Truth Magazine

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

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Interpretation of scripture is critical to one’s relation to God. Jesus often interpreted the Old Testament and from him we learn how to handle scriptures. He also through the Holy Spirit had the writers of the New Testament interpret the scriptures. From all these, we can learn how to handle the scriptures. Likewise, the scriptures or the word of God is agreeable to the reason. In I Peter 2:2, the word of God is said to be spiritual (ASV); this term is from logikos which means reasonable, agreeable to the reason, or rational. God is the author of man’s rational nature and he addressed his word to this nature. In order that man might understand the word, God suited it to man’s rational nature. In passages that will be addressed later in the article, attention will be called to the use of the rational nature in interpreting the rational word.

This article addresses the issue of interpretation and relates to a question concerning implications of a passage dealing with Old Testament prophecy. Every person brings to the study of the scriptures a uniqueness of spirit, personality, experience, reasoning ability, prejudices, and accepted propositions. One must seek to cut through these and get to the heart of the scriptures themselves so that one is governed by what they say and not by what one might read into them.

Question: Please comment on Luke 24:44-49, especially regarding its ramifications upon interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.

Response: It is probable that the querist is concerned about this expression concerning what Jesus did: “Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures” (Lk. 24:45). Just what occurred here? Does one need the intervention of Deity directly to understand or can one understand by a proper analysis of a given passage and other corroborating passages? These are some of the questions that appear appropriate as one approaches such a study.

What occurred when Jesus “opened their mind” so that they might understand? The two men on the way to a village name Emmaus were discussing the meaning and significance of the report that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised and was alive (Lk. 24:13-24). As they walked, Jesus joined them but they did not recognize who he was (Lk. 24:15-16). He asked them what communications they were having and they responded about the remarkable events of the last three days (Lk. 24:17-24).

His opening words to them were most instructive in the context of the issue being addressed in this article. “And he said unto them, 0 foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken” (Lk. 24:25). Their problem was that they had not properly read and analyzed the word of God. Had they done so they would not be so perplexed about his resurrection. They would have recognized the Christ had they believed in what the prophets had spoken. This question was then put to them: “Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:26) At this point, Jesus “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ” from Moses and from all the prophets (Lk. 24:27). He opened their minds by appealing to the scriptures and showing how the predictions about him had been fulfilled. Had they properly read and understood the scriptures, they would have already known what he pointed out the scriptures meant.

Later, when they came to know who he was, “they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Lk. 24:32) He opened the scriptures to them by referring to them and explaining what they meant. Had they not been so slow of heart to believe, they would have already understood them (Lk. 24:25). The ordinary rational powers they possessed are those by which they came to have an understanding which understanding they could have had if they had believed the scriptures. Jesus did nothing directly to their minds; their minds were addressed and with their normal powers they understood his explanation.

This case of the two on the way to Emmaus becomes very valuable to us in addressing the passage which is the focus of the querist. The word opened is translated from dianoigo which means “to open up completely” (Vine). Thayer says that it means to open. He points out that metaphorically it means in Luke 24:32 “to open the sense of the Scriptures, explain them.” With reference to Luke 24:45, he says that it means “to open the mind of one, i.e. cause him to understand a thing.” This same word is used in Acts 16:14 with reference to Lydia of whom it is said, “whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things spoken by Paul.” Of this use, Thayer gives the meaning “to open one’s soul, i.e. to rouse in one the faculty of under-standing or the desire of learning.”

Dianoigo appears in eight New Testament passages: Mark. 7:34-35; Luke 2:13; 24:31,32,45; Acts 16;14; 17:3. The passages in Mark refer to the healing of the deaf man with a speech impediment. Jesus implored, as he looked up to heaven, that his ears be opened and they were; he then also spoke correctly. The reference in Luke 2:23 is to every male that opens the womb, that is delivered from the womb of his mother. In Acts 17:3, Paul opened up and alleged that it behooved Christ to suffer and be raised again from the dead. These then leave the Luke and Acts passages for further consideration.

In Luke 23:31, the language is metaphorical referring to their seeing clearly that it was the risen Christ to whom they had been speaking, that is the women on the way to Emmaus. Likewise, there is a metaphorical use in verse 32 in reference to their listening while Jesus opened to them the scriptures. This he did by explaining to them what the scriptures meant as we have already seen. When Jesus showed how “the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day” (Lk. 24:46), he opened “their mind, that they might understand the scriptures.” What then had been “written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms” about the Christ was now clear to their understanding.

Their minds had been opened. There was no direct operation by Christ on their minds independent of the scriptures. Rather, there was an explanation of the sense of the scriptures whereby their minds were opened.

Directed by God precisely about where to travel and to bypass where he had intended to go, Paul arrived in Philippi where he found a group of women who were come together in a place of prayer (Acts 16:6-13). Paul spoke to Lydia about the Christ and his will; it is said that Lydia “heard them” (Acts 16:14). In the course of what she heard, her heart was “opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). This again is a case of the scriptures having been explained that caused the heart to be opened. The agency used by the Lord was his word; it was not a direct operation or intervention independent of the word of God. God had caused the preacher and the sinner to come together and he had given the word that opened the heart. Having learned what the message was and having understood, Lydia gave heed to that which was spoken. Without her heart’ s having been opened she would not have paid heed. She would have a closed mind to the Christ as did others who worshipped under the old Testament until such time as they clearly understood the message of the scriptures.

The ramifications upon interpretation of Old Testament prophecy that Luke 24:44-49 has are that when scriptures are properly explained and one is disposed to listen one’s heart or mind will be opened.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 5
January 20, 1994

By Mike Willis

Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:14-15).

I have an observation that may or may not be accurate in every case. I have noticed that when we pray for someone who is sick, frequently the prayer goes something like this:

Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the many blessings you have given us. . . . We come to you in prayer especially at this time in behalf of our brother who is sick. We pray that you will bless the doctors and nurses who are attending to him. We pray that you will be with his family in this hour of crisis that they might minister to his needs and be a source of comfort, consolation, and strength to him.

There is nothing in this prayer that should not be prayed for. However, the prayer frequently comes to an end without the one leading it ever asking the Lord to heal the sick body of the person who is suffering. In my observations at the hospital, I see the doctor in pretty good health, not worried about how to pay his medical bills, and doing quite well. The nurses attending to the needs of my loved one also look cheerful, in good health, and generally doing better than the one lying in the hospital bed. The family and friends who come to cheer and comfort the sick also seem relatively in good condition. Any of these can properly be the objects of our prayer. But, in this situation, who is most in need of our prayers? Obviously, the sick person who is in such poor condition that he had to be admitted into the hospital. Why should anyone be so reluctant to pray for him?

Have we so studiously avoided the errors of modem Pentecostalism that we are afraid to ask the Lord to heal the body of someone who is sick? I hope that we have not reached a point in our faith that we no longer believe that prayer does any good. Before proceeding any further, let me close a couple of doors. There are two erroneous concepts of the present operation of the world:

(1) The Pentecostals are wrong when they promise miraculous healing to those who are sick. There are no miracles being performed today. Faith is not a condition to physical health.

(2) The naturalists are also wrong who teach that everything is governed solely by natural law. The deistic concept of the universe teaches that God created and empowered the universe; ever since creation everything has occurred as a result of natural law. The naturalists deny that God even created the world, but are agreed with the deists in believing that all things that happen are the result of the operation of natural law. Neither believes that God intervenes in the affairs of man. Neither of these concepts is true. God does work in the affairs of men, as is expressly stated in such passages as Daniel 4:32. I am afraid that some Christians may be approaching the deistic concept of the world. That would be the case if one were to conclude that prayer does not change things.

When Hezekiah became aware that he was sick with an illness that would lead to death, he prayed to God and wept (2 Kings 20:3). The Lord answered his prayer and ex-tended his life for fifteen years.

The 116th Psalm records the praise of a saint delivered from death. He described his condition:

The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

Then called I upon the name of the Lord; 0 Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul (3-4).

The psalmist brought his plight before the Lord and asked for his divine assistance and aid.

If we cannot directly ask for God’s help when we are sick, how can we praise and glorify him when we are healed? If we believe that he has nothing to do with our recovery, why praise him for deliverance? Why not solely give thanks to the doctors, nurses, and natural laws that enable us to recuperate?

I plan to ask for God to heal me when I become ill. I am not asking him to perform a miracle, but I am asking him in his providence to heal my sick body. There is not a father or mother among us with a sick child who has not unabashedly taken his prayer directly to God and asked him to let the child live!

What we pray in private, why are we afraid to say in public? Let us not hesitate to ask God to extend the life of our loved ones, to heal their sick body that they might resume their role in the home, and to strengthen them during the hours of their sickness. Let us also recognize that the God who has the power to heal also has the privilege of saying to me like he did to Paul, “my grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor. 12:9). I will pray earnestly until I clearly see that the answer to my prayer is “my grace is sufficient for thee.” When I so perceive his reply, I will quit asking for healing and ask for the strength to accept what has come to me.

In the meantime, let us avoid the tendency of allowing our reaction to Pentecostalism to drive us away from asking God to heal the sick.

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

By Joe R. Price

Earlier this year, brethren formed a new congregation in the Renton, Washington area. The Puget Sound Eastside church was started when these brethren were told they could not teach their convictions on divorce and remarriage, and on fellowship, if they were to be accepted as faithful brethren in the local work. Having an abiding commitment to love and serve truth, and being left with no other choice, these brethren started a new congregation. They continue actively to seek opportunities to study the truth of God with all brethren in that area on these and other important Bible subjects.

One such opportunity which the Puget Sound Eastside church arranged was a gospel meeting, November 1-7, with brother Harry Osborne teaching Bible lessons on Who Is Amenable to the Gospel?; Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage; 1 Corinthians 7: What it Teaches; and Fellow-ship, Error and Romans 14. Announcements were sent to congregations in the Seattle area, the state of Washington, the surrounding states and portions of Canada. Opportunities for questions and answers during the public services and for private study were also arranged. The brethren hoped in this way to promote open Bible study between brethren, and thereby to urge unity based upon truth.

Evidently, not all the brethren in the Pacific Northwest are in favor of such open discussions of truth on these subjects. The following letter from brother Jack Gibbert, evangelist with the Silverlake church in Everett, WA, was sent to James and Frances Fleming (members of the Puget Sound Eastside church). After receiving it, the Flemings discovered that this private letter had been made public at the church in Renton, WA (where they had formerly worshipped). It was posted on that church’s bulletin board and read from its pulpit to the church by one of its elders. Therefore, I without hesitation reproduce it here to provide an insight into the attitudes at work in the Pacific North-west to silence Bible study on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellowship.

“Silverlake”

Church of Christ

9907 Bothell Way

Everett, Washington 98208

(206) 337-8586

5 October 1993

Mr. & Mrs. James W. Fleming 13244 Lk. Kathleen Rd. S.E. Renton, Wash. 98059

Dear Jim and Frances,

We received your announcement of a new work meeting in your residence with great sadness. The Northwest has been free from the Eastern sectarian “Church of Christ” for the 15 years I have lived in this area. It’s been understood for the past five years that the preachers of division who advocate the destruction of families as the only way to become a Christian, have been looking for a place to get a toe hold up here. We knew it was only a matter of time until this happened. For the 15 years I have been here this area has had peace among the congregations of God’s people. There has been no need to wet a finger and place it in the wind to see what the latest heresy was and take a position on it. Christians just studied with one another and treated each other with the love and respect due to brothers and sisters.

Jim and Frances what you are introducing to this area will be remembered as the Northwest’s answer to the Piano at Midway, Ky. The view espoused by brother Osborne is not unknown to this area, in fact those who hold it have been welcomed into and are present in every congregation up here. However the attitude held by brother Osborne, which will be laid out Sat. evening during your meeting (“Fellowship,

Error & Romans 14,” jrp), has not been welcomed and is excluded. The shame of all this is that you have been caught up in the typical politics of east coast “Church of Christism” which seeks to get everyone marching to the same drummer, and that drummer is this preacher, or that preacher, and this paper or that paper. The openness of free study and discussion in the Northwest is virtually unknown in Texas, and the East coast. Anyone back there who studies for them-selves lives in fear of speaking out because they will be marked as unsound and withdrawn from. The few, like Ed Harrell, and Dee Bowman who have the courage to speak out against the attitude of men like Harry Osborne, (even though they would agree with Osborne’s conclusion) are marked as “liberal” be-cause they won’t get on the bandwagon and mark those who disagree with them. Men like Osborne are dividers of brethren and they care not one whit who they hurt to accomplish their brand of righteousness.

Jim and Frances, flee from this ungodly crowd. They will bring no good to you or to this section of the country. If you desire a study of MDR I feel certain Darrell Bean (the preacher with the Renton, WA church  jrp) would be happy to study with you. I beg you to think of the peace that has existed for decades among the churches in this area. We don’t always agree on everything, but we have not taken to marking one another as “unfaithful, ungodly, immoral defenders of the adulterers.” All of that will be lost if the “Church of Christers” have their way. When you see the bickering among brethren begin, and then see the churches splitting you will not be able to escape your responsibility for having introduced the serpent into the garden. Please, I beg of you, flee from this ungodliness.

Your brother in Christ, /s/ Jack Gibbert

Before reviewing this letter, let it be clear that I am not personally acquainted with brother Gibbert or the Flemings. I have absolutely no personal axe to grind with my brother. My interest in my brethren, in the truth and in the Lord’s cause in Washington (having worked there in meetings on several occasions over the past six years) compels me to respond to brother Gibbert’s charges and the attitudes he has expressed. And, he is not alone in these attitudes. Apparently, these attitudes are shared by some brethren in Renton, WA, where this letter was read publicly against the Puget Sound Eastside church.

Charges Against Brethren

It is a sad thing to see such charges, insinuations and divisive attitudes in the heart of a brother against his fellow brethren (cf. Eph. 4:31-32). Without offering proof for his assertions, brother Gibbert has branded brethren outside the Northwest (especially those in Texas and on the East coast) as being “sectarian,” with practicing “politics” and “Church of Christism,” as stifling open Bible study, as being hurtful and without feelings, and as an “ungodly crowd.” In the same paragraph where he says that brethren should not mark “one another as `…ungodly,”‘ he marks brethren with whom he differs as an “ungodly crowd.” While making such astonishing judgments of his brethren, brother Gibbert claims the virtue of “openness of free study and discussion.” This letter, however, was not intended to encourage openness, free study and discussion on divorce, remarriage and fellowship in the Northwest. On the contrary, its obvious design was to keep open study of God’s word on these subjects from occurring! Who then, is guilty of stifling the open study of God’s word? By means of this letter, Brother Gibbert has resorted to the very tactic he tries to oppose.

In the past, we have spread and strengthened the kingdom’s borders by maintaining a readiness to discuss openly our differences using the Bible as our guide. Such a course has scriptural precedence (Acts 17:11-12; 15:7-21). Why then, should such an opportunity as was arranged by the Puget Sound Eastside church be so severely spoken against by brethren in that area? Do we still believe that truth has nothing to fear from honest and open investigation, or have brethren in the Northwest who stand with brother Gibbert given up this noble posture? The foregoing letter speaks for itself.

“Art Thou He That Troubleth Israel?”

Brother Osborne and other unnamed men are charged with being “preachers of division” and “dividers of brethren.” When Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel, the prophet of God responded that those who forsake the Word of God trouble Israel (1 Kgs. 18:17-18). That gospel truth at times divides is an obvious principle which our Lord taught (Lk. 12:51-53; 1 Cor. 11:19). But this does not mean that the gospel preacher seeks division. Otherwise, Christ and his apostles are guilty of being “preachers of division”! Motives for preaching truth include the salvation of souls and the promotion of the only valid basis for scriptural unity, God’s truth (Rom. 1:16; In. 17:20-21; Eph. 4:4-6). We can understand and obey God’s word on divorce and remarriage and on fellowship. We need not accuse men who have the courage to preach that word as being divisive. Rather, we must support the preaching of truth with our prayers, our presence and our participation. If we disagree with something that is taught, we should be willing to discuss those objections openly. It is easy to call someone divisive with whom we do not agree. But it takes courage and a commitment to truth to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith, to study truth openly, and then to correct our sins, when needed, through genuine repentance (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Thess. 5:21-22). May God grant us all such courage and commitment as we seek to live in truth.

“Except Ye Repent”

Another serious charge leveled against these so-called “preachers of division” who are “looking for a place to get a toe hold” in the Pacific Northwest is that they “advocate the destruction of families as the only way to become a Christian.” This is a purely emotional attempt to divert attention away from what is the clear issue at hand, namely, true repentance on the part of those in adulterous remarriages. Such an approach is unbecoming of one who is interested in truth at all costs.

We must realize that whenever an adulterous remarriage exists, a family has already been destroyed! (cf. Matt. 19:9) A family which God has ordained is destroyed every time a divorce which is not for the cause of fornication occurs (Matt. 19:6; Heb. 13:4)! Brother Gibbert does not describe those who accept all remarriages as valid, regard-less of the cause for the divorce, as those who “advocate the destruction of families!” Why does he oppose Bible preaching which will restore the original family  the one God ordained (Matt.19:6)?

No one denies that genuine repentance is essential in order to become a Christian (Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; et al.). The problem arises when a man and woman, perhaps with children in the home, learn that their remarriage is adultery in God’s sight (Matt. 19:9). Some are unwilling to instruct such people that repentance demands a ceasing of sin (Rev. 9:20-21). Brethren, are we more interested in maintaining an adulterous remarriage than we are in urging sinners to repent of their sins? Surely we agree that polygamists and homosexuals who repent of their sins cannot continue to practice those sins with each other and be true to God. Adultery is also sexual sin, and must be repented of in the same way. One who is committing adultery cannot continue in that relationship after his conversion to Christ and legitimately claim to be “doing works worthy of repentance” (Acts 26:20; cf. Lk. 3:8-14). Does brother Gibbert advocate the destruction of polygamous and homosexual relationships as being necessary in order to become a Christian? I would be shocked if he does not. Why not then, in like manner, advocate the destruction of adulterous relationships as a necessary part of repentance in order to become a Christian? To demand one is to mandate the other. Certainly, when children are involved, their needs must be seen after and cared for by the responsible parties. Nobody has advocated otherwise. Let us stop clouding the issue with emotional pleas which do nothing to address the sinner’s need.

The point of disagreement is on the subject of repentance. We must be willing to face whatever consequences come upon us when we decide to put Jesus and his will first in our lives (Matt. 10:34-39). For example, when ancient Israelites married women who were forbidden to them, Shecaniah commanded Israel to “put away all the wives, and such as are born of them” (Ezra 10:1-3). Now, we can accuse Shecaniah of the “destruction of families” as the only way of being right with God, or we can praise his courage for advising Israel to deal with this matter “ac-cording to the law” (Ezra 10:3). I assume that brother Gibbert agrees with Shecaniah’s counsel on that occasion (for it had God’s approval, Ezra 10:2, 10-12). The Israelites confessed their sins, did God’s pleasure, and separated themselves from the foreign women (Ezra 10: 10-12,16,44). Such action manifested true repentance. In doing so, God’s wrath was turned away from Israel (Ezra 10:14). The cost of their faithfulness to God was high, but they paid it. Similarly, the cost of discipleship to Jesus Christ is high (Lk. 14:25-33), but we must be willing to pay the price. Otherwise, the wages of sin will be far greater (Rom. 6:23).

A Parallel With Instrumental Music

Next, brother Gibbert resorts to an attempted parallel between the introduction of mechanical instruments of music into worship and the defense of the biblical teaching on divorce, remarriage and fellowship. He says that what the Flemings “are introducing to this area will be remembered as the Northwest’s answer to the Piano at Midway, Ky.” One is made to wonder whether brother Gibbert believes division should have occurred at all over the use of instrumental music in worship, especially given his use of that event to persuade brethren not to press God’s word on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellow-ship. If brother Gibbert were to apply his own practice to the subject of mechanical instruments of music in worship, one would be free to use the instrument in worship and nobody could object to its use. And if they did, letters could be sent out marking the objectors as “dividers of brethren” who were preaching “their own kind of righteousness”!

His attempted parallel to the use of instrumental music in worship grievously misses the mark. The introduction of instrumental music into worship occurred over the objection of sincere brethren who objected to its use as being a violation of the Bible pattern for true worship (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn.9-11; 1 Pet.4:11). In spite of their scriptural objections, the instrument was forced to the point that those who opposed it were left with nothing to do but separate themselves from those engaging in its unauthorized use. Similarly, despite the scriptural objections of brethren such as the Flemings, the Renton, WA church determined to teach and practice error on divorce and remarriage. You may judge for yourself whose conduct parallels the introduction of instrumental music into worship. The answer is obvious.

Brother Gibbert says that brethren who “would agree with Osborne’s conclusion” have been “welcomed into and are present in every congregation up here,” and that the Northwest is characterized by the “openness of free study and discussion.” However, he goes on to say that what brother Osborne teaches regarding fellowship, error and Romans 14 “has not been welcomed and is excluded.” Brethren, which is it? Is there “openness” and “free study and discussion” on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellowship, or has an open discussion of these subjects “not been welcomed and is excluded”? Brother Gibbert has defended the “openness” of brethren in the Northwest while telling us of their exclusionary practices! In fact, though his letter of October 5, 1993, was made public in the Northwest, to my knowledge there has been no public response to it from brethren in the Northwest condemning its sectarian attitude and urging brother Gibbert to repent. I call upon brother Gibbert and any who are in sympathy with the attitude he has expressed to repent of it, so that we may come together to work for unity based upon truth.

The facts in the case of the brethren who started the Puget Sound Eastside church reflect the “openness” of which brother Gibbert speaks. These brethren were “welcome” where they were worshipping only if they would remain silent on the subjects of divorce and remarriage, and also on fellowship. Being told that their study of divorce and remarriage with other members would lead to division, these brethren were silenced in their efforts to teach the truth of Christ. Like those who objected to instrumental music in worship, these brethren were put in a position of either remaining silent and going along with error, or separating themselves in order to remain true to their God (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29; 20:20,27). They chose the difficult path of truth, and for that they deserve our admiration and support. Those who introduced instrumental music into worship, in were the troublers of Israel, not those who opposed this human innovation. Even so, the brethren who have introduced innovations on divorce and remarriage and on fellowship are today the troublers of Israel, not the brethren who oppose their error with the truth.

Politics and Open Study

Unnamed brethren are charged with the “politics of east coast Church of Chrristism,” and with seeking “to get everyone marching to he same drummer, and that drummer is this preacher, or that preacher, and this paper or that paper.” After reviewing the facts in the case of the Flemings and brother Gibbert’s letter, including its publicity at the Renton church, one is made o wonder about the “politics of Northwest Church of Christism”! While berating Texas and the east coast for a supposed lack of “free study and discussion,” brother Gibbert seeks to stifle “free study and discussion” by warning people away from a gospel meeting designed to do just that! This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black (cf. Rom.2:1-2)!

It is also incredible that brother Gibbert describes teaching what Matthew 19:9 plainly says as ‘east coast ‘Church of Christism.'” Teaching Matthew 19:9 :is Jesus delivered it is nothing less than “preach(ing) the word,” something Paul commanded in 2 Timothy 4:2. To suggest that those who urge faithfulness to Matthew 19:9 are practicing east coast politics shows contempt for the truth Jesus taught and for the belief that we can understand his word correctly and be united on the subject of divorce and remarriage, and fellowship.

The Influence Of Christianity Magazine

It is important to see that brother Gibbert is using the reputations of brethren Ed Harrell and Dee Bowman to strengthen his position. As well-known gospel preachers and editors of Christianity Magazine, their influence is both widespread and significant. And, as these brethren know, with one’s influence comes responsibility. That influence is now being used to drive a wedge between brethren and to close off open Bible study on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellowship. Brother Gibbert observes that Ed Harrell and Dee Bowman agree with brother Osborne on what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage. But, men such as brother Gibbert perceive that brethren Harrell and Bowman are unwilling to apply those convictions in the area of fellowship. To the best of my knowledge, they continue to have and to extend fellowship with those who teach error on divorce and remarriage. The giving of their influence to a “unity in diversity” approach to divorce and remarriage is now being used as a divisive wedge by some in the hope that truth will not be heard! Whenever one’s preaching and practice becomes a hindrance to the cause of truth, a serious contemplation and correction of that preaching and practice is in order. I plead with my brethren, please do not allow your influence to be used to undermine the scriptural work of devoted Christians!

Attitudes of Obstruction

1. Upon reading brother Gibbert’s letter, one cannot help but observe the belligerent attitude it displays. To say that it is lacking in brotherly love is being charitable. Of particular note is that, while warning the Flemings of the “Eastern sectarian Church of Christ,” brother Gibbert has revealed his own sectarian spirit. It is sectarian to isolate, alienate and segregate brethren without encouraging open study on both sides of the issues at hand. That is what his letter was designed to do. Such attitudes as are displayed in this letter will certainly not encourage open Bible study over differences.

2. From what is said in his letter, it appears that a sectarian attitude has developed among some brethren in the Pacific Northwest. Where is the voice of other Pacific Northwest brethren condemning this sectarian approach which stigmatizes brethren who oppose error and which stifles the public discussion and study of such subjects as divorce and remarriage and fellowship? Has brother Gibbert’s attitude of contempt toward brethren with whom he differs become the norm in the Northwest? I certainly hope not.

While the Bible urges us to regard ourselves as “one body” (Eph. 4:4), it seems that some view the church in terms of the “Northwest body,” the “Texas body” and the “East Coast body.” I suppose that since I live in Utah, that would make me a part of the “Utah body.” How ridiculous! Shall we foster and foment allegations, resentments and prejudices against brethren based on where they live? For shame! Living in truth is not dependent upon where one lives. Neither is error a concern for only certain parts of the country. Such an attitude generates strife and hinders the Lord’s cause. We must take to heart and put into practice the apostolic admonitions of peace and unity based upon God’s revealed truth (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 12:12-31; Phil. 2: 1-5; Eph. 4:1-6). Prejudicial name-calling only hurts the heart of our Father in heaven as it hinders efforts to study and abide in the truth here on earth. With brotherly kindness, let us speak the truth in love (2 Pet. 1:7; Eph. 4:15).

3. A final attitude expressed by brother Gibbert which deserves attention is that he is apparently comfortable having fellowship with “unfaithful, ungodly, immoral defenders of the adulterers.” At the very least, he says that the churches in the Northwest have not taken to marking anyone like that. Please note: Brother Gibbert has marked brother Harry Osborne and others as “dividers of brethren” and an “ungodly crowd,” while admitting that he does not mark those who defend adulterers. How can such a stance be defended in the light of Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10-11 and 2 Timothy 2:16-18, which emphatically teach that we are to do exactly that?

This unscriptural approach to fellowship amounts to agreeing to remain silent on controversial and difficult Bible subjects. It shows tolerance toward those who either directly violate Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, or who teach error on these subjects. Peace at the expense of truth will produce neither peace with God nor an enduring peace among brethren. Agreeing to remain silent is not a characteristic of peace and unity (1 Cor. 5:1-2)! On the other hand, when peace is built upon respect for the word of Christ, it is a joy to behold (Col. 3:12-17). We must conform ourselves to Ephesians 5:7-11, which warns us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (v.1 1).

Wetting a finger and placing it in the wind to determine the latest heresy and then taking a position on it is not the issue here. Neither is it a matter of “always agree(ing) on everything” or of getting “everyone marching to the same drummer.” Such are prejudicial and prejudicing statements. Are we to all “march to the same drummer” regarding homosexuality? Are we to all “march to the same drummer” regarding water baptism? Are we to all “march to the same drummer” on the use of instrumental music in worship? Why then is it wrong to “march to the same drummer” on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellowship? The issue here is one of teaching and obeying truth. Christ is the drummer to whom we must march, and his truth is our cadence.

This is a matter of arriving at unity on a “thus saith the Lord,” something which is both desirable and attainable. To settle for less is an insult against our Lord. There is room in the kingdom for differences of conscience over morally neutral subjects, as Romans 14 teaches. But there is no room in the kingdom of God for sinful attitudes, doctrines and practices. If someone thinks there is, he ma’ i take that matter up with the Lord (Jn. 17:20-21; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:1-3; 4:6; Gal. 1:6-10; Eph.4:3).

Summary

We can know the truth and arrive at un y on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, and fellowship (Eph. 3:3-5; 4:1-16). To do so will demand of u open hearts and willing attitudes to study, discuss an submit to God’s word in an atmosphere of openness, diligence and prayer-fulness. Bitter belligerence toward brethren will not cause openness or produce unity. Truly, the one who introduces “the serpent into the garden” is he one who promotes closed hearts, displays carnal attitudes, and erects obstructions to free and open Bible study.

Where differences exist, 19/t us come together as brethren to study God’s word. We can know and obey God’s will on these subjects (cf. John: 8:31-32). We can help each other be faithful to God’s will on these tremendously important and emotional subjects. My prayer for brethren every-where is that truth will prevail in our hearts and in our lives, and that the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” will be kept with all diligence.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 18-22
January 6, 1994