Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osbourne

The following article by Wayne Jackson is reprinted from Christian Courier, a paper published by our liberal brethren, regarding some of the current teaching done by some of the most extreme preachers among them. As you read the article, ask yourself a few questions. Where did such apostasy begin? What approach is taken to defend such outrageous positions? How in the world have these teachers of error been tolerated to this point? Where will it all end? We will discuss some of these points more at the end of this article:

On October 17, 1989, San Francisco, California was jolted by a powerful earthquake. Two days later, on the campus of Lubbock Christian University, Randy Mayeux, who preaches for the Preston Road church in Dallas, delivered a radical, almost earthquake-like speech, the shocking effects of which are reverberating across our brotherhood months later.

The theme of Mayeux’s presentation, which was really a veneered tirade against the “traditional” church of Christ, was “unity in diversity.” He brazenly threw down the gauntlet to faithful gospel preachers everywhere.

In a series of sweeping charges, Mayeux alleged that although the churches of Christ claim that they have no creed but the Bible, they in fact do have one. He referred to a well-known tract, Can We All Understand the Bible Alike?, as an “ignorant” viewpoint, and charged that the Scriptures cannot be uniformly understood, which, of course, makes the apostolic charge that we “all speak the same thing” (1 Cor. 1:10) rather meaningless. Brother Mayeux equated the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship with such expedients as the Sunday school and multiple communion cups. He suggested that the division which came about between the Christian Church and the churches of Christ in the late 1800’s was principally economic, i.e., some churches could afford the instrument and others could not, hence, a spirit of rivalry developed. Our brother is as uninformed in history as he is in biblical matters.

Our misguided friend is also quite confused as to what it takes to constitute a Christian. He affirms that he teaches that baptism is for remission of sins, but he confesses that his heart inclines otherwise. (I believe there is an appropriate word for one who believes one thing and teaches another.) He contends that there are many respectable men among us who do not believe that our view of baptism is correct. He argues that if persecution should come, we would meet for worship with believers of all sorts, and whether one had been sprinkled or immersed would hardly be significant. He says, in fact, his belief actually is that God will accept a person at the point of his or her understanding. Would that mean that the Lord would accept the Jew as he is, even though he does not “understand” that Jesus is the Messiah? Mayeux mentioned “Mother” Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun, whom he acknowledged has never been immersed for the forgiveness of her sins, and he wondered if a poll were taken, how many might feel that she is saved anyhow. There is an implication as to what his vote would be.

Brother Mayeux praises the writings and preaching of Charles Swindoll, a staunch Calvinist, and concedes that he has personal inclinations toward Calvinism. He avers that hundreds of our women in the church across the country are attending the organized “Bible Study Fellowship” programs which, he says, are “unabashed, unashamed Calvinist Bible studies.” And he exclaims, “It is wonderful!” He predicts that a growing number of our people are going to think like Calvinists because they are reading men like Swindoll, and because they are not getting good Bible instruction in the church. Those sitting under him certainly aren’t getting much!

Mayeux tells of a Herald of Truth family conference recently conducted in Texas during which a woman “preached” to 900 people, and, he exclaims, she “was dynamite! ” He asks: Is there no place in the church for women who want to preach publicly to both men and women? He declares that the church of the Lord will not survive in the 1990s unless we allow women to exercise their ministerial gifts. On and on he railed as the audience laughed at his glib sarcasm. Randy Mayeux concluded his infamous diatribe by asserting that in the 1990s, diversity will be the only game in town!

Meanwhile, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area, Larry James of the Richardson East congregation, has boldly blasted churches of Christ for their opposition to the use of instruments of music in worship. In a sermon delivered on February 26th of last year, James caustically attacked our position on worship innovations. He made no attempt, of course, to answer the major arguments employed to sustain our stand; rather, he chose simply to ridicule those who contend for the primitive pattern of worship.

The sermons of Mayeux and James reflect a typical revolutionary spirit that is becoming increasingly common in the church. I am convinced that many sincere Christians are not aware of the extent to which the restoration movement is drifting (actually, rushing) into digression. It is quite a shocking experience to hear these men so arrogantly proclaiming their unorthodox views, and to note their mounting popularity (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, February 1990, p. 39).

A generation has now past since the painful “split” over institutionalism which occurred in the 1950s. During those dark days, many faithful brethren warned their digressive brethren of the horrible consequences which would come if they gave up the appeal for Bible authority in all matters (1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Those favoring efforts for which there was no Bible authority answered, “We do many things for which we have no authority.” The plea for all things to be authorized from God’s Word fell on deaf cars which called such thinking “picky,” “outdated,” and “narrow.” Those who demanded Bible authority for all that they practiced were labeled “anti’s” and quickly dismissed as some kind of crazy nuts. While the vast majority set out upon the path of the unauthorized, a few brethren sounded a warning about the end of that trail. They warned of a time these liberal attitudes would be applied even further than the digressives wanted. They warned of compromises extending to embrace instrumental music and denominational error. Even they, no doubt, would be surprised at the extent of the apostasy in such a short time.

I must confess that even though I keep track of the current papers among liberal brethren, I am shocked at the errors openly embraced by some of their prominent preachers. Randy Mayeux, named in the above article, was one of the speakers at the Nashville meeting I attended in November of 1988. He can hardly be dismissed as an obscure person with little influence since he preaches at one of the largest institutional churches in this country (Preston Road in Dallas, Texas). At that time of the Nashville meeting, he was making veiled references to his Calvinist leanings. Less than a year later, however, he made the speech documented above in which he openly admitted to teachings so loose a good Calvinist couldn’t even say, “Amen.” Ten years ago, who would have guessed that anyone among institutional brethren would declare that a Roman Catholic nun was saved in her present state? Those brethren in institutional churches who still have any doctrinal convictions for the truth need to wake up and leave such defenders of error to make a stand for God’s truth!

As if the above mentality were not enough of a problem among the liberal brethren, the article just before the one above detailed even more trouble among their ranks (Christian Courier, Feb. 1990, pp. 37-38). The author stated that a biology professor at “one of our major universities” called Genesis 1 a “myth.” The author went on to say that such is becoming common. The article also admitted that “theological liberalism” (the belief that the Bible, is not a product of Divine inspiration, but of human origin) is the guiding principle in dealing with the Bible for many institutional preachers. Bill Swetmon and others among those brethren have stated views which leave me in shock!

How did it all get started? It started with some who believed it was alright to do just a few things that were unauthorized by God. When those innovations were accepted, a few more were introduced. And so it progressed with one innovation followed by another until these brethren lost any concept of proving all things and holding fast that which is good (I Thess. 5:21). They have followed the downward spiral of apostasy plainly declared in God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:13; 3:5; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). The have sown the wind and they are reaping the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7). Let us always be vigilant against the very start of error. It must be seen for what it is – a deadly cancer which will spread through every part of the body until it destroys any semblance of life remaining (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Don’t be deceived – there is no harmless error!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 48-49
January 16, 1992

By Thomas G. O’Neal

I appreciate the invitation of brother Mike Willis to participate in this special issue of Guardian of Truth. The confidence in me such an invitation expresses is very much appreciated.

Two terms are important to this article, faith and opinion. Consulting standard works like Strong’s and Young’s Concordance one learns that the word “opinion” is not used in the New Testament, thus, a need to go elsewhere for a definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (589) says ” 1. Belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive knowledge; a belief; view, judgment. 2. The judgment or sentiment which the mind forms of persons or things; estimation; sometimes, favorable estimation; esteem. . . ” According to Webster in terms of strength is (1) positive knowledge, (2) then opinion, and then (3) impression.

What “Opinion” Is Not

1. An approved example is not opinion. In Acts 11:27-30 we have the approved example of Antioch sending relief to the brethren in Judea, sending it to the elders. This is not someone’s opinion; the text says they sent it to the elders, not to a board of directors of a human organization.

2. A necessary inference is not opinion. In Matthew 3:16 “Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” Necessarily inferred in this is that Jesus went down into the water. This is not someone’s opinion; it is necessarily inferred from the text.

3. A command is not opinion. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This is not someone’s opinion; this is what Jesus said and what Mark records.

An opinion is a belief, even a strong one, that a person has of others or of things. It may be a correct opinion or it may be incorrect. If it is a correct opinion, it is founded on fact; if it is a correct religious opinion it is rooted in God’s word. If it is an incorrect opinion, it is founded on something beside fact; if it is an incorrect religious opinion, it is based upon something other than what God has said.

The Faith

1. The term “the faith” is used in the New Testament to mean God’s revelation to man, the revealed system of faith (Jude 3; Acts 6:7; 13:8; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; Gal. 1:23 and Phil. 1:27). It means the same thing as “the gospel.” For example, one could exchange “the faith” for “the gospel” in Mark 16:15 without doing violence to the passage. The two terms – faith and gospel -mean the same. When the term “the faith” is so used, it is an objective use of it.

2. The term “faith” is used in another way in the New Testament. This usage is not an objective use of it, meaning the gospel. In this second usage of it, the term indicates what one personally believes based upon their understanding of the faith of the gospel. Their personal faith may be correct or it may be incorrect.

Paul used it in the correct way in Romans 14 when he said “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (v. 23). “Faith” in verse 23 means “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (v. 5). It is with reference to this faith Paul said, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God” (v. 22). “Faith” is verse 22 is not doubting of verse 23. “Faith” in verse 22 is not the “faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The faith once delivered was to be preached to all the world (Mk. 16:15; Gal. 1:23; Jude 3). The “faith” of Romans 14:22 was not to be preached but “have it to thyself before God.”

Brethren, we need to understand that our faith, our personal faith, which we are to have to ourselves before God is over a matter or matters either of which is acceptable to God. The meat eater and the herb eater of Romans 14 were both received by God (Rom. 14:3; 15:7). The man who esteemed one day above another and the brother who did not were both received by God (Rom. 14:5; 15:7).

The Faith – The Gospel

In the New Testament the terms faith and gospel are often used to mean the same thing. In Romans 1: 16-17 Paul said he was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” the reason being “therein” that is, in the gospel is “the righteousness of God revealed” from “faith” – the gospel – to “faith” within the heart.

This faith was not just somebody’s opinion. The apostles who revealed it claimed they were eyewitnesses (2 Pet. 1:16), they heard (2 Pet. 1:18; 1 Jn. 1:1), they handled (1 Jn. 1:1-4) that which they declared. What was delivered was received of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:23; 15:3; Gal. 1:11-12). When this faith was written, people who read could understand the message (Eph. 3:3-4) and understand the will of God (Eph. 5:17). More knowledge or understanding is not what is needed by brethren on this subject, but more faith to believe exactly what Jesus said.

When men want to read and understand the will of God, they can. Jesus asked a lawyer what he read in the Law. When this lawyer responded, Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live” (Lk. 10:25-28). When Herod wanted to know “where Christ should be born” it did not take the chief priest and scribes long to say “in Bethlehem of Judea” (Matt. 2:35). When men 16want to” understand God’s will, they can; when they don’t 94want to” they claim great difficulty. What they need is to get their “want to” in shape.

Matthew 19:9

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committed adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). This is where the battle has centered recently among brethren – on the faith.

In order to get away from what Jesus said, some brethren have said all kinds of things and taken all kinds of foolish positions.

1. Glen Lovelady said in his debate with J.T. Smith that this from the lips of Jesus was “an interpolation of copiest” (p. 23) being “an addition” (p. 172) then said “it shouldn’t be there” for “in 1611, forty-eight scholars added Matthew 19:9B” (p. 177).

2. Leroy Garrett said that Matthew “inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it” (Restoration Review, Nov., 1978, as quoted by Mike Willis in Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, p. 93).

3. Olan Hicks says that what truth brethren have taught from Matthew 19:9 through the years “comes from the Vatican” (What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 26), and that brethren “need to remove the glasses which have been provided for us by the Catholic Church” (p. 26). He further says in his debate with Jack Holt, “we are traditionist” (p. 9) having “re-written the Bible” (p. 21) and taking “sides with Satan” (p. 39, in his debate with Ray Hawk) with a “human theory” (p. 23) which “originated in human theology long after the Bible was written” (p. 14). Hicks redefines adultery saying “Jesus speaks of two acts, the doing of which is adultery. 1. Divorcing and 2. marrying another” (p. 18, debate with Holt).

4. Brother Homer Hailey says “Adultery was in breaking the marriage covenant and making another covenant to suit their pleasures” (p. 57, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God). 1, along with many others, am surprised at brother Hailey taking this position since the New Testament shows adultery is (1) an act (Jn. 8:4) committed in connection with a (2) bed (Rev. 2:22). Further, he said, “Matthew 19:3-9 is a part of the covenant that the Christian lives under, not the alien” (p. 59). Jesus said “whosoever” (Matt. 19:9). Of “whosoever” brother Hailey has said “whosoever indicates anyone” (The Minor Prophets, p. 55).

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” is not someone’s opinion. It is a part of “the faith” for which we are to earnestly contend (Jude 3) and that is exactly why this special issue has been prepared to contend for the faith. If there are some who do not like us contending for the faith, then they should cease pressing their erroneous personal opinions on this subject which are not taught in the New Testament.

Brethren, all any of us need is more faith to accept what Jesus said.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 25-26
January 2, 1992

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Sometimes a querist is concerned with an issue that has several aspects. Accordingly, a series of questions is expressed. Such is the case in this instance. Submitted below is the language of the querist in pinpointing the matters for consideration.

Questions:

“Please comment on 1 Corinthians 6:1, Acts 16:25 and Romans 13 as it pertains to the following situation:

Husband and wife are having marriage problems. They have spoken with brethren about the problem. The husband abuses the wife. She calls the police. She gets a restraining order to protect herself.

Question 1: Should she have gone through the Matthew 18:15-18 process?

Question 2: Was she violating 1 Corinthians 6:1 or was she appealing to Civil Government as Paul did in Acts 22:25?

Question 3: When would it be proper for two brethren to appeal to Civil Government as it is ordained of God in Romans 13?

Question 4: How do you determine whether a matter is for the Church to decide or the civil government to decide? If Civil law is broken (wife beating) is that a civil matter?

If a husband and wife cannot work out their differences, should 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 apply? If I understand this passage, it allows for divorce but not remarriage as fornication is not involved.”

Response:

In this response, the description of the situation by the querist should be kept in mind.

Question 1: If a brother sins against another brother, then the second brother is to speak to him between the two alone in order to seek to remediate the situation. If he does not hear in the sense of being responsive to correct the relationship then the second brother is to contact one or two more brethren to accompany him to discuss the issue with the sinning brother. Given the situation in which the sinning brother still does not yield to these exhortations, then the brother wronged is to present the matter to the church or assembly. Failing to effect a change by all these efforts, the sinner is to be as a gentile and the tax-collector. So is the teaching of Matthew 18:15-17.

A wife being abused by a husband who is a brother in the Lord should certainly seek to follow the Lord’s instruction in Matthew 18:15-17. Brethren, directed by the Lord, are certainly more qualified to point out the Lord’s way to each party. The principles and instruction of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 demonstrate when this course of action is appropriate. It is entirely possible, however, that one may not respond to God’s plan for resolving the problem.

Civil government is authorized by God for this purpose: to punish the evil-doer and to praise them that do well (Rom. 13:3-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). Accordingly, Christians have the obligation to pay taxes in order that the civil ruler may attend to the work God ordained that he should do (Rom. 13:1-2,5-7). A Christian whose husband abuses her and refuses to hear the brethren in the matter of amending his ways would properly appeal to the civil government for punishment of the evil doer under civil law. She is to be protected or praised for her well doing. Therefore, civil government should fulfill its God-ordained role as set forth above.

A Christian calling on civil government in this instance is not in violation of Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 6 because she followed the proper course, as set forth in the preceding response, in seeking to bring about an amendment in the abusive husband’s conduct. Civil government’s ordained role is not antithetical to the kingdom of God. Its role, however, may be corrupted to put it in opposition to right and good.

Question 2: Paul’s appeal to his status as a Roman citizen in Acts 16:37 and 22:25 is not parallel to the situation described concerning which this question is directed. He was not abused by a brother. He did call on civil government to perform its God-ordained role. As a Roman citizen he had certain rights under Roman law, which law was consistent with the law of Christ. He appealed for the application of those rights to his situation.

If the abused spouse followed Matthew 18:15-17, prior to calling on civil government, she did not violate 1 Corinthians 6:1. She sought to effect a resolution through brethren rather than going before civil law. However, as a citizen she has certain rights that can only be enforced by the properly God-ordained agent. The abusive husband as described above refused to yield to brethren. The matter then passes to the realm of civil government.

Question 3: When brethren follow 1 Corinthians 6:1ff and in the particular case (personal sin against one) as set forth in Matthew 18:15-17, and a civil issue is involved, i.e. violation of a specific law, brethren can appeal to civil government. Let us look at this situation: A Christian’s spouse commits adultery and every effort is made by the other spouse and brethren brought into the matter but with a failure of the sinner to repent, the innocent spouse seeks to put the offending spouse away. In this case, appeal would be made to civil government for a legal divorce. In this instance, a Christian could appeal to civil government. The remedy sought conforms to the law of God as articulated by Jesus.

In the case of a dispute over a contract issue between brethren, and there is no resolution between them and among other brethren, then the dispute could be submitted to civil government. Contract law is rather minutely detailed by most well developed societies.

If an issue has been resolved by brethren between and among themselves there may be needed a legal declaration on the matter. In this event, brethren could go to civil government for the needed declaration. Government operating as God decreed is not antithetical to righteousness.

Question 4: The nature of the issue must be clearly defined and Scripture dealing with it would have to be applied. The Scripture’s context, language, and corroborative passages, if any, would need to be assessed for applicability. If through persuasive appeals from the gospel made to the wrong doer are devoid of the desired end, and if a specific, civil right is involved to which the Christian is entitled by both God and civil law, then an appeal can be made to civil government.

Crucial to this determination are a correct analysis of the issue at concern and a correct understanding and application of Scripture to it. There are instances when a brother, through a correct application of 1 Corinthians 6, would take wrong and even be defrauded (1 Cor. 6:7). Some brethren might use civil government to seek to defraud another brother (1 Cor. 6:8). In this instance appeal to civil government is prohibited.

There is yet another question posed by the querist in his final paragraph. The question centers on 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as applied to the situation described by the querist.

The instruction given in the passage is for a Christian who is a wife not to depart from her husband and likewise the same instruction is given to a husband not to depart from his wife. If one’s companion does depart, no adultery being present, then they are to remain unmarried. In the event a Christian is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever departs, then the believer has no obligation or bondage to provide for the one who departed.

It is obvious from this passage that it is possible for a spouse to live apart, remaining unmarried, in irreconcilable conditions. The principle is clearly enunciated.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 41-42
January 16, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

It has been suggested that before an issue or doctrine is sufficient to disrupt fellowship among brethren that three criteria must be considered. First, is the issue clear? Is it generally understood and acknowledged as truth? If so, it may be used to “draw a line of fellowship.” If not, then the issue should be left for each person to decipher without a break in fellowship. Second, are the advocates of the doctrine honest and sincere? If they are, they are to be received. Third, is the teaching serious enough to warrant a break in fellowship? Is it an important issue? If it is, fellowship becomes a problem. If it is a harmless or insignificant topic, fellowship should not be broken.

Before anyone “falls out” with me over this article, must they be sure that the issue is clear and easily understood? Must they determine whether or not I am sincere in answering the views stated above? Must they decide that this particular issue (subjective grounds for determining fellowship) is grave enough to cause their anxiety over it? It is strange that some may resent this article and reject me for it, but if one teaches error on the marriage question, error that may lead and leave some in a state of adultery, that person is accepted and defended while I am rejected and criticized for writing about it!

Clarity

Just who is to decide whether or not an issue is clearly taught in the Bible? If clarity is necessary to determine fellowship, what board, what panel, what group is to decide this for us? We have been accused of being “creed makers,” of setting human guidelines for fellowship, but this is creed making with a vengeance! Again, who will provide us with a list of items that are unclear and “murky,” and that cannot, therefore, be made a “test of fellowship”? Who will list specific doctrines that are clear enough to rupture fellowship?

Evidently, teaching about the second coming of Christ was “hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). It was “hard,” but it as not impossible. The Thessalonians were troubled over matters relating to “the day of Christ,” even though Paul had “told” them “these things” before (2 Thess. 2:5). The Corinthians had problems with the resurrection and things that would transpire “at his coming” (1 Cor. 15). Hence, doctrinal matters relative to the resurrection and the Lord’s coming again were not entirely clear to some.

Shall we conclude, therefore, that doctrine concerning the second coming of Christ cannot affect fellowship with brethren? If clarity is the key, then events surrounding the Lord’s return cannot cause us to mark and avoid them that teach falsely about it. However, Paul did that very thing regarding Hymanaeus and Philetus, “who concerning the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Peter, after saying that such questions were difficult to understand, immediately warned that those who were unlearned and unstable would wrest or twist such things, “as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your stedfastness” (2 Pet. 3:16,17). Hence, despite the apparent lack of clarity of understanding, they were held responsible and accountable and were in danger of destruction.

We dare not accept “the error of the wicked,” even though the teaching may be “hard to be understood.” There is difficulty regarding the sovereignty of God and the free will of man, but one dare not extend “the right hand of fellowship” to a Primitive Baptist on account of it. There is a lack of clarity on nearly everything to some people. Men debate and discuss topics as diverse as Shiloh and psallo, but the judgment that decrees a lack of clarity on them and advocates fellowship as a result of that lack is false.

Honesty

Assuredly, teachers of the truth must be honest (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2). Who shall determine which men are honest and which are dishonest? Oral Roberts, the noted “faith healer,” is regarded by some as an honest, sincere man. Suppose he is. Shall we “fellowship” him because he is honest? On the other hand, “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife . . . not sincerely . . . in pretence” (Phil. 1:15,16,18). With Paul, we may rejoice “that Christ is preached,” but shall we have fellowship with the works of the flesh and the men that are motivated by them?

Just how honest and sincere were Hymanaeus and Philetus? If we assume and presume their personal integrity, does that free us to ignore Paul’s command to shun their “profane and vain babblings” (2 Tim. 2:16-19)? No matter how conscientious, prayerful, pious and devout these men were, the consequences of their doctrine overthrew “the faith of some.” The issue was not, “Are Hymanaeus and Philetus men of unimpeachable character?” “Concerning the truth,” Paul said, they “have erred,” and no amount of respect, regret, love or brotherly kindness could change that harsh reality.

Despite the fact that the resurrection is fraught with difficulty and despite the fact that Hymanaeus and Philetus may have been men of staunch faith, sterling quality and stirring ability, their teaching was to be shunned (cf. Rom. 16:17). “Cry aloud, and spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sin” (Isa. 58:1). “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Be not deceived. One’s zeal, honesty and earnestness can neither save him nor them that hear him when he errs “from the truth” (Jas. 5:19,20; Matt. 7:21-23; 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:6,16).

Gravity

Some say that before we split and splinter over an issue or doctrine that we must determine its relative importance or gravity. Fine, but who shall decide which teachings are major and which are minor? Who is it that will list doctrines that are too frivolous to fracture fellowship and those that are so serious that they sunder it? Before someone signs up to provide us such a definitive delineation of doctrine, let him hear this, “but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” (Jas. 4:11).

(1) To some folks, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord is the important thing, so they will not be bothered with arguing over whether or not it is to be limited to the first day of the week. How do they decide this? Well, eating the Lord’s supper is important, but when you eat it is not! (2) To some people, singing and making melody in your heart is the main thing, but whether or not a piano, guitar or organ accompanies it is of no consequence. How do they decide this? Simple! Singing is important, but playing is not! (3) Many believe that baptism is vital, essential, and necessary to please God, but how it is done, whether by sprinkling, pouring or immersion, is inconsequential. How do they decide this? That is easy! Baptism is important, but how you go about it is not! (4) Relieving the needy is important, but whether the church chooses to do the work itself or send a donation to a benevolent society is not worth “fussing over.” How do they decide this? No problem! Doing the work is the thing that really matters. “How” we go about it is none of your business!

Before we decide that certain aspects of God’s will are not significant enough to warrant our concern, perhaps we should note a few of God’s ways and thoughts (Isa. 55:8,9). Since his ways are not our ways, and since “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death,” and since “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23), it behooves us to consider that “which the Holy Spirit teacheth.”

First, if you had a garden and had a gardener to tend it, how important would it be if the gardener merely ate of the one and only fruit that you had forbidden him to eat? If he tended it as he was supposed to do, how “big of a deal” would it be if he just ate of one tree? It is not like he painted obscenities about you or chopped down several prize trees. Would you really fire a gardener who ate the fruit of one tree? See Genesis 3.

Second, Nadab and Abihu were not burning incense unto a heathen diety (Lev. 10:1,2). They did not neglect to burn incense. They did not curse God and complain about having to burn incense. So far as we know, their “heart was in the right place.” So what if they “offered strange (foreign) fire . . . which he commanded them not”? After all, fire is fire. Whether you obtain it from the coals of the altar or from a farmer’s match, it is still fire, and you are doing what God said do; namely, burn incense. How much “gravity” should we attach to the source of the first we use to do what God said do? See Leviticus 10: 1,2; 1 Corinthians 10:1-14.

Third, we know all about the ark of the covenant. It was not to be touched; it was to be carried by the Levites in a certain way (Deut. 10:8; Exod. 25:14; Num. 4:15; 1 Chron. 15:2). When Uzzah touched it, God “smote him. . . And David was displeased” (1 Chron. 13: 10,11). Note these extentuating circumstances. (A) It was not a matter of transporting the ark. God had not said that it could not be moved. So, they were doing a thing which God allowed. They were just moving it in a way that God had not authorized (Num. 25:14,15; 1 Chron. 13:7). “I mean, what’s the big deal? It could be moved, and they were moving it. It doesn’t matter how you do it.” Oh, really (1 Chron. 15:13)? (b) When Uzzah touched the ark, he thought he was doing a “good work.” The ark was about to fall because the oxen stumbled, so Uzzah tried to steady it. It is not like he was sneaking around at night and saying to himself, “I know the ark is not to be touched, but I think I will just touch it with the tip of my finger and see what it feels like.” No, Uzzah’s intentions were good, and he was, no doubt, a very honest and devout man, but “he died before God.” (C) Suppose Uzzah had refused to hold the ark when it shook and suppose it had fallen and been scratched and dented. In other words, the end justifies the means. Imagine how Uzzah may have been reproached by his brethren if he had let the ark fall when he could have prevented it! “Uzzah, what’s wrong with you? Surely, the Lord would not have condemned you for trying to save the ark? Sometimes you have to let some things take precedence over other things that are not so important.”

Fourth, a “man of God” prophesied as God had directed him to do (1 Kgs. 13). The prophet was not to eat or drink, neither was he to return the same way he came. However, because he believed a lie, he ate and drank. Because he “was disobedient unto the word of the Lord,” he was killed by a lion. Now, who would argue that eating and drinking or the route you take is as important as preaching the truth? The prophet showed great courage to go into enemy territory and deliver an unpopular, negative, condemnatory message. He did his duty and manifested great faith and a willingness to sacrifice his life, if need be, to preach the truth. Who among us would say that he should die because he did eat and drink? After all, he believed a lie. He thought he was doing the right thing. How important are those things? See 1 Kings 13.

Fifth, even such a matter as eating meat, which I have the right to eat, may result in my sinning against my brother, wounding his weak conscience and in sinning “against Christ” (1 Cor. 8). On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the gravity level of eating meat as compared to idolatry itself? Perhaps from my view, there is no comparison, but my opinion as to the relative seriousness of each issue does not mean that I may dismiss either with impunity (cf. Matt. 23:23).

Conclusion

There are subtle, subjective grounds for determining fellowship that will, if followed to their logical conclusions, lead men into compromise at best and error at worst. As the case of Barnabas shows, one who is “carried away,” however innocently, stands “condemned” (Gal. 2:11-14). Hence, my fellowship with error does affect my position and condition before God (Col. 2:8).

If God “tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions,” as some have affirmed, does this toleration include instruments of music in worship, Thursday night communion, sprinkling for baptism, institutionalism, sponsoring church arrangements, church sponsored recreation, and those unscripturally divorced and remarried? If so, we had better cease opposition to such things, lest we be found to bind where God has not bound. Are we to weigh and evaluate each subject by its clarity, by the honesty of its proponents and by the gravity of its consequences? If so, who is sufficient to determine such things? How do we know they are qualified? Who shall appoint them? If the premises are accepted, these queries demand an answer.

If subjective grounds for fellowship are followed, several things are inevitable. (1) Doctrinal and moral evil of every kind will be unopposed, unchecked, unrestrained. As a result, men will live and die in sin and go to the judgment to face God. (2) The pattern for the work, worship and organization of the church of the Lord will perish from the hearts of men. (3) Every man will become a law unto himself. (4) Human creeds and confessions and centers of human authority, which are demanded by the philosophy we are reviewing, will abound yet more and more. (5) Sects, divisions, and parties built around men will be multiplied. History, both sacred and secular, testifies to the truth of these consequences (Col. 2; Jas. 3).

What alternative do we have? Be obedient to God’s law, not a judge of it (Jas. 1:25; 2:12; 4:11,12). If you know God, if you love God, you will keep his commandments and not seek to avoid them (1 Jn. 2:3-5). The man that hears God is the man that hears the apostolic word. In this manner, in this way, we know the teacher of truth and the teacher of error (1 Jn. 4:1,6). Take heed unto yourself and unto the doctrine; hold fast the form of sound words (1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:13). Repudiate that which is contrary to sound doctrine, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3-5). “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). “Be thou faithful unto death” (Rev. 2:10).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 33-35
January 2, 1992