Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

This special issue on preaching is a call for brethren to return or adhere to, as the case may be, Bible preaching. The temptation to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2) is not limited to conformity in moral degeneration; there is also a temptation to allow this age’s view of preaching to shape our own, that we be conformed to the image of modern denominationalism in our preaching.

This temptation to depart from the “old paths” and change the content of the message of the gospel is not new. It has repeated itself in many different apostasies. The apostle Paul warned of departures from gospel preaching as he wrote to Timothy:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Tim. 4:14).

In this article, I want to document the trends away from gospel preaching as they have occurred in other apostasies in the hope of identifying dangerous trends among us today.

When Moses Lard warned of the trends toward liberalism in his day, he opened his article with this pertinent observation:

The prudent man, who has the care of a family, watches well the first symptoms of disease. He does not wait till his wife is helpless, and his children prostrated. He has learned that early cures are easy cures, while the late ones often fail. On this experience he resolutely acts, and the world applauds his wisdom. Why should not the same judicious policy be acted upon in the weighty matters of religion?(1)

We hope to identify the roots of liberalism which gave birth to innovations in the past with the hope of making adjustments and corrections to avoid committing the same sinful departure from the word of God which has occurred on several occasions in the last 150 years.

The Christian Church Apostasy

The successes of early restoration history in America were thwarted by the divisions which the introduction of church supported missionary societies and instrumental music in worship caused. These led to division among the people of God, creating the Christian Churches and churches of Christ. As the apostasies developed, one of the noticeable changes was in the preaching. Lard warned, “Effeminate sentimentalism, and a diluted, licentious charity, are the carbonic gas of the kingdom of Christ. No soul of man can live in them or with them. The truth dies under their blight, while the church grows cadaverous and lean.”(2) He continued,

He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brotherhood to receive these changes. Be not deceived, brethren, the Devil is not sleeping. If you refuse to see the danger till ruin is upon you, then it will be too late. The wise seaman catches the first whiff of the distant storm, and adjusts his ship at once. Let us profit by his example.

Let us agree to commune with the sprinkled sects around us, and soon we shall come to recognize them as Christians. Let us agree to recognize them as Christians, and immersion, with its deep significance, is buried in the grave of our folly. Then in not one whit will we be better than others. Let us countenance political charlatans as preachers, and we at once become corrupt as the loathsome nest on which Beecher sets to hatch the things he calls Christians. Let us consent to introduce opinions in politics as tests of fellowship, and soon opinions in religion will become so. Then the door of heresy and schism will stand wide open, and the work of ruin will begin. Let us agree to admit organs, and soon the pious, the meek, the peace-loving, will abandon us, and our churches will become gay worldly things, literal Noah’s arks, full of clean and unclean beasts.(3)

He warned of dangerous attitudes in preachers: “The vanity to become a popular public speaker, to sway great audiences at will, and to be puffed in newspaper paragraphs as the distinguished so and so, is a dangerous vanity, which preachers may well afford to decline.”(4)

Earl West marked the same changes in the pulpit in his excellent work The Search for the Ancient Order. Surveying the Post-Bellum days (1865-1875), West wrote,

The demand for progress among some took on various characteristics. In some cases it threatened the basic conception of what constituted a New Testament Church. There was a definite trend to make the church another sect among sectarians; another denomination in denominationalism. There was also abundant evidence of a definite revolt against the past. Men who symbolized the previous generation were set for a stormy session. Progress also courted a more fashionable appeal to the rich by what many considered an extravagant expenditure for church buildings. The cry for progress also demanded a new position for the preacher and a different content to his message.(5)

The changes noted bv West included (a) The trend toward fashionable church buildings, (b) The trend in preaching, (c) The place of the preacher. Writing about the trend in preaching, West Observed:

The cry for progress also expressed itself in new trends for preaching. Indeed, this was the point where the drift now centered. Some brethren were becoming extremely intolerant toward the preaching of the “first principles.” Preachers stressing these were less popular than before. The cry for higher spirituality was everywhere heard. J.B. Briney, realizing a change had come over the content of the sermons, wrote the following:

There are some among us who seem to have imbibed quite an antipathy to first principles. They love to talk about a “higher spirituality,” a “deeper piety,” a “broader love,” etc. Were it not that these men make such lofty pretensions to a “higher spirituality,” you would be led to think that this is the very article they most need . . .

The man that is tired of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ is tired of the only thing that can convert men to God, and lift their souls in holy aspirations toward heaven. But when a man says he is tired of first principles, what does he mean? Does he mean he is tired of faith? No. He has much to say about faith. It is his theme on all occasions. Does he mean that he is tired of repentance? Certainly not. He is for repentance, theoretically, at least. What, then, is the substance of all this opposition to first principles and to the men who are devoted to them? Simply this: “I am tired of baptism for remission of sins.” This is what you get when you simmer all this talk about a “higher spirituality,” etc. down.

Men were heard to speak frequently of “legalism” and “the spirit of the New Testament.” Preachers were now preaching, not the “letter” of the New Testament, but the “spirit” of it, an attitude that (Isaac) Errett championed. . . .

A class of men yet remained, however, who preached the first principles, who insisted upon a “Thus saith the Lord” in their preaching. Against this class of men, the ugly title of “legalist” was continually hurled. Ben Franklin, Moses E. Lard, John W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, and Tolbert Fanning were now classed as “legalists.” Some who laid claim to have progressed a little more had reached the point of denying completely that there was a law under Christ. . . .

Moses E. Lard, however, looked with pathetic humor upon these more progressive men. He wrote:

They are partial to the “pious” in other sects; yet they pounce unmercifully upon the faults of their own brethren. They appear doubtful that their brethren are right in anything . . .

These “progressive” men, Lard went on to say, were sweet and pious as long as a sectarian was their mark, but they were “ferocious as a hungry hippopotamus” when a brother was to be dispatched. In the pulpit their greatest delight appeared to be to preach so that no one knew what they believed. Their greatest desire was to let the world know they were out of sympathy with their brethren. These men, in their pursuit of a “higher spirituality,” had abandoned preaching on the gospel plan of salvation.

Ben Franklin admits that “progress” is a good word, but he expressed a fear that brethren misunderstood it. These who cried for “progress” showed an extreme dislike for a “Thus saith the Lord” and for a “It is written,” said Franklin.(6)

The change in preaching was also noticeable in the gospel papers. During this period, Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review was the most popular periodical circulated. Franklin was too conservative in his preaching for the progressives so a new paper to be edited by Isaac Errett was created. It was The Christian Standard. West characterized the two attitudes of the editors and papers saying, “The Standard, however, conceived its role to be that of ‘moving forward,’ adapting the church to changing environmental factors. Franklin resisted these changes, clinging to the older practices.”(7) Franklin was characterized as “perverse” and “stubborn”; he was regarded as a “pest upon the body ecclesiastic” and a “millstone around the neck of the reformation.”

J.S. Lamar, the biographer of Isaac Errett, wrote of the conflict between Errett and Franklin.

Elder Benjamin Franklin was by no means without gifts. Commonly, it is true, though not always, he wrote in a slapdashing sort of style, but his pen was trenchant, and he always called a spade a spade. He would have been the last man in the world to speak of it as an “agricultural implement.” His paper was the leading, and for a long time the only widely circulated weekly among the Disciples, and he wielded great influence.(8)

But Franklin manifested an “ungracious spirit,” became “intolerant” toward those who recognized Christians in other denominations, charging that they were “falling away,” “compromising the truth of the gospel,” and making a “bid for popularity.” Because of dissatisfaction with the Review, the Christian Standard was born. Lamar continued,

I would say nothing here derogatory of the editors of these papers. They represented and fostered that unfortunate type of discipleship to which allusion was made in a previous chapter – a type with which the leading minds among the brotherhood could have no sympathy. We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we can not read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth for whose defense the Disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy – an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter.(9)

The Christian Standard was born out of a desire “for a weekly religious paper of broader range, more generous spirit and a higher order of literary skill and taste than any that had yet appeared under their patronage.”(10)

W.T. Moore (1832-1926), one of the leading liberals among the Disciples, became concerned about the direction of preaching toward the latter part of his life. In 1918, he edited The New Living Pulpit of the Christian Church, to which he wrote an introduction lamenting the direction of preaching in the Christian Church. He cited these criticisms:

(2) The union sentiment which is so prevalent at this time is doing much to change the character of preaching. For some time preaching has ceased to be doctrinal in most of the pulpits. . . A spineless gospel will not save the world, though it should be proclaimed in the interest of so beautiful a cause as Christian union. . . Even a union that cannot bear the sunlight of truth would be worse than the present divisions.

(3) Economical and social questions are having their influence on the pulpit of the twentieth century. . . .

(5) Closely akin to the foregoing is the song service. This has already come to be a prominent feature in many churches. In these churches the music is of more importance than the preaching…. In many of our present day churches the organ and choir have the first place, and this makes it impossible for the preacher to do his best, being conscious that he is practically playing second fiddle to the “Stormy Petrel” that plays and sings for the church.

(6) The demand for short sermons is compelling preachers to reckon with the time limit to such an extent as to make it impossible for them to preach great sermons even where they are abundantly able …. At most the preacher is allowed a half hour for the delivery of the most vital message that mortals ever heard; and worse than all he knows he must not exceed this time limit, for how can he hold the attention of the audience when a mental dinner bell is ringing?

(7) Much of the preaching of the present time is sensational and lacks vision. Such preaching as that of Billy Sunday, etc., may be interesting to listen to but it does not feed the soul with the food that builds up the spiritual life. But the people cry for the sensational, they want something to make their ears tingle, and that they can taste on their tongue. . . . It is like drinking intoxicating beverages, the more one has the more one wants.

Not much of this kind of preaching has found hospitality among the Disciples. But in some churches the doors have been thrown wide open and it has been invited to come in, and in all such cases the churches have ceased to grow spiritually, though the audiences may have doubled, or even quadrupled. . . .

. . . In short, are not our churches in danger of changing the worship into an entertainment for the enjoyment of the senses, rather than the furnishing of food to feed hungry souls with the bread of life?(11)

W.T. Moore’s call for a change in the pulpit was ineffective in stopping the trends of liberalism. He was trying to stop the very liberalism which he had helped to create, to kill the Frankenstein monster of his own creation. Liberalism moved further than he wanted it to go but he was powerless to stop it.

We are in a position historically to judge where the trends led. The movement away from a “thus saith the Lord” led the Christian Church into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. The most liberal branch took control of the ecclesiastical institutions (missionary societies, orphan homes, colleges, etc.) and led the church into the ecumenical movement. A small group protested, resulting in a division that was formally crystallized in 1968 when the Independent Christian Churches refused to take part in restructuring the Christian Church into full-fledged denominational organization. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) long ago abandoned belief in the inspiration of the Bible and have just recently had a controversy of no small proportions over whether or not to elect a president who approved appointing homosexuals as preachers. The Independent Christian Churches, still hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures, but are nevertheless involved in many unscriptural activities.

The Institutional Apostasy

In the history of the churches of Christ, the spirit of apostasy has also done its work. Many of our readers already can identify many similarities in that recent apostasy and the one faced a generation before in the division with the Christian Church.

Perceptive men saw the spirit of apostasy developing before the actual introduction of church support of colleges and orphan homes. Cled E. Wallace wrote about “The Right Kind of Preaching” saying,

Much is being said about the right kind of preaching and writing. Charges of “hard” and “soft” are being bandied back and forth. With as plain a book as the New Testament in hand and with its abundant supply of examples of the very best preaching and writing, it ought not to be difficult to determine the kind of both that should be done. . . . Men who say the most about “the right method of approach,” “constructive articles,” etc. betray the fact that a lot of their ideas come from modern psychology, materialistic philosophy, and sectarian sources, rather than from Jesus and the apostles. It is futile to do a lot of talking about the method of approach, when you never approach. It would improve some preachers and writers if they could forget about the method and go ahead and approach.(12)

In 1967, the Indianapolis area churches formed a sponsoring church arrangement to conduct a “Campaign For Christ.” They secured Pat Boone to lead the singing and Jimmy Allen to do the preaching, The Gospel Guardian put out a special issue in June to discuss “Campaigns For Christ.” Editor Yater Tant observed,

“Campaigns for Christ” is not an isolated or independent development. It grows right out of the post war (World War II) mania to get the Church of Christ “On the March.” It is part and parcel of an almost pathological desire on the part of some brethren to change the “image” of the Church of Christ from a small, rural, isolated, lower-middle class people to a powerful, successful, aggressive, sophisticated society which is rapidly forging to the front as the leading non-Catholic church of America! (118)

Indeed, the image of the church was changing and nowhere was it more noticeable than in the pulpits and bulletins of the churches.

Brethren noticed that the bulletins of the liberal churches contained nothing distinctive in their teaching. Most of the bulletins ceased to be a teaching mediums and began to be used to advertise the various social activities of the local church. When an occasional article did appear, the article contained nothing distinctive. Articles on the identifying marks of the New Testament church, water baptism (its subject, action, and purpose), conditions for salvation, possibility of apostasy, etc. no longer appeared. The articles in some church bulletins among us could appear in any Baptist and Methodist church bulletin.

The deterioration of the distinctive plea of the pulpit was also noticed by some of the less liberal liberals. On September 10, 1973, a meeting was called with the representatives of the Herald of Truth in Memphis, Tennessee. The liberal brethren were alarmed at the message they were not hearing on the Herald of Truth program. Attended by over 200 preachers, the critics “made it unmistakably clear, that aside from the doctrinal error under consideration, they and multitudes of others were disappointed by the largely nondistinctive type of preaching currently done on the program” (p. ii). Time and again the less liberal element among the liberals protested the non-doctrinal preaching, watering down of the restoration plea, and pentecostal preaching on the Herald of Truth.

The trend has continued to develop, almost unabated. Two groups have emerged among the liberals, just as distinct as the two groups among the Christian Churches. The more liberal minded are rapidly moving the liberal churches into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. They control most of the institutions (colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, etc.). A smaller group has formed in opposition to the more liberal trends of their brethren. This group consists of the writers for Firm Foundation, The Spiritual Sword, Contending For the Faith, and other smaller journals. J.A. McNutt wrote about “Gospel Preaching” as follows:

About 25 years ago, when Mission Magazine appeared, we began to be told that the older generation of preaching could not talk to the young, intellectual, sophisticated members of society. Doubts were expressed that the New Testament church could be restored. Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive was the cry. Quit claiming we were the only Christians and just profess to be Christians only. Be less exclusive, listen to others, and learn from what they (the Baptists and the Catholics) offer.

Look at what this advice has gotten us in the last 25 years: (1) Loss of strong doctrinal preaching and efforts to take the gospel to a lost world. (2) Emphasis on social and economic problems. (3) Compromise with denominational bodies (which failed to move them but weakened us) and (4) Accommodation to worldly standards of conduct. Some churches have given up on gospel meetings. Where once the word was boldly proclaimed, we now have counseling sessions designed to build our self-esteem, while thousands die without ever hearing a gospel sermon.(13)

Contending For the Faith contains a steady diet of warnings against specific cases of apostasy with detailed documentation to leave no question about the liberal teachings being exposed.

These brethren cannot turn the tide of liberalism. They might as well try to move a mountain with a spoon. The very liberalism which they created and defended in the 1950s has grown into a mighty force which they could no more stop than W.T. Moore could the liberalism of his day.

The unity-in-diversity message of Leroy Garrett in Restoration Review is accepted among many liberal churches. There is a significant movement to extend fellowship to the Independent Christian Churches, the instrument of music no longer being a significant difference to some liberal brethren. Garrett’s series on “What Must The Church of Christ Do To Be Saved” is not falling on deaf ears. He calls on the churches of Christ to confess that we have been wrong in charging that others churches are denominations and we are not, in our position on instrumental music, in our restoration hermencutics, in being “male dominated,” etc.(14) This is the direction that the mainline liberal churches is headed.

Learning From the Past

Reminding ourselves of the early steps of apostasy in the past should alarm us to the incipient forms of liberalism among ourselves. We must not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that similar departures from gospel preaching cannot infiltrate us. I am convinced that they not only can but already have infiltrated us.

Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is said. We tend to notice the latter quicker than the former, but each can do its damage. There are some things which are not being said in our church bulletins. I have received some church bulletins for well over a decade and never seen anything distinctive in their pages. If this reflects what is also heard from the pulpit, these churches have not heard gospel preaching for years. These bulletins have quit printing articles on the identifying marks of the New Testament church, water baptism (its subject, action, and purpose), conditions for salvation, possibility of apostasy, immodest dress, dancing, smoking, gambling, social drinking, and such like (Gal. 5:19-21).

We have some rare churches among us! These churches are so strong that they can go a decade without preaching to their members about the sinfulness of denominationalism, faith only, possibility of apostasy, Calvinism, the identifying marks of the New Testament church, immodest dress, mixed swimming, social drinking, etc. The churches with whom I have worked have not been so strong. I have seen the need to preach on these subjects regularly, for the sake of the young Christians growing up there, reminding the older Christians, teaching the new converts, and warding off the influence of the denominational world about us which so affects our thinking.

We have preachers who are enamored with Charles Swindoll, James Dobson, Max Lucado, and other popular poppsychology preachers, but have little use for anything produced by their brethren. Roy Cogdill observed, “If a preacher does not feed his own soul on the word of God, he cannot be expected to impart such food unto others. A constant study of the truth is therefore essential. Preachers who preach on current events, book reviews, modern philosophy, etc. are simply distributing the kind of food they partake of themselves. Such preaching would create a famine of God’s word.”(15) We are seeing advertisements for “gospel” meetings featuring lessons on time management, managing one’s personal finances, tri-angular relationship, and other self-help, pop psychology themes.

The writing which is popular is patterned after the human interest pages of the daily newspapers. Again, what is said is generally true, but we should not equate human interest stories with gospel preaching and Bible teaching! Slipping in one Scripture in a human interest article does not make it Bible teaching. Bulletins and journals which specialize in this kind of writing rarely present an article which is distinctive; most articles appearing in such publications could appear in nearly any denominational bulletin or periodical in the country.

This special issue of Guardian of Truth is designed to awaken us to the trends that are occurring. It is a call for retrenching ourselves, immersing ourselves in the word of God, and sending forth a clarion sound in the message we preach. We hope that those in the pew will demand Bible preaching, driving from their pulpits anyone who dilutes and weakens that message by failing to preach the distinctive doctrines of the Bible.

Endnotes

1. “The Work of the Past – The Symptoms of the Future,” Lard’s Quarterly 2:251 (1865).

2. Ibid. 258.

3. Ibid. 262.

4. Ibid. 324-325.

5. The Search for the Ancient Order II:133.

6. Ibid. 143-145.

7. Ibid. 135.

8. U.S. Lamar, Memoirs of Isaac Errett 1:279.

9. Ibid., 300-301.

10. Ibid., 309.

11. W.T. Moore, The New Living Pulpit of the Christian Church 42-46.

12. Cled E. Wallace, “The Right Kind of Preaching,” Bible Banner I:11 (June 1939), 1.

13. J.A. McNutt, “Gospel Preaching, Is It Relevant Today?” Firm Foundation 106:9 (September 1991), 8-9.

14. Garrett’s series appears in the 1991 issues of Restoration Review.

15. Roy E. Cogdill, “Instructions to a Young Preacher,” Preaching in the Twentieth Century 191.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 66, 94-98
February 6, 1992

By Jerry Fite

Jeremiah began his prophetic work in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign. As a youthful Josiah wielded kingly force to tear down idols, young Jeremiah applied moral persuasion to eliminate the idolatrous heart. Despite forty years of exposure to Jeremiah’s preaching, Judah’s heart did not change.

One will not find Jeremiah’s name among those preachers who had success in leading many to God. People responded to his message by mocking, smiting and imprisoning him. They continued turning their back to God, instead of their faces (Jer.32:33). After extending many invitations, Jeremiah tearfully described Israel’s lost opportunities as follows: “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved” (Jer.8:20). Receiving encouraging words for his lessons at the temple and city gates was not his to enjoy; his solace in preaching was, “God knowest.” The fact that God approved of Jeremiah and his work makes him a worthy example for true preaching servants of God.

Jeremiah was appointed to “pluck up, and to break down and to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant” (1:10). While the people were hearing words of “peace, when there is no peace,” (Jer.6:14) Jeremiah preached of impending judgment. While Israel’s perverted worship and wayward living were tolerated by their leaders, Jeremiah strongly denounced their idolatry and sins. While Jeremiah’s message contained hope of building and planting, it would occur after the overthrowing and plucking (Jer. 31:28,40).

Condemnation always needs to be communicated with sound reasoning. Jeremiah was God’s communicator. He reasoned with the people from the theme: “they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain” (Jer. 2:5). With imagery he drove home his point: they were “forsaking the fountain of living waters,” and replacing him with “broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer.2:13). Surely no right thinking person would turn away from a flowing fountain and walk downstream to build a leaky pit to hold the water. But Israel did this when they served Baal and Asherah instead of God, the fountain of living waters. In following after gods of vanity, Israel became vain. The leaky cisterns would not save them, only God could. In turning away from him they were facing their own “hurt” (Jer. 7:6).

Preachers today need to preach Jeremiah’s outline. One does not simply commit one sin by forsaking God, he adds another, the making of his own idol. Many have turned their affections away from God to embrace empty materialism. Putting money and pleasure first, our society has become vain. In the midst of lamenting the symptoms of a crumbling society, we need to hear the cause: we have forsaken God. Until our society turns to God, following his commands in his word, we can expect “hurt,” not healing.

In Jeremiah’s day, God’s people lost their sense of shame. When they should have been ashamed for their covetousness and deceitful dealings, they could not blush. Jeremiah was not bashful in his condemnation. He says, “For from the least of them to the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness: and from the prophet even unto the priest everyone dealeth falsely. . . Were they not ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall; at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith Jehovah” (Jer.6:13,15).

With condemnation of Judah’s brazenness, Jeremiah offered the Divine solution: “Thus saith Jehovah, stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way: and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jer. 6:16). Rest for their souls demanded seeking the paths that God first set before his people at Sinai, and walking accordingly.

Jeremiah reminds us that man’s inability to blush does not mean he has no reason to be ashamed. Some brethren no longer blush when wearing their immodest shorts and skimpy swim suits in public. Some no longer blush when dancing in their school proms. Some no longer blush in drinking alcoholic beverages in social settings. The purity and influence for good among God’s people today demands instruction, pointing God’s people back to the principles found in the “old paths” of the gospel.

“Modest” dress, sensitive to its effects upon others by remaining well within the bounds of that which is proper (“shamefastness”), manifesting sound judgment (“sobriety”), and in accord with one who is “professing godliness” is the good way of the Lord that many are ignoring (1 Tim. 2:9-10). The prom dance may appear sophisticated and graceful, but the indecent bodily movements and unchaste handling of another’s body are shameful exhibitions of lasciviousness that have no place in the Christian’s life (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:18; Matt. 5:28). The drink which deadens godly restraints and leads to drunkenness, addiction, ruined lives and death is no drink for the Christian, socially or privately (cf. 1 Pet. 4:3-4; Tit. 2:12; Gal. 5:20; 1 Cor. 6:11).

Old paths, if not continually marked and traveled upon will soon blend in with the rest of the field, Glorifying God with godly living, while guarding closely one’s example before others is the Lord’s clear path (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 10:31-32; Phil. 2:14-16; 1 Tim. 4:16). Immodest apparel on the streets or by the pool, dancing and social drinking will never promote the good way of the Lord. They will hinder our profession of purity. Brethren today need preaching like Jeremiah’s to keep the paths marked, and we all need to walk accordingly.

“Rising up early” to “speak,” “teach” and “protest” were familiar phrases in Jeremiah’s preaching (Jer. 25:3; 32:33; 11:7). As one would rise early to attend to urgent matters, God sent his servants to speak out, instruct and condemn Israel’s sin. Such urgency to condemn error and warn of judgment did not come from a sadistic God but a compassionate One. The chronicler records, “Jehovah, the God of their fathers, sent to them by his messengers, rising up early and sending because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place” (2 Chron. 36:15).

Like God who sent him, Jeremiah condemned sin with a compassionate heart. Convicted of the reality of judgment, Jeremiah communed with his soul in anguish for his people’s fate (Jer. 4:19-22). He contained more anguish in his heart over his people’s destruction than he had tears. “Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people” (Jer. 9:1). He responded to Judah’s refusing to return to the Lord with crying “in secret” over their “pride” (Jer. 13:19). While he refused to be part of their evil ways (Jer. 9:2), Jeremiah did not admonish Israel’s sin unsympathetically.

Over six hundred years after Jeremiah preached judgment with tears, another preacher appeared reminding people of Jeremiah. His name was Jesus. After Jesus had begun preaching he asked the question, “Who do men say that the son of man is?” Jesus learned from his disciples that some said he was “Jeremiah” (Matt. 16:13-14). Like Jeremiah, Jesus was not bashful in exposing popular sins, nor timid in warning of judgment (Matt. 15:1-9; 8:11-12; 23:1-25:46). Yet, who does not hear the compassion in his heart when he cries, “0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem” and feel his pain, when he like Jeremiah laments, “Behold your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38; Jer. 10:22)? Jeremiah and Jesus exemplify a balance needed in all preachers. They were uncompromising toward sin, while compassionate over the fate of the sinner.

The world, just a heartbeat away from eternal destruction, does not need a preacher who offers false peace and tolerates sin. Sinners need the preacher who condemns sin with sound reasoning, sets before all the good way of the Lord and warns of imminent judgment with tears. If God were to come in judgment tomorrow, the world would need preaching like Jeremiah’s today.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 70-71
February 6, 1992

By Warner Robins

“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk. 1:17).

John the Baptist was no city slicker. He, from an early age, dwelt in the desert. He was a rugged individualist. He did not entangle himself with affairs of this world. He had a special mission to carry out. This mission could not be carried out by a weakling or a coward. His work was to be that of a forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He wore rough clothing and he ate locusts and wild honey. His voice came forth to the people from the wilderness and not the city stadium. He was no reed flapping in the wind but a man’s man who had been tempered in the out of doors. He breathed the free air of the desert and learned self-reliance. In this way God prepared John for the great task at hand – to prepare the hearts of the people for the Messiah.

John knew who he was and also who he was not. He said he was not the Messiah but “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the lord, make his paths straight” (Matt. 3:3). John did not go to the people but the power of his message brought the people to him. He told them to “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” not here yet but approaching. Like a work crew will come ahead of the power line to clear out a right of way, so John cleared a right of way in the minds and hearts of the people for the Christ who would follow. He got them to thinking about the Messiah.

His work was both difficult and unpopular. That is why he needed the special rugged conditioning that desert life and the wilderness would afford. No cream puff could accomplish his task. John was no weakling. Maybe that is why so many of our greatest preachers of today and in this century were raised in the country and were dirt poor. This is the type of person who is disciplined by both environment and circumstances to meet the difficulties that sometimes arise in preaching the gospel of Christ. Many of them, like John, are toughened to the mission they must accomplish.

John’s preaching was centered around repentance. Repeatedly he cried for the people to repent and turn from their sins. His message was repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3). To the rich he urged the proper attitude toward the poor. To the publicans he demanded honesty. To the soldiers he urged no violence to any man and to be content with their wages. To the Pharisees he demanded they bring forth the proper fruits of repentance. He called them a generation of vipers. No wonder John was later beheaded for he threw caution to the wind and said what needed to be said to whomsoever he needed to say it. He played no favorites. He was a hard, tough preacher who knew not the meaning of fear or compromise.

Not even Herod escaped the preaching of John. He called on Herod to repent. Herod sent for him and he told him about his need to repent from all his evils. He even told him he had an unlawful marriage. He said it was unlawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife. What a preacher! Would to God we had more like John in this regard today. John’s message was from God (Jn. 1:6,7). He played no favorites. There was no respect of persons with him. It made no difference to John about one’s station in life. Truth is truth no matter who is involved. Can you hear John asking for one more false view of divorce and remarriage to be tolerated? After all, maybe Herod was sincere. Cannot opposing views co-exist? Live and let live? John’s preaching did not allow for such weak-kneed attitudes toward truth. Did he advocate unity in diversity on this question? No! He did not! He, instead, called for Herod’s repentance and also that of his unlawful mate. This means they were wrong. This means they had to correct their lives so as to be living lawfully before God. This meant severing the adulterous relationship which is why they were living unlawfully to start with. Did they obey the message? Not at all. The furious Herodias, like so many others today, did not like to be told she was wrong. John, the messenger of God was in the way. He had to go. So, at her instigation, John was beheaded. But the message of John was just as true after he was killed as it was before. Truth remains the truth!

We need preachers today with the spirit and power of Elijah. John was the second Elijah, as Isaiah had prophesied. He was not Elijah come back to life but he preached with the same spirit as Elijah, intent on preaching only the message of God, regardless of the consequences. His attitude was “if the shoe fits, wear it.”

Preachers who preach like John are courageous. Preachers who preach like John seek to please the Lord in their preaching and not men. Preachers who preach like John do not show respect of persons. Preachers who preach like John are willing to sacrifice the things of this life in order to proclaim God’s message. Preachers who preach like John need special preparation in the study of the Word of God together with the willingness to let everything else be secondary. And, finally, preachers who preach like John will be willing to give even their lives in order to carry out the will of God.

To the young preachers, we urge that they imbibe the spirit of John the Baptist before starting out to preach the gospel. Determine to take a stand on Truth and refuse to move from it. Do not be overly impressed with some among us who appear to be somewhat. Education is not sinful but do not let it make you egotistical or arrogant. It is only a tool. Do not allow it to become a scepter.

To the older preachers we say, as one who is now in that category, do not lose the spirit of Elijah and John. Some we fear have “mellowed” to the point of decay. Brethren, rise up once again and preach relentlessly the gospel of Christ to the lost without fear or favor. Instruct the saved so that they will remain saved. Call a spade a spade. Stop beating around the bush if that is what you are doing. Call both sin and sinners by name. Fear no man. Fear God only.

Preach the word, brethren, in the spirit of Elijah, just like John!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 74-75
February 6, 1992

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In grammar, a postfix (or suffix) is “a sound, syllable, or syllables added at the end of a word or word base to change its meaning, give it grammatical function, or form a new word” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 1457).

It occurs to me that postfixing (to fix after) is what some are doing on account of their divorces. Often there is the account given at the time of the divorce and then a postfixed one given at the time of remarriage. The story is now fixed, after the fact, to include scriptural grounds for divorce. Why? Because the scriptural reason is now far more important than it was at the time of the divorce.

A person is in a difficult marriage. Things have gotten so bad that divorce seems to be the only way out. The person is so disgusted and hurt by this marriage that he or she just wants out. To find another mate? Never! He has had it with this marriage. He has had it with marriage – period. The quicker he can end this misery the better. So, he gets the divorce, using the easiest provable grounds he can find that the state will accept (which is almost any reason or no reason) to get the divorce over with. He is fed up with this intolerable situation.

Had the person’s spouse committed fornication? He says he (or she) really doesn’t matter – because he is going to get the divorce anyway. But, what if he should change his mind later and decide to remarry? He assures us that this is not going to happen. But it does!

Years ago, I was riding a bus to a meeting in Georgetown, Kentucky. A young lady with two small children boarded the bus at Louisville and took a seat directly behind me. Just outside of Louisville a man boarded and sat down just across the aisle from the young lady. She was in a talkative mood. She began telling the story of her life. She had just gotten a divorce and was on her way back to her parents. She was disgusted with men in general. If she could just make it to her parents, she would make it just fine, without ever looking at a man as long as she lived. This kind of talk went on for several minutes. Finally, the man across the aisle began talking with her. He did not have a wife and needed one. By the time we stopped in Frankfort the young lady had been talked into getting off the bus there with her new friend with the view of giving further consideration to their possible marriage. How quickly the mind changes.

While that young lady’s case may be an extreme example, it illustrates how easily minds are sometimes changed. We know of several cases where divorced people have adamantly affirmed that they would never want another spouse, but have changed their minds with the passing of time – some within a few weeks, some within a few months, and others within a few years. They meet the new love of their lives and would like for their new marriage to be scriptural and accepted by faithful brethren. So, now the “postfixing” begins.

Maybe they did have scriptural ground for divorce after all. So, they begin the quest for evidence by recalling things that happened before their divorce that seems now to point to the unfaithfulness of the ex-spouse. Why did they not bring these things up before? Could it be that they were so bent on getting out of the marriage they simply overlooked them? Or, could it be that they are now more concerned about the divorce being scriptural than they were at the time? Or, could it be that, with the passing of time and the increased desire to have the right to another spouse, the facts (?) that were fuzzy at the time have become clearer as the desire to remarry has become stronger? At any rate, they are not convinced that they did have scriptural grounds after all, but because of the pressure at the time of the divorce they did not use them. They can now marry their new love convinced that they are alright and that good brethren will accept the facts (?) as they are now being presented.

But alas, the Scripture still reads, “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32, NKJV). “And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9 NKJV).

My friend, sexual immorality has to be the reason for the divorce – not an afterthought to justify another marriage.

The person who has “postfixed” his divorce story might or might not have found the scriptural reason for divorce had he or she investigated enough at the time. But he did not. He was only interested in getting out of an undesirable marriage. The fact is: he divorced his spouse for reason(s) other than fornication (sexual immorality). Whether or not the divorced partner was guilty of fornication at the time or prior to the divorce is not really germane to the question at this late date. The fact remains the spouse was not divorced for that reason. The spouse was divorced for a reason other than fornication. Fornication, among other things, may have even been suspected at the time – but it was not the reason for the divorce action.

It is dangerous to re-write a divorce story to fit the present need and desire for a scriptural marriage. Like necessity, desire is the mother of inventions. A desire to remarry that was not present at the time of divorce can easily cause one to rearrange the facts (?) to justify the present situation.

One may come to believe his revised version. The brethren may accept it. But, remember the Lord knows the real facts. He will not be mocked. His memory does not became fuzzy with time or biased by desire.

Again, if you are divorced and want to remarry, the only way that you can do it within the bounds of scriptural authority is for fornication (sexual immorality) to have been the reason (at the time) that you divorced your former spouse – assuming that the one you want to marry now has a scriptural right to marry.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 44-45
January 16, 1992