Truth Magazine

By Ed Brand

I returned from an extended preaching trip on November 6th. I would like to inform the readers of ‘e Guardian of Truth about three areas of interest.

India

1. I arrived in Hyderabad, India on September 30th, the day the killer earthquake struck. There was no noticeable damage in Hyderabad and the state of Andhra Pradesh, but to the north and west, in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka, damage was severe. Before I arrived in India, plans had already been made to go into the state of Maharashtra. On October 3rd, T. Wilfred and I took an overnight train into that state and attempted to visit Killari village, where we knew there were some Christians. After driving five hours, we got to within 12 kilometers of the village, only to be stopped by army personnel. We could go no further, since the village had been completely destroyed. We had no alternative but to turn around and return to Prabhani, five hours away by jeep.

The next day we searched in three near-by villages, where some refugees from Killari had gone. We were able to locate about 280 brethren. This figure is only an estimate, since some had lost their lives in the earthquake. Those who survived lost everything: food, clothing, cooking utensils, housing, and livestock. Most of these brethren were living in livestock shelters. Some were being housed in a school building.

David Watts, John S. Tyler, and T. George Fred (Wilfred’s brother) went west into Karnataka. They were able to briefly visit a destroyed village, but were unable to locate many brethren. According to their estimates, about the same number of brethren are in this state as are in Maharashtra. Their needs are the same: food, clothing, utensils, housing, and livestock.

When I called John Humphries in Louisville, he and my wife Pat, immediately got the word out about this great catastrophe and the need our brethren faced. The response was immediate and gratifying. Within a week, $40,000+ had been sent to Wilfred’s account to be distributed among our needy brethren. Little did we know that forces were at work which would prevent us from receiving any of these funds. The Foreign Exchange manager at the Central Bank of India called Wilfred to appear at his office as soon as possible. I accompanied Wilfred to the bank the next day. The manager was rude, loud, and abusive. He told Wilfred that it was against the law for an Indian National to receive this amount of foreign currency. “For what is this money to be used?” he asked. We replied it is to be used to help our brethren who are suffering from the earthquake. Our response was useless, he would not allow any money to be withdrawn. We were shocked and angry, but helpless. The only way left open to receive any funds was for Wilfred to be registered with the central government. Such a process would take about a month, if everything ran smoothly. Of course in India, hardly anything runs smoothly.

After consulting with Ed Harrell, who is the Director of the American Studies and Research Center in Hyderabad, we decided that Wilfred does not need to register with the government. There is too much red tape, and someone would be continually looking over his shoulder. His ad-vice, and also that of his financial advisors, was to tell the Central Bank of India to return the money to the donors and we would devise another way to get the money into the country. We immediately notified the Bank to return the funds.

As of today (11-16), the money is still in India. The CBI has moved at a snail-like pace to get the money returned to Citibank of New York, so the donors can get their money refunded. If you sent funds by telegraphic transfer, you should immediately contact your bank and ask for a refund. After you receive the refund, you may send a check to:

Dr. David E. Harrell

Department of History

2227 Haley Center

Auburn University, AL 36849

Ed’s secretary will be able to deposit this money into his account and he can draw against it. I believe his services will be invaluable in this regard.

The last reports I have received indicate that about 70 people were converted during the time the three American brethren were there.

Belfast, Northern Ireland

2. After corresponding with John McCourt in Belfast, Northern Ireland, I made arrangements to return to the U.S. through Belfast. John invited me to come and work with a small, new group meeting in that city. I am sorry to report the following about my stay there:

The group is called the “Arches Christian Centre.” It is composed mainly of two men and three women (who are sisters in the flesh). The two men are “married” to two of the sisters. John and Tony have been withdrawn from by churches (which have since disbanded) for the sin of adultery. They were previously married, separated from their partners, but they did not obtain a legal divorce. They then married as “common law” their present partners. Most of this was unknown to me when I arranged to go to Belfast.

John has written numerous brethren in the U.S. He usually asks for teaching materials, sometimes re-questing that someone “come over to help us.” You need to be aware of these circumstances about John McCourt and the Arches Christian Centre. I will not return to work with them again, and I want our Irish brethren to know that I do not endorse or condone the existence of this group. They have some other doctrinal “peculiarities.”

Bratislava, Slovakia

3. Before returning home, I went to Bratislava, Slovakia. I spent a week with the David Diestelkamp and Rick Liggin families. I delivered three “lectures” (otherwise known as “sermons”) about the nature of the Bible, its authority, and how to understand it. We had visitors from the community each evening for the lectures. There were other studies conducted by David and Rick in Brno, Czech Republic, on Sunday evening and Monday, which I attended.

It was a joy for me and my wife (who met me in Bratislava) and several ladies (including Fran Liggin, Rick’s Mother) to be included in their household. Rick, David, and their families are committed to bringing the gospel to the people of this region of eastern Europe. Remember them.

My sincere thanks to those congregations and friends who provided the funds for this trip. Special thanks to the West Side church and her elders for their “leave” for me to go and do my small part in this great work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 12-13
January 6, 1994

By Mike Willis

There are some who are preaching that we have made the name of the church, mid-week services, conducting a spring and fall meeting, and other customary practices of local churches into human traditions (“Church of Christ traditions”). The charge is made that these traditional or customary practices are equated with divine law in the minds of certain unidentified brethren. Matthew 15:1-20 is used to justify opposition to these practices and then an appeal is made to do things another way. I propose in this article to examine the context of Matthew 15:1-20 to see if it has been used correctly when it is applied to these admittedly authorized practices of brethren.

Matthew 15:1-20 records the incident when Jesus was rebuked because he did not wash his hands before he ate. Here is the text:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (15:1-9).

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (15:13-14).

Notice that Jesus clearly distinguished the “traditions of the elders” and the “commandments of men” from the “word of God.” The practices which Jesus condemned resulted in these consequences:

Transgressed the word of God (15:3)

Nullified the word of God (15:6)

Rendered worship vain (15:9)

Manifested that one’s heart was not right with God (15:8) Were based, not on the word of God, but the commandments of men (15:9)

A doctrine that must be rooted up (15:13-14)

Caused men to fall into the pit (15:14)

To apply Matthew 15:1-20 to practices which do not fit these criteria is an abuse of this passage.

The Washing of Hands

Sometimes a person will say, “There is nothing wrong with washing one’s hands before he eats. Therefore, what Jesus is discussing is an authorized practice which is made into a divine law. When we make posting the name `church of Christ’ on the sign in front of the building a divine law, we are guilty of the same thing as the Pharisees were doing.” A better understanding of what the Pharisees were doing may help us to apply this passage correctly.

The Pharisees made a law that a person should wash his hands before he eats. Here are several quotations from rabbinical writings to demonstrate what they were teaching:

“He who neglects hand-washing deserves to be punished here and hereafter.”

“He is to be destroyed out of the world, for in hand-washing is contained the secret of the ten commandments.”

“He is guilty of death.”

“Three sins bring poverty after them, and to slight hand-washing is one.”

“He who eats bread without hand-washing is as if he went in to a harlot.”

“He who does not wash his hands after eating is as bad as a murderer” (cited from The Life of Christ, Cunningham Geikie 202).

Not only did the Pharisees make a law where God had made none, they also mandated the proper method for hand washing:

It was laid down that the hands were first to be washed clean. The tips of the ten fingers were then joined and lifted up so that the water ran down to the elbows, then turned down so that it might run off to the ground. Fresh water was poured on them as they were lifted up, and twice again as they hung down. The washing itself was to be done by rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other. When the hands were washed before eating they must be held upwards; when after it, downwards, but so that the water should not run beyond the knuckles. The vessel used must be held first in the right, then in the left hand; the water was to be poured first on the right, then on the left hand, and at every third time the words repeated “Blessed art Thou who hast given us the command to wash hands” (Geikie 203-204).

The Error Committed

The error committed by the Pharisees was not taking an authorized practice and elevating it into divine law. Rather, the error committed was adding to the revealed word of God. There is nothing wrong with a person choosing to wash his hands before he eats; however, man has never been at liberty to make hand washing an act of divine worship and bind it on others. Man has never been at liberty to add his own regulations to what the word of God required. These Scriptures forbid men to add to the revealed word of God:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Deut. 4:2).

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Prov. 30:6).

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:18-19).

The error committed in Matthew 15 was adding to what God had revealed, making necessary to salvation what God had not made necessary (compare to the adding of circumcision as a condition for salvation for the Gentiles, Gal. 5:1-4). Men have never been given the liberty to add to those things which the Lord authorized. Sometimes the same sin is committed today when men add their traditions to what God has authorized, as in the following:

Adding holy days (Easter, Christmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.)

Rosaries

Burning incense in worship

Instrumental music in worship

A priesthood

Collections taken on another day of the week Choirs, quartets and solos

The Lord has never approved of men adding to the revealed word of God his own additions of worship and work. These are the human traditions that the Lord opposed in Matthew 15.

Misapplying the Passage

To apply this passage to those things that are divinely authorized in the word of God makes havoc of the passage. Can you imagine the confusion which results should a man quote Matthew 15:8-9 (“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”) to condemn a church because it had a baptistery? Rather than a baptistery being the addition of an unauthorized item, it is divinely authorized in the word of God as an aid to a command (Mark 16:15-16; 1 Tim. 3:15). To apply Matthew 15:8-9 to something authorized by the word of God is an abuse of this passage. Could the following things be said about a church that had a baptistery? Could we say that, because this church has a baptistery, this church’s actions .. .

Transgress the word of God (15:3)

Nullify the word of God (15:6)

Render its worship vain (15:9)

Manifests that its members’ hearts were not right with God (15:8)

Are based, not on the word of God_, but the commandments of men (15:9)

Are based on a doctrine that must be rooted up (15:13-14) Causes men to fall into the pit (15:14)

If not, this is a misapplication of this passage to apply it to those things which are authorized liberties. By definition an authorized liberty cannot transgress the word of God! It can be misused to cause a brother to stumble, but it does not transgress the word of God (1 Cor. 8:12-13).

Misrepresenting Brethren

The assertion is made that certain unnamed brethren have equated authorized liberties with those things which are required. I have no quarrel with those who want to remind us that certain liberties must not be equated with those things which are mandated. However, I find it distasteful to read indictments of brethren for believing what they never have written or taught. Where would I go to find statements, similar to those made by the Pharisees about hand-washing, made by brethren when teaching on authorized liberties (such as having a sign with “Church of Christ” on it, passing a collection basket among its members, having a mid-week Bible study, having a Sunday night worship, having a baptistery)? To parody the writings of the Pharisees, can you imagine any such statements as the following being made by responsible brethren among us?

“The church that neglects having a baptistery deserves to be punished here and hereafter.”

“He who attends a church without a baptistery is to be destroyed out of the world, for in having a baptistery is contained the secret of the ten commandments.”

“He is guilty of death if a member attends a church that does not use a collection basket to take up its collection.”

“Three sins bring poverty after them, and to attend a church that does not have a meeting on Wednesday night is one of them.”

“He who attends a church without a Sunday evening service is as if he went in to a harlot.”

“He who attends a church that does not have a sign that says `Church of Christ’ on it is as bad as a murderer.”

There may be a few misguided souls who have made some excessive statements about a few authorized liberties, but to make a blanket assertion about brethren binding their liberties as divine law is irresponsible, if not malicious, on the part of those attempting to establish grounds for a hidden agenda.

Troubling Churches

Some preachers, for whatever reasons, seem bent on changing the local church to which they move. Soon after they arrive they create turmoil by encouraging (or insisting) that the sign be changed from “Church of Christ” to “Christians Meet Here.” Perhaps they suggest that Sunday evening services be dropped or that a collection be taken by putting out a basket and letting brethren drop their money in as they come in rather than by passing the basket during the worship service. If brethren resist the effort to change, their resistance is judged as positive proof that the saints there have equated in their minds authorized liberties with divine mandates. Trouble ensues that may divide the church or cause a sizable element to leave. What created the turmoil? Can the turmoil created by pressing for these changes be justified by asserting that we must resist the tendency to fall into the ruts of tradition? This scenario has played enough times to be cause for alarm. Frankly, we do not need men creating this kind of confusion and turmoil in local churches or peddling it in their meetings.

Enough places have changed these “authorized liberties” and enough time has elapsed to pass judgment on how successful they have been in reaching the lost in their communities. Do you know any church that has made significantly more progress in converting the lost in their neighborhood because they changed their sign from “Church of Christ” to “Christians Meet Here”? Do you know any congregation that has reached more people with the gospel because they meet on Thursday nights instead of Wednesday nights? Do you know any congregation that is converting more people because they disbanded their Sunday evening worship service?

I am not aware of any that have. However, I am aware of several who have started out opposing these “Church of Christ traditions” and have soon moved further and further away from the gospel. While becoming so intolerant of “Church of Christ traditions,” several men have learned to accept the unauthorized traditions of men-sprinkling for baptism, the clergy-laity distinction, instrumental music in worship, special singing groups, etc.

A Guise For A Hidden Agenda

Under the guise of opposing “Church of Christ traditions,” some have the intention of reshaping the Lord’s church. I want to state plainly and clearly that not everyone mentioned as misapplying Matthew 15 in the manner described above or who has persuaded brethren to put up a sign saying “Christians Meet Here” is guilty of trying to reshape the church. That having been said, we would be naive not to admit that some have an agenda of reshaping the church. They oppose as “Church of Christ traditions” such things as teaching that there is one church, opposition to instrumental music in worship, teaching that one must be baptized for remission of sins (versus to obey God), forbidding women to preach (or serve as elders and deacons, make announcements, attend business meetings, etc.), and opposing such things as choirs and other special singing groups, the religious celebration of Easter and Christmas, applause to show approval of something that happened in the public services, and testifying. These men are interested in creating a more palatable church – one which will not “turn off’ the “baby boomers” who may visit the services.

Enough of this false teaching is circulating that when you hear brethren opposing “church of Christ traditions,” that should be a red flag to cause alarm. This may be the first signal that a person is moving away from sound doctrine. To help clarify whether a speaker’s comments on this matter are a danger sign, ask him to specify examples of such “traditions,” what he proposes as alternatives, and exactly how his alternatives are more expedient. His answers should help you determine whether he is giving the valid caution against abuses that any gospel preacher might give or whether he is imagining and exaggerating abuses in an effort to peddle some hidden agenda that compromises the gospel.

Conclusion

To use Matthew 15:1-20 to condemn the use of authorized liberties is an abuse of that Scripture. While we are not opposed to teaching men to distinguish between divine mandates and authorized liberties, and every new generation will have to be re-taught foundation truths, there is no wisdom in creating turmoil and confusion to produce change for the sake of change.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 24, p. 2
December 16, 1993

By Tim Mize

We eat the Lord’s supper as Jesus taught us to, “in remembrance” of him. In this frail and broken bread, we remember his frail, fleshly body as it hung on the cross. In this poured out drink, we think of his own life’s blood poured out for our sins.

In eating and drinking, then, we do more than eat and drink. We preach the gospel to one another. The Bible says that “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:26, ASV). As we eat, we proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3).

Sometimes, people complain that we do not preach the cross. I have never understood that complaint. True, a sermon may go by without mentioning it explicitly. But never a Lord’s day passes unless we preach the cross in eating this supper.

Why proclaim it so constantly? Hasn’t everyone heard already that Jesus died on a cross? Even if they had, it would still need proclaiming again and again. For one thing, the many distractions of life cause even us who know to need reminding. For another thing, it is good for us to meditate often, so that our understanding might deepen as to what this means, that “Christ died for our sins.”

We can see, then, the wisdom that has taught us to eat it on every first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Some would say that this is too often, that it cheapens the supper to eat it each Sunday. But it no more cheapens the supper by eating it every week, than it cheapens the gospel by preaching it every week. So we are glad to eat the supper every Lord’s day just as the apostles have taught us.

The only real danger in such regular eating is that the supper might become a mere habit or a cold ritual to us. May it never do so. What does this supper proclaim, after all? It proclaims how our Lord and Savior, “the Word made flesh,” was tortured and killed by sinners. It pro-claims how Christ was “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). The supper should never become an old, comfortable ritual, because the word that it preaches is always fresh and new, and never comfortable.

This is the supper that lies before us today. In our eating and drinking we “proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” Let us eat it now, and, as we do, let us hear and believe the word that it preaches.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 24, p. 14
December 16, 1993

By Harry Osborne

A new congregation recently started in the Seattle, Washington area. The Puget Sound Eastside church of Christ is now meeting at the home of James and Frances Fleming (13244 Lake Kathleen Road S.E., Renton, Washington 98059-7211; phone 206-271-0778). This is the way many New Testament churches began (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 2). Plans are being made for a meeting place to rent. The four families that comprise the church at this time have a strong determination to teach and practice the whole counsel of God. These brethren would appreciate anyone contacting them who has friends or family in the Seattle area who would like to study the Bible.

The new work became necessary as a result of error regarding divorce and remarriage which has been widely taught and practiced in that area (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Two of the families came out of the Renton congregation where brother Darrell Beane, in a nine lesson series, justified the right of a spouse put away for fornication to marry another mate. (Brother Beane’s material was also presented to other congregations in the area including the Kirkland church where Lowell Williams preaches.) The elders at Renton made it clear that they would not tolerate those opposing their stand through public or private teaching. In addition to the teaching, the congregation continued to have fellowship with a man who wrecked his home by committing adultery against his first wife and later married the second woman without any disciplinary action being taken. Compare this with the words of Paul:

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

The first wife who is a fine Christian and her children left behind through this man’s infidelity were at the meeting almost every night. The little boy even asked me why God had not helped them. If God’s truth had been taught, he might never have had to ask that question. It was heart-breaking to see this shattered family as a nightly reminder of the pain caused by adultery and those who would justify it.

Another family had to leave the Kent congregation as the result of that church’s decision to receive a woman who had been put away for her fornication in her subsequent marriage to another mate. Jesus did not approve of such marriages (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Gen. 2:24). However, one of the elders of the church even performed the ceremony for the unlawful marriage.

I also have a tape in which brother Jim Puterbaugh teaches error on divorce and remarriage in a class to some brethren in the Issaquah congregation by redefining “adultery” to refer to the legal action of divorcing and remarrying rather than a sexual sin of unlawful sexual intercourse. Examples of error taught and practiced on divorce and remarriage as well as its application to fellowship are not unusual in the Seattle area.

Since so much error has been taught regarding such subjects, I was asked by those beginning the new congregation to preach a meeting (November 1-7, 1993) with the following subjects:

Monday: The Social Gospel

Tuesday: How Shall We Now Live?

Wednesday: Who Is Amenable To The Gospel? Thursday: Jesus On Divorce & Remarriage Friday: 1 Corinthians ‘7: What It Teaches Saturday A.M.: Virtuous Courage

Saturday P.M.: Fellowship, Error & Romans 14 Sunday Bible Class: Pilgrim Families

Sunday A.M. Worship: Treasures: Earthly vs. Heavenly Sunday P.M: Preaching The Crucified Christ

Advertisements of the meeting included an announcement of a question and answer period to follow each lesson. Those announcements were sent to each congregation in the state of Washington as well as many others in the Northwest. Several brethren in Washington from Yakima, Sunnyside, Wennachee and Bellingham drove several hours to these studies.

The lessons on divorce and remarriage covered a great deal of material. We examined whether Jesus was merely restating the Mosaic law in his Sermon on the Mount as many in that area claim, or was announcing the principles of the gospel as the Scripture plainly declares. We examined whether Jesus’ teaching on divorce being forbidden “except for fornication” in Matthew 19 constituted the same grounds given by Moses’ law of “because he hath found some unseemly thing in her” in Deuteronomy 24:1 as brother Darrell Beane affirmed, or was a different law as can be plainly demonstrated from a careful examination of all passages involved. We noted the misuse of 1 Corinthians 7 when brethren abuse the text to justify various scenarios of divorce with a subsequent right of remarriage, while the passage actually never gives a right of remarriage to any divorced party in the context. In fact, the text as a whole is urging people to stay in an unmarried state. At one point, those who had divorced and were at the time “unmarried” are clearly forbidden from marrying another (1 Cor. 7:10-11). It was apparent through the week that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 gave these brethren great trouble.

In coming months, we will examine some of these issues at greater length in other articles. The Lord willing, the next article will examine Deuteronomy 24 and its connection with Matthew 19 in greater detail. Other articles will concentrate on current efforts to redefine “adultery,” Jesus’ work in announcing the gospel during his earthly ministry, and several articles dealing with 1 Corinthians 7. All of these will cite and examine current error being taught regarding divorce and remarriage.

“Yellow Tag Of Quarantine” Tactics

The churches in the greater Seattle area refused to announce or support the meeting. Brother Jack Gibbert wrote one of the families in the new work stating that such teaching had been “excluded” from the area and characterized it as the equivalent of introducing “the serpent into the garden” or bringing in “the piano at Midway, Ky.” He further charged that such teaching was the product of “the Eastern sectarian ‘Church of Christ,'” “the typical politics of east coast `Church of Christism,”‘ and an “ungodly crowd.” The letter filled with such attacks was read from the pulpit of the Renton church by one of the elders and posted upon the bulletin board.

During the whole week, only one preacher in the Seattle area, Ben Puterbaugh, came to discuss the issues in the forum provided. I invited brother Darrell Beane to study with me privately and to take part in the open session following the lessons. He declined both opportunities. I have sent the following signed propositions to brother Beane without response to this point:

The Scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate guilty of fornication and remarry (which I affirm and brother Beane will deny) and The Scriptures teach that a person who is divorced by his mate for committing fornication is free to marry another (which brother Beane will affirm and I will deny).

Brother Beane has taught his views publicly when no opportunity was given for open investigation to see “whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). We will see whether he will “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). Jesus engaged in such openly (Matt. 21 & 22). We must do the same if we are to keep the charge of God regarding correction of error in the proper spirit (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

The present climate in the Seattle area is not to provide an opportunity for open study, but to use the tactic of the Gospel Advocate and other liberal brethren during the 1950’s to attach a “yellow tag of quarantine” on those who differ with the majority view. Such tactics kept many in liberal churches from hearing the issues of that time discussed so that unity could be achieved as brethren came to see and apply the truth. Attempts to exclude the truth from being heard were also used in Bible times (3 John 9-10).

During the meeting, I had lunch with brother Bill McCuistion on Sunday. He suggested that I write an article noting the fact that brethren in the area had been unwilling to openly discuss the issues and, instead, had tried to obstruct efforts to engage in open study. Brother McCuistion says that such tactics have not been used in dealing with other issues in that area and noted the fact that the lack of openness to discussion of this issue should be seen as a shame by brethren in the Northwest. We will see if they are ashamed of the exclusionary tactics or not. When brother McCuistion heard about the actions of the Kent congregation in receiving one in an unlawful marriage, he was concerned since he uses the building at Kent to conduct services with Russian speaking people in the area. The fact that churches in the Seattle area have “excluded” those who teach the truth regarding divorce and remarriage as well as its application to fellowship suggests that no one so teaching and practicing will be tolerated.

Kirkland, Lowell Williams and Don Givens

Though brother Gibbert’s letter was shocking in both tone and content, an action taken by brother Lowell Williams was even more shocking since it contained a public endorsement of one not only teaching error regarding divorce and remarriage, but also involved in institutional-ism. Brother Williams informed the Kirkland congregation of the “sad” news that a new church had begun in the area and further stated that the man holding a meeting for them was guilty of causing trouble for the faithful preacher in Hawaii, Don Givens. Given the fact that brother Givens has gone so far into apostasy, it was hard to believe that brother Williams would so endorse one preaching at a liberal church.

At the invitation of several brethren in the Waipahu congregation in 1990, I traveled with Ben Shropshire, Jr., to Hawaii for studies with the brethren on the error introduced by brother Givens regarding divorce and remarriage. At that time, brother Givens had justified the acceptance of a young woman who was in an unlawful marriage, contrary to the teaching of Scripture (1 Cor. 5; Matt. 14:4). The woman was a former member of the congregation along with her first husband whom she left in order to live with another man. After some period, she married the second man and then wanted to be received again as a member of the Waipahu congregation while remaining in the second marriage.

Attempts to study the issues in the building of the Waipahu church were opposed at that time by brother Givens and another brother, but a good crowd assembled in the home of one family and the studies continued. These open studies resulted in most of the brethren being convinced that brother Givens’ teaching was in error. It later became apparent to the brethren that other problems were involved (see “A Plea For Care In Using The Lord’s Money,” Guardian of Truth, 7 May 92, pp. 272-273). Rather than face the questions of the men, brother Givens left the Waipahu congregation and began to worship with the Honolulu Church of Christ on Keeaumoku Street, which is an institutional group.

Since that time, brother Givens has solicited other liberal churches as well as faithful congregations for sup-port to preach at the institutional church on Maui where he now preaches. In his solicitation of liberal churches, brother Givens lists liberal brethren as his references. Among those references, I quote the following from the reference list of brother Givens’ appeal: “Howard Horton (Gospel Preacher; formerly Head of Bible Department, David Lipscomb University; and formerly preacher and elder at Honolulu Church of Christ)” and “Al Maxey (Minister-Honolulu Church of Christ and well acquainted with my work).” It is interesting to note that Al Maxey has not only endorsed the error of institutionalism, but is among the ultra-liberal element calling for a “New Hermeneutic” and decrying the evils of “Pattemism.” Imagine the apostle Paul writing for support and giving Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander as his references (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 1 Tim. 1:18-20).

Is Lowell Williams prepared to accept such actions as the work of a faithful, gospel preacher? Has he taken the “unity-in-diversity” approach to fellowship so far that he is willing to endorse one involved in institutionalism? How far will he go? I have written to brother Williams about the matter and we trust his reply will answer these questions. One of two things will be apparent. If he is not ready to take the “unity-in-diversity” approach to fellowship that far, brother Williams will publicly retract his endorsement of brother Givens before the Kirkland church where it was made. If he is ready to take the “unity-in-diversity” approach to fellowship that far, brother Williams will either say so or remain silent to the inquiry. It would be interesting to see if brother Williams would be as willing to engage in a public discussion of the doctrinal teaching on fellow-ship as he is to endorse one involved in error.

Honest Hearts and Open Study

Despite the fact that many in the area discouraged open study of the issues, a good number of brethren from the area came to engage in such. Before the meeting began, it was hoped that we could have 25 present for the meetings. Toward the end of the week, we had about twice that number. Some came who had not made up their minds upon these matters. Some came to oppose the teaching done. Others stated agreement with the things taught and their desire that other congregations in the area would allow opportunities for such open studies.

It was especially encouraging for me to see brethren who wanted to take the time necessary to fully examine and discuss the subjects covered. Thursday evening’s sermon, “Jesus On Divorce & Remarriage,” was almost two hours in length due to the amount of material which had to be examined. After the lesson, the question and answer period lasted almost another two hours. The next two nights’ lessons on “1 Corinthians 7: What It Teaches” and “Fellowship, Error & Romans 14” along with the discussion sessions also lasted well over three hours each. It speaks well of the brethren that they wanted to engage in such studies for whatever time was necessary to fully examine the truth on the subjects.

In all of the discussion periods, only one brother lost control of his temper and had to be calmed. When he was informed that we had differed in a proper spirit throughout the week with others holding his views, he acknowledged his wrong to those present and the discussion continued with a good spirit prevailing from that point unto the end. Lest anyone think that such discussions cannot be carried on without causing strife and division, we are glad to point out that discussions of differences can and do take place with proper attitudes prevailing. Such open studies pro-mote unity, not division. They foster greater love for others, not strife (Acts 15).

As mentioned previously, brother Ben Puterbaugh was present almost every evening during these studies. Ben and I disagreed with each other regarding divorce and remarriage as well as the bounds of fellowship. However, both of us parted the last night with words of appreciation for each other. I told brother Puterbaugh that I hoped we could keep in touch and continue to discuss the issues. Our discussion of differences drove no wedge between us, but provided an opportunity to begin building a bridge. During the week, I found out that Ben lost a son-in-law to cancer at about the same time I lost my brother, Bob LaCoste. As we shed a few tears together and hugged each other in our farewells, my desire for coming to unity with my brother upon the basis of truth grew more urgent in a personal sense. Brethren, if we will open our Bibles together in study, our hearts will be brought together in the process. I am more confident than ever that we can come to the unity of the Spirit on these issues if we will openly study and discuss them with proper attitudes (Eph. 4:1-

A Word Of Commendation

This new congregation was started as the result of several brethren who should be commended. Over a year ago, sister Elma Monts contacted me, asking if I knew of a faithful church in the Seattle area. When I informed her that the congregations of which I knew would not stand for the truth regarding divorce and remarriage, she related her experience to me. She had gone throughout the area to various congregations and had heard the loose views advanced. She had been told that she could not teach her convictions to others or she would be viewed as a trouble-maker. Though she understood that it would be wrong for a woman to oppose the error through public teaching, she sought opportunities to study with others privately (1 Tim. 2:12; Acts 18:26). In maintaining her proper place as a Christian woman, she not only studied with preachers and elders who were publicly defending error, but also with other brethren more willing to examine the Scriptures involved without prejudice.

In the process, she came to study with Jim and Frances Fleming who were members of the Renton congregation at that time. They were newly converted Christians who were eager to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18). As they did so, they became equally convinced of our Lord’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage as well as its application in fellowship. Thus, when all opportunities for open study of the issues were cut off at Renton, they started a new congregation in the Fleming’s home (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 2). At the time, they did not know if anyone else would ever join with them. Though they asked preachers in the area who are supposed to believe the truth to help them, they were consistently rebuffed. Yet, their faith was such that they would not bow their knee to Baal and compromise with error (Gal. 2:5).

Since that time, John Braun moved to the area from Evansville, Indiana, and is working with the group. Brother Braun has faced a far different situation in that area than he has seen in Indiana, but is taking a courageous stand for the truth. John has become a great asset to the new congregation and did an excellent job of leading the singing during the meeting. Chris and Lisa Fisher identified themselves with the new work the week following the meeting. They had opposed the acceptance of an unlawfully married woman into the Kent congregation with whom they were laboring at that time. When the elders at Kent advocated error to justify their practice and refused to change, the Fisher’s had no choice except to leave. It appears that at least one other family will do the same very soon.

These brethren are to be commended for their firm stand which has been taken in love and after being longsuffering in an attempt to reach those in error. May the Lord increase their tribe! I urge you to remember these brethren in your prayers each day and to write them a note of encouragement (Puget Sound Eastside church of Christ, P.O. Box 544, Issaquah, WA 98027-0544). It is a difficult thing to stand for the truth when enduring active persecution from those calling themselves brethren, yet opposing the truth of God’s word.

A Sad But Hopeful Fact

There are a number of brethren in the various churches throughout the Seattle area who understand the truth regarding divorce and remarriage, but who remain in churches where error is not only preached, but also practiced. It was sad to hear brethren from various congregation tell me of those in unlawful marriages who were accepted into the fellowship of the congregations where they la-bored. The Bible clearly states that we cannot “receive” those who have gone on beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9) or the teacher who does not bring the true doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 10). If we do “receive” such, we partake of their “evil works” (2 Jn. 11). When one is living in an adulterous marriage, he has obviously gone beyond the doctrine of Christ. When one does not teach the truth of the doctrine of Christ to correct that sinful practice, he “bringeth not this teaching” of Christ’s doctrine. How can one lawfully remain in an open-ended, on-going fellowship with such people after longsuffering has exhausted every effort to correct the error?

As bad as false doctrine regarding divorce and remarriage is in its effect of justifying those in the practice of adultery, the problem does not end there. When one sinful practice is justified, the justification of other sinful practices will follow (2 Tim. 3:13). This sad reality is a present fact which was evidenced repeatedly during my visits with brethren from various congregations in the Seattle area. Brethren related with sorrow that immodest dress had become common in several churches to the point that some were wearing shorts to services, contrary to Paul’s specific instruction in the importance of women wearing modest clothing (1 Tim. 2:9-10). In one congregation where the preacher’s daughters engaged in this practice, the preacher justified it with the claim that “Jesus stripped naked to wash his disciples feet,” so his daughters could surely wear shorts. I was asked whether brethren should withdraw from a Christian who was living with someone outside of marriage and then informed that some elders in the area refused to rebuke those in such situations. While we are not intending to make a blanket condemnation of every church and preacher in Washington, the number and nature of errors being tolerated were utterly shocking!

All of us recognize the need for longsuffering as we try to bring others to the way of truth (I Thess. 5:14). All of us recognize the need for gentleness in correcting brethren in sin and error (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). I know of no one who has urged brethren to cease immediately working with those teaching some error or practicing some sin, and to leave in a storm of fury. However, these principles do not suggest that one must remain in an on-going, continuous fellowship with those who continue to teach error and practice sin after repeatedly rejecting the truth and cutting off opportunities for open study of doctrinal differences. When the truth is so rejected, one has no choice except to apply the solution given in Scripture (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; 2 Jn. 9-11).

In the Seattle area, brethren who believe the truth of our Lord’s teaching about divorce and remarriage, yet find themselves in churches whose teaching and practice differ from that truth, need to make some serious decisions about when longsuffering ends and compromise with error be-gins. It is clear that open study is not allowed in these churches, but error is being actively promoted. My prayer is that they will have the courage to stand with others who oppose error and uphold truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 24, p. 10-13
December 16, 1993