Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart on the next page introduces our theme. Our purpose in this article is expressed in these words, “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion” (2 Cor. 11:12). Shadowy shoals of shame will shipwreck faith; unrevealed reefs will wreck redemption’s ark of safety. It is imperative, therefore, that we understand the nature, method and character of the evil “which doth so easily beset us.” We must “cut off ” opportunities to them who seek “occasion” against the truth.

Lincoln asked his cabinet, “If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?” “Five,” they replied. “No,” said the president, “calling a sheep’s tail a leg does not make it a leg. A sheep has four legs.”

Appear Devout

Calling a wolf a sheep does not make him a sheep. “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Outer clothing does not change the inner being. From among the eldership, from within the church, “shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 28:29,30). “But there were false prophets also among the people (God’s people in the Old Testament), even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Paul knew the problem by personal experience. “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4). Secret, sinister subterfuge was employed. These men were not obvious in appearance; their demeanor did not declare them to be what they really were. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (Ask yourself how an apostle of Christ would appear, how he would present himself.) And no marvel (this should not be amazing to you); for Satan himself is trans-formed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Our Lord was confronted by the same deceit. “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor” (Lk. 20:20). “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (Jn. 8:6).

We all know the things described above are true. We, too, may have had experience with such wolves in sheep’s clothing. We learned it, though, too late. After the damage was done, we saw their true nature. Success against a wolf can be attained only when we expose him before he deals out death and destruction. This is one of the goals of this series of articles. Examine the teeth of those who bleat out complaints and criticism against the church of the Lord.

Merely “Raising Concerns”

The wolf in sheep’s clothing will profess his love for the truth. He will resent your questioning of his soundness. He will tell you that he is “merely raising some concerns that have troubled me for a long time.” He will assure you that his intentions are pure, that he only has “the best interest of the church at heart.” He will speak of our “misguided emphasis,” saying that our preaching is “out of focus,” and that he seeks to find ways that may “fine tune” our “approach.” He will speak of “our archaic, out-dated methods.” He will praise, subtly, “some of the things” he has seen that “have worked” in “other churches” (by “other churches,” he means liberals and the denominations).

The critic, the sheep, the wolf (they are all one and the same), will cite some examples of some things that have “troubled” him. He will bring up an extreme situation, a radical case. He will wrest it out of context if he has to, in order to make a favorable impression. You are expected to nod and support him, and, of course, you will, for you are certainly not in favor of “driving people away.”

What he says will be portrayed as being “typical of us.” For example: (1) “You know, we have carried our opposition to gymnasiums and kitchens a little too far. Why, I heard of a church that had a member who was a diabetic. The diabetic had to eat at certain times. Since the church had a business meeting immediately following morning services, the brother with diabetes brought a sack lunch which he planned to eat so he could attend the business meeting. Did you know that those brethren wouldn’t even let the poor man eat his lunch because that would be a sin! That’s a little `far out,’ don’t you think?” Well, of course, you think it is “far out.”

Here, though, is what the wolf will never tell you. He will say that he opposes gymnasiums “and such, just like you do,” but what he will not tell you is that he seeks to restrict preaching against such things. He does not want liberalism to be specifically denounced. In a few years, unknown to the wolf himself, he will “see nothing wrong with such things,” but the evolution of his digression has not yet reached that point. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Presently, though, he is sending out signals, feelers, antennae which he hopes will attract you to his course.

(2) The pseudo-sheep does not want to hear preaching against immodest dress. He is not immoral himself, and his reputation for clean living may be beyond reproach, but his appetites and social position are leading him toward beer, beaches and bikinis. He is “uncomfortable,” he will tell you, “with our strident, judgmental condemnation” of wearing shorts and swim suits. Then he tells you “of this case I heard about. Did you know,” he says, “that there is a preacher who said that if Christians have a private swimming pool on their property that they are guilty of sin?” Again, he has taken an extreme case in order to win your sympathy. You are supposed to think, “You know, maybe our preacher is a little too hard in preaching against such things. Why, it is crazy to think that a Christian cannot own his own swimming pool.” You are hooked. You have enlisted. You “bought in.” You do not realize that it is a “package deal,” that there is more you will have to swallow, but you will be brought along and reeled in slowly. By the time you sense that there is something wrong, you will have swallowed so much and your mouth will be so full that you cannot spit it out. That is the way it works, folks (Eph. 4:14).

“Our Traditions”

Critics will speak of “our traditions.” The implication is this. Baptists have their traditions. Methodists and Catholics have theirs, and “the Church of Christ” has theirs. There is a silent linking of the Lord’s church to denominationalism. And just what are some “of our traditions”? Well, there is the “oversimplified five step mentality” concerning “the plan of salvation.” The old “five finger exercise” (hold up your hand, extend your fingers and smirk): “hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized.” “We have made that,” you will be told, “into a magic formula that is supposed to `guarantee’ salvation. We should really be telling people about `the doing and dying of Jesus’ so they won’t think that we believe that one can earn his salvation by following some precise formula that can be `ticked off’ on our fingers.” (We will have more to say about this in future articles in this series. Meanwhile, see the author’s series, “The Preaching of the Cross” [May & July, 1992], Guardian of Truth).

When you hear someone speak derogatorily of “the plan of salvation” and poke fun at the “famous five finger formula,” you may want to lift the fleece and check for dark hair beneath it. In time, given enough time, if these men pursue their present course, they will abandon their present belief that baptism is essential for salvation. Mark it down. The heavenly highway of holiness is strewn with the bleached bones of those who began by “merely voicing some concerns about some of `our’ trite traditions in the Church of Christ.”

The critic will revile “our traditional invitation song.” He will scoff at “our view that `three songs and a prayer’ somehow constitute worship.” He will refer to singing, prayer, teaching, giving and the Lord’s supper as our “traditional ritual of worship.” He will snidely, sarcastically denigrate it as he does so. He will refer to elders as “chairmen of the bored” and to a gospel preacher as an “attorney general in the Church of Christ.” He will decry the subjugation of “our women” as “second-class citizens” and express the “hope that we surely can find some useful ways to use the many talents of our fine, godly sisters,” and of how “our traditions” have unfairly excluded them from participation in business meetings. Scriptures are not cited, discussed and applied. You are supposed to hear of “these abuses in the Church of Christ “and reflect on ways to “overcome” them.

Meanwhile, “what do you think of our preacher? Do you think he has a proper grasp and insight into these problem areas? Now, don’t get me wrong; I like him, and he can really preach the Bible, but he’s from `the old school’ of `do this’ and `do that’ or else you will go to hell with everyone else. What about our elders? Do you think they know what is going on? Are they aware of the real needs of this church. We can talk some more later.”

Later, you will be invited to his den, to his lair. It will look and smell like a sheepfold. There you will meet others who “feel as we do” about some of the “concerns we talked about the other day.” It will be informal. There will be snacks, maybe even a meal. You will be given some “potentially explosive” reading material that you are to “keep to yourself for the time being.” It contains some things that others, who are less informed, would not under-stand. Perhaps some of it is a little radical, but there are some things that relate to our present concerns about “the direction this church is going.”

Make a note of this. Complainers in the church constantly and contemptuously will criticize “our traditions,” but they will rarely, if ever, speak against the “doctrines and traditions of men” perpetuated by denominationalism and liberalism (in fact, to refer to specific denominations and to “liberalism” is to “slur” people and “drive them away”). You will hear them speak against “our traditions,” but you will not hear them outline, define, discuss, reprove and rebuke “Easter” and “Christmas.” In fact, they openly resent sermons “against Christmas that offend our neighbors.” It is proper to speak against “our traditions” (no matter how steeped in Scripture they may be), but you dare not preach a sermon in the spring of the year that teaches the truth about “the Lenten season” and “Easter.” It is alright to criticize “our three songs and a prayer,” but you do not dare to preach the truth about the traditions of men that render worship void and vain (Matt. 15:8,9)!

Listen carefully, brethren, to the bleating that you are hearing and reading. Do you recognize any of the sounds and signals cited above? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to (you) for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

1. Appear Devout – 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 26

2. Profess Love of Truth – Titus 1:16

3. Merely “Raising Concerns” – 2 Pet. 2:1

4. Want Only to Correct “Misguided

Emphasis”  Preaching is “Out of Focus”

Want to “Fine Tune” our Approach

5. Speak of “Our” Out-dated Methods

6. Praise for Error’s Approach, Appeal

7. Stresses a “Far Out,” Legitimate Gripe as

Being “Typical” (Ex. Sinful to have Swim Pool)

8. Critical of “Our Traditions,” But Not of

Denominational Error (Ex. “5 Step Salvation,”

Invitation Song, But Nothing Against Easter, Xmas)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 6-8
January 6, 1994

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The expression “last days” is used frequently by denominational writers with some reference, most often, to a dispensational event or happening. Likewise, among the brethren, this term is debated as to its specific meaning. Some argue that it is basically used to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others point out that it refers to the final age in which Christ’s kingdom is established and continuing.

The question addressed in this article concerns the last days.

Question: Is the term “the last days” ever used in reference solely to the days prior to A.D. 70? Does the term always, or does it ever, refer also to the day in which we live? Another question in this vein which I have also is as follows: Does Hebrews 8:13 relate to A.D. 70?

Response: The expressions occur multiplied times in the Bible. Attention to the passages where it occurs and the context with the corroborating passages will bring to light its meaning. It would not be possible, within the restraints in space for this column, to deal with every passage. However, it is possible to look at the uses of the expression in order to come to a conclusive answer to the questions posed.

An examination of all the scriptures in which the expression “the last days” occurs will convince one that the expression in no instance refers solely to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The period including the days prior to A.D. 70 are included in the expression. Isaiah 2:2 states that “in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This began to be fulfilled on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ in Acts 2 with the establishment of the church, the kingdom of Christ. Of necessity, the days prior to A.D. 70.

Paul used the expressions to include the days near the close from that point are included in the expression “in the latter days.” Micah 4:2 foretells what Isaiah 2:2 does and similar comments can be made in connection with it as are made for Isaiah 2:2.

Peter referred to Joel’s prophecy as beginning to be fulfilled in the event of Pentecost in Acts 2:16-21 (Joel 2:28-32). The first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ and the immediately succeeding years are prior to A.D. 70. The expression “in the last days,” however, includes more than the days prior to A.D. 70.of the current age during which Christ is on David’s throne and his kingdom is in the world (2 Tim. 3:1). Characteristics of those who love themselves and not God are set forth indicating that these days would be “grievous times.” A similar use of the expression “in the last days” occurs in 2 Peter 3:3 with reference to the mockers who doubt the second coming of Christ.

The Hebrew writer referred to God’s manner of speaking to the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners. Then he said, “at the end of these days” he has “spoken unto us in his Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). This period is the New Testament age; the message was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by them that heard (Heb. 2:1-4), the last revelation being the book of Revelation in about A.D. 96.

The expression “in the last days” James 5:3 has reference to one’s eternal condition following the conclusion of this age with the judgment. These individuals under consideration have no treasure in heaven but will receive the wrath of the Lord in the last day.

Another expression used is “the last day” to refer to the resurrection and judgment day. Jesus spoke of this day in John 6:39-40,44,54 to refer to the day when men would be raised from the dead. He also used the expression to refer to the judgment day (Jn. 12:48).

Space constraints preclude an examination of every pas-sage where the expression “in the last days” occurs. However, the generalizations made above from a review of all these passages demonstrate what the answers to these questions should be. No, the expression does not always refer to the day in which we live. But it does refer in some instances to the day in which we live.

The Hebrews 8:13 passage will now be addressed. This comment by the writer comes after a quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. Two covenants are under view: the old or the Mosaic one and the new one under Christ. When Jeremiah spoke his prophecy, the old one was waxing aged and was nigh unto vanishing away. The comment refers to the situation in Jeremiah’s day and not in the days of the writer of Hebrews. When Jeremiah spoke of the new covenant to be made, the old one was waxing aged. Accordingly, it was nigh unto vanishing away and did with the death of Christ on the cross (Col. 2;14). No, Hebrews 8:13 does not relate to A.D. 70.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 5
January 6, 1994

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