Sadly, there is no easy or comforting answer. Such is the lot of children from a broken home. How it hurts to have to make that statement, that my children are victims of a broken home. Truly they pay the highest cost of all. Grandparents are deprived of their grandchildren. Cousins and other close family members really have no relationship with them. (My step daughters visit their dad while my kids are here in the summer.)

Many people have told me, “You had grounds for divorce so you can start over. That will make it easier for you.” Please hear me carefully, divorce is never easy, and it causes many others than the two people involved to suffer. Today I cannot in good conscience tell anyone to seek a divorce  not even when they have scriptural grounds! Brethren, many other areas of your life will be affected by a divorce, scriptural or not! What’s the point of my article? Let me put it plainly, adultery is not worth the price you will pay for the pain that it will cause! Two people who have some moments of pleasures, will reap a lifetime of heartaches for others who neither wanted it nor made the decisions which brought this pain into their lives. Regrets? Not about how I handled the divorce or in remarrying. Yet, if you’re asking for what all four children must endure after the fact, the answer is a resounding Yes!

My prayer has always been that my children, all four of them, may never experience what my wife and I have had to endure. We try to teach all of them the importance of God in their lives, to put him first in all we do. Marriage is a lifetime commitment for one man and one woman. This is God’s plan. Time will only tell what affect all this will have in the future, but it has affected them already. No one can take the place of a child’s parents. Asking a child to choose between his father and mother is a cruel harsh lesson of life. If this article will save one person from stepping over the line or help and encourage others who have had similar Situations, it will have been worth my efforts.

One last comment: I cannot say enough of my Christian brethren who saw me through these darkest hours of my life. Honestly speaking, I would have never made it through without the love, concern, and patience they kindly gave me during these dark days. God never left me, yet, for a time I left him. Thankfully, the Lord allowed me time to recover. I no longer have hatred in my heart; no longer am I bitter or jealous. Yet, the scars still remain. Watching my children grow up two thousand miles away is very difficult.

Knowing that the “double standard” they are being taught could cause them to be lost is constantly on my mind. I may never fully understand the why, yet, I will always understand one thing. God knows much better what is best for man than he does. Please my friend, do not learn this lesson of life the hard way. I’m recovering, you may not be so lucky!

Additional Notes .. .

This article is “anonymous” for two reasons. To protect the four children involved and not to cause the “other” parties involved any more shame than has already been done.

I like to share some personal thoughts. What do other Christians say when a marriage is breaking up for a brother or sister? Can you understand? Do you know how they feel? To be sure, we need to be caring and concerned. How does a Christian handle a divorce and not lose his Christianity in the process? To be perfectly honest, the do’s, don’ts, and what “pattern to follow” are not even considered. My biggest worry? How am I going to get through this? Some of my brethren tell me, “You must get the divorce for adultery, and be the one who puts her away.” How does one get a divorce for the cause of adultery, when over forty states say it is not even grounds! My ex-wife’s lawyer refused to let her sign a paper admitting she was guilty, because she did not have to do so, according to civil law. Does this leave the innocent person with no recourse? Remember, we must abide by civil law, but God’s law is our main concern. Does God know what the cause is? Please read Hebrews 4:13. My cause for divorce is in the written court record. Some cannot be so lucky!

How bad does it get? Everyone is different, but I do believe some aspects are the same. Complete apathy! I did not care about anything or anybody, save my kids. All I wanted is the hurt to go away. How strong is your faith? Believe me, you are going to find out! Then you are angry, jealous, and even feel envy toward your friends who continue to be happily married! Yes, I still believed in God, and I did not blame him. How did I cope? Christian friends who gave me time and space helped me! If I needed them, I knew they were there. One’s mind is so confused it is difficult to think straight about anything! What did I need most from my brethren? Understanding and patience. Luckily, I have some wonderful brethren. Sadly, I must admit, some others I have known did not have this luxury! Explaining how it truly feels, is very difficult to put into words. Hopefully, you will never learn first hand!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 16-17
January 6, 1994