Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Frequently, we hear from brethren who seemed bent on freeing us from the shackles of “legalism” or “phariseeism,” as they perceive it. To these people, viewing the New Testament as a rigid standard for moral and religious conduct makes one a “legalist,” the chief of sinners, a pharisee of pharisees, without love and having no mercy in the world. So, these folks are trying to restructure brethren’s thinking on how to view and apply the New Testament so as avoid “legalism.”

Frankly, if one wants to charge me with “legalism” (“strict, literal adherence to law”(1)), then I will plead guilty as charged. I unashamedly take the “legal” (“authorized or permitted by law”(2)) approach to religion. Contrary to what some think, the New Testament is a system of law with ordinances (or commandments) to obey or rules to be followed. No, I do not believe one can earn his salvation by law or any other means. Even if one were to do all things commanded, he still would not have a right to boast of having earned his salvation (Lk. 10:17). Still, the Bible does teach strict and literal adherence to God’s law.

Freedom from the law (of Moses) enjoyed in Christ is not freedom from all law, contrary to what some would have us believe. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians are not “without law toward God, but under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). While we are not justified by “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27 with context), Christians are subject to the “law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). They are expected to be doers of it. They will be judged by it (Jas. 2:12), to the point that if they offend in one point, they are guilty of all (Jas. 2:10). It was the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that freed us from “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

Since the early days of Christianity, there have been heretics, assuming for themselves a superiority in spirituality. They believe that they experience a degree of fellowship, knowledge, and love that lifts them above a system that burdens one with commandment or rules keeping. The gnostic influence upon some in the early church produced such heretics. First John was likely written to counter this heresy. It is evident, from reading I John, that these folks considered their superior (?) knowledge of God (gnostic means “knowing one”) and love for him and his children as lifting them above a system that burdened people down with commandments and rules. John had to remind them of what is required of true fellowship, knowledge, and love. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:6-9). “Now by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him” (2:3-5). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (5:2,3).

A more recent device for relieving the burden of strict commandment keeping is the “love and mercy” rule. While professing respect for divine law, some would set it aside by their method of applying law to life. We are told that since God’s law is really based on “love and mercy” (who among us would deny this) that we can know that our application of law is wrong if it does not show proper love for God and mercy toward our fellow man despite what the law may say. Sounds good, so far, doesn’t it? Who can be against love and mercy? So, as we are told, the Pharisees really had a great respect for the law and wanted to do what the law said, “Do no work.” The Pharisees, being the conservatives that they were, really wanted to do God’s will. Why, then, were they wrong in condemning those who “worked” on the Sabbath in the New Testament? Of course! It was because they did not apply the “love and mercy” rule. Unlike the man killed in the Old Testament for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, those condemned by the Pharisees were acting out of love for God and mercy toward their fellow man rather than rebellion. You see, according to the “love and mercy” folks, they could work if they did it out of a heart of love and mercy, even though the law said , “do no work.”

By applying this rule, we can solve (?) other pressing problems. What if a couple has been married several times without having divorced for fornication? The Bible seems to say that they are committing adultery (Matt. 19:9) and that Christians must quit committing adultery (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Applying the law strictly would create an undue hardship. It would mean that this couple would have to separate and then live celibate. Their children would be without both a father and mother. Would not “love and mercy” demand that we have compassion upon them? Then our application of Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that says they must dissolve the adulterous relationship must be wrong. Why? Because it would be unloving and uncompassionate to break up that “home.” After all, the law rests upon love for God and mercy toward our fellow man. Still sounds good, doesn’t it? So, the conclusion to the whole matter is that love and mercy are the overriding considerations in applying God’s commandments regardless of what the text of the commands may plainly say.

Now that we have our rule of application firmly established (?), let’s get on with applying other points.

God’s law plainly says, “You shall not murder” (Matt. 5:21). A dogmatically conservative legalist might read that and think that murder is wrong under any circumstances. However, the “love and mercy” rule puts it in a different light if one kills out of love for God and mercy toward man. After all, is that not the underlying principle upon which divine law rests? So, euthanasia or “mercy killing” must be ok. If not, why not?

God’s law plainly says, “And the man that commits adultery with another man’s wife, he that commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). The New Testament also forbids adultery. A legalist would probably think that such fooling around with the neighbor’s wife is always wrong because he takes the text for what is says. Being fallible in his application, and unwilling to invoke the “love and mercy” principle, he would likely be too harsh.

For example, a brother’s wife becomes permanently ill and must be put into a nursing home. His neighbor, about the same time loses his mind and must be institutionalized. The couples have been good friends for years. Both the good brother and his neighbor’s wife are still young with needs to be fulfilled. So, since their partners can no longer fulfill those needs, they turn to each other. Now, remember, they are only doing it out of love and compassion for the other. Do you think that would work?

God’s law says “You shall not steal” (Rom. 13:9; cf. Eph. 4:25). Hurricane Hugo recently did much damage in South Carolina. Suppose a brother, envisioning himself as a modern “Robin Hood,” had looted the damaged stores and homes of the rich and given it to the poor and needy. Remember, he knows what the Bible says about stealing, but he has also heard about the “love and mercy” rule of application. Should he be held accountable for his stealing?

Brethren, seriously now, we should take a long look at the consequences of adopting a rule of application that allows us to set aside plain Bible statements in the name of love and mercy. The results are staggering. It is just situation ethics in a different garb.

Oh, yes, what about those who did certain things on the Sabbath day and were defended by Jesus, but criticized by the Pharisees? “Do no work” did not forbid all activity on the Sabbath. Even the Pharisee recognized this fact (Matt. 12:11-13). The things Jesus and his disciples did were not the “work” prohibited on the Sabbath or they would have sinned. The “work” was what we call working for a living or occupational work. It is much like the word was used by Paul. He accused some of “working not at all,” yet they were busy-bodies (2 Thess. 3:11). They were not inactive, yet they were “working not at all.” He defended the right of preachers to “forbear working” (1 Cor. 9:6) even while they were very busy preaching the gospel. None of those defended by Jesus violated either the “spirit” or the “letter” of the law. Not once did Jesus, say, “I know they may have worked on the Sabbath, but. . . ” They were guiltless because they did no work on the Sabbath, despite what the Pharisees said.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New Reference Library and Encyclopedia.

2. . Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 291-292
May 21, 1992

By Wallace H. Little

The Jews allowed the Sabbath to be the end itself, rather than as Mark records Christ in saying, it was to serve man (Mk. 2:27 – “the Sabbath was made for men, not man for the Sabbath”).

J.C. Briney was the major figure saving the Missionary Society from extinction. At the 1906 convention, he wanted to speak in support of the missionary society, but opposing any other organizations like it, or extensions from it. The “Young Turks” who controlled the program, and who were promoting a “going onward,” refused him the platform. His protected and nourished “pet,” the missionary society, devoured him. Watching, others saw the horror as recognition of that spread across his face.

Organizations built by men have often so enthralled their builders and joiners that they will ever permit themselves to be sacrificed for the welfare of that organization, believing this is right. Many early Russian communist leaders were “eaten up” by the monster they created when Stalin came into full control. In their last writings/speakings, they stated they believed their sacrifice (death) was right and appropriate so that the organization could live and function.

In any organization, watch for the subordination of men (and women also, obviously) to the organization itself. This includes local churches. If that happens, either the system itself is basically wrong, or that man is applying it improperly. This latter is always true in the case of God’s institutions (marriage and family; government; the church).

“. . . One generic evil of an organization of any kind is that people who have identified themselves with it are prone to make an idol of it. The true purpose of an institution is to serve as a means of promoting the welfare of human beings. In truth, it is not sacrosanct but is ‘expendable.’ (*) Yet in the hearts of its devotees, it is apt to become and end in itself, to which the welfare of human beings is subordinated and even sacrificed if this is necessary for the welfare of the institution. The responsible administrators of any institution are particularly prone to fall into the moral error of feeling it to be their paramount duty to preserve the existence of this institution of which they are trustees (and the functions they perceive as right and proper for it – whl) . . . ” (Historian Arnold Toynbee, from “An Historian’s Approach to Religion,” Essentials and Non-Essentials in Religion, p. 268).

(*Toynbee was writing from the standpoint of man-made religious organizations, not God’s church. It is doubtful he even knew that New Testament Christianity existed. So he saw the evils in man-made religious organization as if they applied universally, as with any secular organization.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, p. 277
May 7, 1992

By Randy Blackaby

An article in the October 31 edition of the Kokomo Tribune about the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) stunningly revealed the ends of apostasy in the Lord’s church.

Entitled “Illinois pastor chosen acting Disciples leader,” the article told of an Illinois “pastor” who had agreed to accept the title of “acting president and general minister of the Indianapolis-based” church.

It then told that the Rev. C. Williams Nichols was taking the job on an interim basis so that “healing deep wounds from a bitter controversy over homosexuality” could take place.

An account is given of how the Rev. Michael Kinnamon of Kentucky was nominated to be president but then rejected because of his view that homosexuals can be ordained as ministers. Kinnamon is dean of the Lexington Theological Seminary and a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Affirming Disciples, the article stated.

Kinnamon fell 87 votes short of the two thirds majority of 5,000 delegates needed to be approved as president, so Nichols will serve two years as president until another nominee is presented to the 1993 General Assembly in St. Louis, the paper said.

This news account is nothing if not shocking.

Prior to 1901 there was no official distinction between what is known as the Christian Church and the church of Christ. Before 1850 there was no unofficial division. We were brethren. We were in full fellowship.

What happened?

Since about 1850, the group known as Disciples not only has adopted denominationalism’s wrongful concept of preachers as “pastors” and adopted titles such as “Reverend” and “president” but has accepted centralized organization in lieu of the autonomous local churches taught in the Bible.

Like Catholicism’s departure from the New Testament pattern of church government, our former brethren have elevated a single man to lead the church. A “base” for the Disciples has been established in Indianapolis and money is funneled to the central headquarters for nationwide and worldwide church work.

Now, the Disciples, who still claim to be a church “with no creed but Christ and no book but the Bible” are wrestling unsuccessfully with the issue of homosexuality. They seem unable to understand the clear teaching of Scriptures such as Romans 1:24-28 on the issue of homosexuality.

The man nominated to lead them is a member of a gay rights group within the denomination.

And, rather than adhering to Bible teaching, these former brethren opt to “vote” on issues like their denominational counterparts.

What happened?

Many are fond of pointing to instrumental music and the missionary society as the “reasons” for the division that separated the Disciples from the church of Christ. But those are only symptoms. The real answer to what happened lies in a departure from strict adherence to the teaching and patterns of the New Testament.

Churches cooperating through institutions other than the church (a missionary society) seemed a minor departure from New Testament patterns to many in those days. But look where it has led today.

As we look with sadness upon the tragedy befalling our former brethren, we must be warned ourselves.

Brethren today are departing from New Testament patterns. God’s pattern of congregational autonomy is being twisted by “sponsoring church” arrangements where the elders of one church oversee the work and treasuries of several congregations. Is there any fundamental difference between this and the missionary society concept?

The Disciples have an earthly president and an earthly headquarters and call their preachers and leaders by titles which should be reserved for God. Is this fundamentally any different than the pope of Catholicism and the Vatican in Rome?

Like the children of Israel in the years before God’s judgment upon them, God’s people today are being lured into adopting the worship, organization and practices of the unbelievers about us.

Rather than being haughty about the tragedy striking the Disciples denomination, we should examine our own practices and bases of authority so that we don’t walk the same path a decade or two from now.

Some “churches of Christ” are already well along the path the Disciples have walked. Perhaps the realization that opening the door to apostasy can lead to Sodomites teaching our children will turn some brethren back to the New Testament pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 289, 310
May 21, 1992

By Charley Alexander, James Moore and J.D. Harris

We are sharing the following information for the sole purpose of urging brethren everywhere to be as careful and cautious as possible in supporting gospel preachers from the church treasury. The information we are sharing makes us painfully aware of how important it is to know what is being taught with the Lord’s money.

On July 19, 1985 we answered Don Givens’ plea for support by sending him a letter with $1,000 to help him move to Hawaii to labor in the gospel of Christ with the Leeward church. Before agreeing to help Don, we wrote him two letters asking him about his stand on divorce and remarriage. His return letters gave scriptural answers to our questions. He answered with openness and courage that he was willing for anyone to know his stand at any time. He declared, “This is where I stand, and this is what I preach – and I am not ashamed to let anybody know” (Don’s May 13, 1985 letter to West Columbia in answering our questions).

We continued to follow his work with great interest. During 1991 we were disturbed to learn from one of his taped sermons in Hawaii that he was not preaching what he told us he would be preaching on divorce and remarriage. After assuring us of his stand in 1985 and receiving our support on that basis, he asked for additional help in November of 1987. Within a few days of that request, he preached at Leeward directly opposite to what he assured us he was preaching. When we later learned about this, we wrote Don a letter dated June 26, 1991, asking for clarification.

We said in part,

Don, we read every report you sent with great care, followed your work with sincere interest, and fervently prayed for you and the church there. In addition to regular reports, at times you sent us more detailed information and requests because you recognized our love and concern. As you put it in your letter of November 5, 1987, you felt we had a special interest “since you helped me move to Hawaii to preach.”

To remind Don of our earlier questions and his answers, we sent him a photocopy of the following section of his letter to us dated May 13, 1985:

You asked: (1) Do you believe and teach that if a man divorces his wife without the cause of fornication, and while she lives he marries another, he and the new mate are living in adultery? My answer: Absolutely yes. It is an adulterous union. He had no right to marry her, if fornication was not present. Only “for fornication” would give the innocent party the right to re-marry.

(2) Also, would the nature of repentance require that he end the second marriage, or would the nature of forgiveness permit him to continue in the second marriage? My answer: It is adultery. To be genuinely repented of, he must cease his adultery. He has no right to her, in this case. I would tell him the same thing John the Baptizer told Herod: “You have no right to her.”

We also sent him a photocopy of the following section of his letter to us dated June 13, 1985:

As to your question: quote, “If the put -away- fornicator remarries, are he and the new mate living in adultery? Would the nature of repentance require that this marriage be ended?” My answer: Absolutely yes, it is adultery. And yes, repentance requires that one cease the sin engaged in. The apostle Paul tells us that if we separate, we are to (1) remain unmarried, or (2) be reconciled. These are the only two options that I know the N.T. gives, and I believe that the innocent could put away the guilty, and have the right to remarry; but the guilty would be left with only the first option (remain unmarried) because he/she has already destroyed the possibility of the second option (“be reconciled”).

Don did not consider these views secret, private, or confidential, but stressed that this is what he publicly preached. “This is where I stand, and this is what I preach – and I am not ashamed to let anybody know.”

The clarity and strength of Don’s stand is underscored by his response to an inquiry as to whether he had any direct knowledge about where Sam Dawson and Lowell Williams stand. Don said he talked “firsthand” with Sam Dawson “and his point is that when a marriage is broken by fornication, etc., that there is no longer any bond – so both are free to remarry.” Don said he had “argued and disagreed” with Sam. “As to brother Lowell Williams’ position – he has been misrepresented extensively. Basically, his positions are the same as mine.” These statements by Don were dated June 13, 1985.

As we told Don, we are now aware that Lowell preached a sermon which was tape recorded on April 28, 1985, affirming that the guilty party has a scriptural right to remarry. How can Don and Lowell teach the same thing when Don’s letter clearly says that if the put-away- fornicator remarries, he and the new mate are living in adultery? “Absolutely yes, it is adultery, ” Don says. Lowell says he used to preach the same thing twenty years ago, but now says we have no right to call such a marriage adultery. We asked in our letter, “Don, how can these two opposite positions be basically the same?”

Our letter to Don dated June 26, 1991 pointed out that his sermon as preached and taped at the Leeward church on December 12, 1987 teaches directly opposite point by pot . nt to what he told us he was preaching in 1985. His November 1987 letter gave us every assurance he was still preaching what we helped him “move to Hawaii to preach.” His letter of August 30, 1988 gave us further reassurance that he was upholding in Hawaii the same gospel which we are upholding in West Columbia, Texas, as he sought additional financial help. Yet, he says on the tape of his December 1987 sermon that second marriages made after unscriptural divorces are not adulterous, and adds, “I don’t know why I couldn’t have seen it the first twenty years of my preaching. ” As the tape continues, he identifies the truth he had heard and preached “all of my life” as “error,” “false doctrine,” “human traditions,” and “doctrines of demons”!

We asked in our letter of June 26, 1991,

Don, have you changed your preaching on divorce and remarriage? If so, when and why? As we understand from brethren who recently visited Hawaii, you have also stated that you have not changed your basic position on divorce and remarriage for the past 27 years and that your position is the one taught by Jerry Bassett in his book Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (1991). Jerry’s book does not affirm what you affirmed in answer to our questions in 1985. So, again, we ask, have you changed your position or not? If so, when and why?

When others have asked about Don’s position on the issues covered in our 1985 questions, Don has said he is “glad” to report that his views are “basically the same as brother Homer Hailey.” Hailey’s error would not match Don’s answers to our questions. Don also endorses the “articles” of “Ed Harrell” in Christianity Magazine as permitting “fellowship” with brethren who teach and practice things contrary to what Jesus taught on divorce and remarriage.

Near the end of our letter of June 26, 1991 we made the following request for clarification:

Don, surely you can see that your position needs to be clarified. How can you answer our questions so clearly and scripturally, adding, “I am not ashamed to let anybody know it,” but then tell other brethren that you are “glad” to tell anyone that you hold the opposite answers to the same basic questions? If you misled us, surely you would feel an ethical responsibility to return the money we sent. If you have totally reversed your position, what passages dictated your present views? We need to learn the truth if we do not know it. We respectfully request that you answer the same three questions you covered in 1985, using Scripture and explanations as you did before.

When brethren are asked to send and support a preacher somewhere, there should be no hesitation on the church’s part in asking or on the preacher’s part in declaring what will be taught. We still do not know what happened to Don Givens because he never answered our letter. We can only hope he will repent of the error he is teaching and stand for “all the counsel of God” on divorce and remarriage (Acts 20:27).

In the meantime, we continue to hear of churches involved in supporting Don which are not aware of his error. Don applied his error to an actual case of unscriptural remarriage in the church at Leeward, which divided that church. In the aftermath of this problem, as the Leeward church was considering terminating his work with them, he resigned the work in July of 1991. Some churches have continued sending Don financial support because they have not been aware of his error or of the &vision and resignation resulting from this error. None of this information was provided in the reports which Don continued to send out (and perhaps is still sending out?) to those churches. None of this information was included in Don’s reports dated August 1991, September-October 1991, and November-December 1991.

Since each church is autonomous, we can only plead with brethren to inquire and investigate when you invest the Lord’s money in supporting preachers.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, pp. 272-273
May 7, 1992