Truth Magazine

By Bobby Witherington

There are many vital questions concerning which various members of the church are in strong disagreement. In fact, some would even take issue with the first sentence of this article which mentions “members of the church. ” You see, they would have us believe that “church” is wrongly translated, that Jesus therefore did not build, establish, or purchase “the church.” Consequently, armed with money supplied by various members of the church, some are seeking to destroy and to deny the rightful existence of the very hand that has fed them for most of their adult lives!

Others, however, are much more tolerant and “loving”(?). They do not oppose the rightful existence of “the church,” but they have imbibed the ecumenical spirit. They appear ready to extend “the right hand of fellowship” to virtually any morally upright person who has been baptized for the remission of sins – regardless of what that person believes and teaches on a broad range of issues, such as: the work of the church, instrumental music in worship, premillennialism, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, etc. And some are even more ecumenical than this -claiming to be in fellowship with all (regardless of denominational affiliation) “who love and trust Jesus as Savior” (paging Edward Fudge). In fact, Leroy Garrett says that churches of Christ, in order “to be saved,” must have their “own Vatican II,” patterned after the spirit of Catholicism’s ecumenical council of 1965 when “it went on record as acknowledging all other Christians as true brothers and sisters in Christ” (Restoration Review, May 1991). Apparently, according to brother Garrett, we, too, in the same way and for the same reasons, must reach out to those in the Denominations around us, regarding them as “Christians as our equals,” and that we should do this “beginning right now.” Moreover, this is something which churches of Christ “must do” in order “to be saved!”

Yes, the winds of change (and of compromise) are blowing. In some quarters these “winds” have assumed the destructive force of a major hurricane. Of course, the force of these “winds” varies from place to place, and from group to group. But regardless of the varying intensity of these “winds,” it seems that brethren who love the truth, and who cannot conscientiously bid “God speed” to those who abide “not in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9-11) increasingly are being criticized, ostracized, and vilified. Meanwhile their broad-minded, tolerant, compromising counterparts are idolized, immortalized and canonized.

In self-justification for their compromising spirit, many now say that “everyone practices unity in diversity.” “Unity in diversity” is a loaded phrase. If one disagrees with its connotation he is likely to receive a lesson on Romans 14. Admittedly, in this chapter Paul mentioned various items concerning which some then disagreed. However, notwithstanding their differences, they were told to “receive” one another (v. 1); they were admonished not to “set at naught” their brethren (v. 10), nor to “judge one another any more” (v. 13). Furthermore, they were urged to “follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (v. 19). Hence, in view of the fact that this chapter mentions a diversity of beliefs which different ones held, but which were not to interfere with their being “like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (Rom. 15:5), then, Presto! we must all practice “unity in diversity.”

It is not that we are opposed to the brand of “unity in diversity” which is taught in Romans 14. However, what is often overlooked is that Romans 14 deals with matters which do not inherently affect one’s relationship with God. For example, the fact that one person can conscientiously eat meat does not make that individual more acceptable to God than another whose conscience will not allow him to thus eat. In matters of indifference, but concerning which we disagree, what really counts is our attitude – our attitude toward truth and toward one another. There are some areas of disagreement wherein every man must “be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5), and which should not become issues which alienate and separate.

In view of the fact that Romans 14 is more thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this issue, I will only make one more observation about this chapter. The observation is this: There are some matters which belong outside the realm of Romans 14 – matters about which the Bible is very explicit, which pertain to both the preaching and practice of error, and which (if pursued) will damn one’s immortal soul to an eternal hell! Fornication and adultery belong in this category (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:2-6; etc.). Generally speaking, brethren (and many denominationalists), historically speaking, have recognized this fundamental fact. However, as ancient Israel in Canaan was gradually, and environmentally conditioned to accept the idolatry and immorality of the Canaanites, many of our brethren are being similarly conditioned to accept the ways of the world. This is especially true in such matters as divorce, fornication, and adultery. By its very nature, this is an emotionally charged issue. Almost every congregation is affected in some way. Few families have escaped unscathed by the tragedy of divorce. All of us have friends who have been affected. People we love, people we have tried to convert, are living in adultery! The temptation to play the part of a lawyer (“looking for a loophole”) is enormous!

Consequently (and not surprisingly) various able men have made numerous ingenious arguments which are designed to justify people who are living in sin. At present, these arguments often pertain to marriage and divorce. But if present immoral trends continue, we will ultimately be amazed to hear similar ingenious arguments designed to justify abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, gambling, and bigamy! Some preachers will preach almost anything – that is, anything except repentance and what it entails!

This article is not intended to analyze the various positions espoused, and arguments made – arguments which are designed to justify a person being married to his second, third (ad. inf.) wife, though his first wife is yet alive, and from whom he was divorced for some cause other than fornication (cf. Matt. 19:9). Some teach that the guilty fornicator has the same right to remarriage as the innocent spouse. Others say the alien is not amenable to God’s law, thereby justifying any number of divorces and subsequent remarriages prior to baptism. A few have redefined “adultery” to make it a non-sexual act! The point is, many theories are being advanced; the arguments differ, but invariably the conclusion is the same – regardless of the cause, a divorced person can remarry with God’s approval!

Fortunately, many preachers still oppose these modern theories of convenience. If they are queried concerning what the Bible actually teaches, they give correct answers. However, some of these same brethren, when questioned about others who teach error, are not so forthright. They will brand their doctrine as false, while arguing that the teachers of false doctrine are not to be branded as false teachers! Especially if the teacher has a good attitude, and agrees with us on the work of the church! Frequently, under pressure, brethren who try to justify their fellowship of these false teachers will exclaim “but everyone practices unity in diversity.” Hence, in essence, they are saying that a preacher who justifies adulterous marriages is to be regarded in the same light as one who justifies the eating of pork!

But what should we do about those who practice the errors others are preaching? For example, those who practice the errors others preach with regards to marriage, divorce, and remarriage are living in adultery! (cf. Matt. 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Col. 3:5-7) These people, if they are brethren, are to be withdrawn from (1 Cor. 5:5-10). So long as they remain in their sin they are out of fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6,7), and therefore out of fellowship with those who are in fellowship with God (Eph. 5:11). My question is this: if Scripture compels us to withdraw from those who practice the errors which others preach, then how in the name of common sense can we regard the preacher of these errors as anything less than a false teacher? You may call it “an implement used for digging in the ground, ditching, cutting turf, etc., an instrument heavier than a shovel and having a flatter blade,” but where I came from a spade is a spade! By the same token, you may call him “a friend,” “a beloved brother,” “a learned man,” “kind,” “a person of great intellect,” etc., but when all glowing epithets are used up, a false teacher is still a false teacher!

Yes, we must love one another. Yes, we must love those who are caught in the web of sin. Our hearts must agonize for those who have learned by bitter experience that “the way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15). And, yes, we must love those preachers who are preaching error. No good purpose is served when we impugn motives, misrepresent, and verbally lash out at those with whom we disagree. However, love does not ignore sin, nor does love seek to justify those preachers whose preaching tends to justify those sins which will cause souls to be lost. We must learn to regard immortal souls of greater value than temporal friendships. And in our attempt to practice unity in diversity, let us make sure that the unity practiced does not involve the condonance of divers sins and divers errors which tend to put one in a state of perversity before God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 21-22
January 2, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

There is much division in the church. Why is this? And what can be done about it? Some persons may, perchance, question our wisdom in writing an editorial in which these difficult issues are brought out and set forth plainly. They may think it better to suppress, as far as can be, the knowledge of these things. But I do not sympathize with any such timid policy. Ministers of the gospel must count it their duty to look difficulties and objections squarely in the face. The truth is to be held in love, and it is to be presented in love. We must not be merely negative or critical, nor must our only concern be to win an argument. We must always contend for the truth in the right spirit. That spirit is, that in all that we do, his honor and glory is paramount.

Among our people, there are two extreme positions. The first is that some draw the bounds of fellowship too narrow while others leave them too broad. Both of these positions are wrong. We must let the Bible set the limits of fellowship. This is not always easy to do, but we must simply strive diligently. There are some in the religious world who believe there are no restrictions at all placed upon church fellowship. But what saith the Scriptures? “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11).

This passage makes it plain that there are limitations on love and limitations upon fellowship. We simply cannot invite heretics into our churches. We simply cannot fellowship with those who would deny the Deity of Christ or those who would deny his humanity. We cannot fellowship with persons who would deny his atoning work on the cross and his resurrection. All doctrine and all Bible verses are important and essential in one sense of the word. I do not believe anything in the Bible is unimportant. What I do believe, however, is that there are some things that are non-essential as far as fellowship is concerned. There are surely some things that we may disagree upon and yet have fellowship with one another. The question is: Where do we draw the line?

All of our people agree that we cannot fellowship with those who deny the doctrine of Christ. There can be no fellowship with those who deny the reality of heaven and hell. There can be no fellowship with those who do not practice a Bible morality and a Bible discipline. It is at this latter point where most of our trouble rests. It can hardly be denied that ideally the churches of Christ should be one. However, no less clear is the fact that the basic cause of division within the churches, namely sin, is operating as powerfully today as it was in the past and that beyond all reasonable doubt it will continue to operate as powerfully in time to come. This is an exceedingly hard fact which must be faced with utmost realism. Fully aware that we will not reach the goal of sinless perfection in this life, we must yet press on with all our might toward that very mark.

Those churches involved in division should be willing to bring the doctrinal issues out in the open. There needs to be more open debate on issues. The truth has nothing to hide. Only those who would desire to fellowship things that they ought not, and those who would declare non-fellowship where it should not be declared, have anything to fear.

To divide the churches on what, according to the word of God is an “indifferent” matter; that is to say, a practice which God has neither condemned nor commanded, is wrong. Riding a theological hobby is by no means an innocent past time.

Brethren, we must all surely know that there is too much division among us. I know personally that many of our people are disturbed about it, but they don’t know what to do about it. Ignorance is one of our biggest problems. Brethren, we dare not bury our heads in the sand in this regard. There are many of our preachers who do not use enough Scripture during a sermon to fill a thimble. The reason some of our brethren know so little is because they have been taught so little. Furthermore, some of the teaching that is done, is done in such a disorderly way that it is a wonder anybody learns anything at all from it.

Many of our preachers have failed to take the admonition of 1 Timothy 4:14-16. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” The answer to this problem is not to try to ordain only those preachers who have been to college, but for preachers to, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). A formal college education is not a Bible qualification to preach the gospel. I will stand opposed to any who try to make it such.

What a colossal task a preacher has: He must teach the word of God, not only to those who are within the church, but also to those who are without, in order that they may be brought in. He must teach the word, not only publicly in the pulpit, but also privately in the home (Acts 20:20). He must teach the word, not just in the abstract, but by way of practical application to concrete situations, and he must apply the Bible not merely to personal difficulties but also to community problems. He must preach the word both constructively and controversially. He must set forth the truth positively, to be sure, but also contrast it with error. He must declare “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It goes without saying that he cannot possibly do all this without being a diligent student of the Scriptures.

Part of what ministers must teach churches is about the basis of fellowship. They must teach the people about Unity and Division. They must teach the people as to where we may differ and still fellowship. If the people aren’t taught, they will not know how to act.

There is a double standard employed among some of our people which is deplorable. For example: Here we have a certain church that some think is disorderly. Yet, they will allow certain “big” preachers to visit that church and preach for them. Then a ” smaller” preacher goes there, or one they don’t like, and they call him on the carpet for his visit. Brethren, how can this be justified? I know for a fact that some of these so-called “big” preachers never say anything about the problems interfering with fellowship while visiting a church like this.

The two times I went to Bethel church in Nashville, I stayed up late in the night talking to Vern Jackson, the preacher, about the Masonry that they had in the church and also about the adultery issue. Brother Jackson told me that he believed in taking Masons into the church and then to try to preach it out. I told him that this did not make good nonsense and that I doubted that he ever made a strong attempt to preach it out.

In spite of Jackson’s errors, I thought he was a good man, and had I been able to talk with him a good deal more, I might have been able to help him. But just as soon as brother Jackson died and the church got a man in that the brethren in the area would accept, some of them started going to Bethel. But nothing had changed as far as Masonry or the adultery was concerned. This is more politics than anything else, and it smells.

We have some division among us that is caused by nothing more than jealousy among preachers. Preachers who do not make an effort to tear down these kind of bars are not doing their duty. It takes courage to do it, and we must try. Study 1 Corinthians chapter three.

In closing, may I say to you that the only place I know of in this world where there is perfect peace is in the cemetery. No one is fighting there. But they are all dead. The only kind of tree that will split is a live tree. A dead tree will not split. The Bible says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psa. 133:1)!

Important Note to All Readers of This Article:

Though my name is under the title of the article above, I did not write it. It was written by Elder Eddie K. Garrett, a Primitive Baptist preacher. It appeared in his paper, The Hardshell Baptist, August, 1990. It has been slightly modified and adapted. I thought you might be interested to learn of some of the problems that Primitive Baptists are having in their churches over fellowship and false doctrine. Of course, any similarity to issues among brethren in churches of Christ is purely coincidental. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 39-40
January 16, 1992

By Harry Osborne

2 John 9-11

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. lf anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

Romans 14:1-3

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak cats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

The will of Christ as delivered through the apostles is intended to serve as a pattern for all people to follow. That fact is clearly seen in Paul’s second epistle to Timothy. He instructed the evangelist, “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). A little later, Paul emphasized that point with these words:

But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-17).

Were the words of the apostle intended only for Timothy to use as a pattern? No, for Paul also says, “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). What is said of this inspired writing equally holds true for the word of God as a whole. It defines the pattern for our actions in every matter of spiritual concern. Thus, God’s revealed will through the apostles was given so that all men can understand exactly what the Lord expects of us and then act accordingly. This we can and must do (Eph. 3:1-7; 5:17).

Not only does God’s word provide us with a positive pattern showing us what we ought to do, but it also instructs regarding the pattern for corrective measures to be taken when people have violated that will. This is made obvious as the apostle continues on to command,

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the

hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:14-18).

How are we to know the difference between the words about which we are “not to strive” and those we must “shun” along with the teacher? Is it by the honesty of the teacher? No, the honesty and motives of the teacher are not even addressed by Paul. Is it by the clarity of the doctrine in Scripture? No, as we have already noted, God says that all of his will is sufficiently clear for us to understand. What is the basis according to the pattern given by the apostle? The inspired writer defines the dividing line when we must “shun” the teaching and that teacher by noting their effect in these phrases:

(1) “. . . for they will increase to more ungodliness.”

(2) ” . . . their message will spread like cancer.”

(3) ” . . . who have strayed concerning the truth. . .”

(4) “. . . they overthrow the faith of some.”

When any teaching and teacher have that effect upon the souls of men, that teaching and teacher must be shunned as God commands! Failure to heed this instruction will put in jeopardy the eternal destiny of those who may hear the error and be persuaded by it.

The Pattern of 2 John 9-11

The apostle John verified the pattern shown above by Paul. He instructs the reader “do not receive him” who has these qualities:

(1) “. . . transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ. . . “

(2) “. . . does not bring this doctrine (i.e. doctrine of Christ). . “

(3) “. . . evil deeds.

To “receive” such an one, we would be guilty of sharing and aiding in the erroneous doctrine and the evil of the teacher. Again, nothing is said by the inspired writer about the honesty of the teacher of error or the clarity of the doctrine under consideration. If one teaches that which transgresses the doctrine of Christ with entirely pure motives, the teaching will still lead people to leave fellowship with God and participate in sin. Thus, it must be opposed by all who love the truth of God and the souls of men. Furthermore, John viewed the truth as that which we can know and practice (2 Jn. 6). Therefore, when it comes to error which transgresses the doctrine of Christ and the one who teaches that error, the inspired apostle tells us that we should “not receive” the teaching or the teacher. The pattern taught by inspiration is too plain to miss! Those who seek to accommodate the teaching or teacher of error which will destroy men’s souls need to heed that pattern.

The Pattern of Romans 14

Romans 14 says that we should “receive” one with whom we differ and instructs us about continuing in that fellowship. Does this chapter define an exception to the pattern for dealing with some doctrinal errors and sinful practices as well as the teachers who would justify such? If so, the chapter must clearly show the nature and extent of that exception to the pattern. If such clear evidence is not present, we must see that the chapter is setting forth an entirely different pattern – one not dealing with the teaching and teacher of error, but a difference of another type.

The problem in this chapter was caused by some “weak” brethren who wanted all Christians to observe certain dietary restrictions and days. These brethren are addressed in the first thirteen verses. Paul addresses himself to the other brethren who did not share these “scruples” or “opinions” in the latter half of the chapter. Throughout the chapter, the apostle makes it clear that he is not dealing with matters of sin and error, but matters of indifference. A matter of indifference is not right or wrong in and of itself. It is a practice which God allows, but does not require. In this type of difference, brethren may differ in their thinking and practice without any sin being involved. As Paul expressed the nature of this type of difference elsewhere, “Butfood does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse” (1 Cor. 8:8).

In speaking to brethren who had the scruples, Paul’s main point is for these brethren not to “judge” or condemn those who thought and practiced differently regarding their scruples. He gives the rationale for this admonition by saying, “let not him who does not eatjudge him who eats; for God has received him” (14:3b). After saying that God had received the one who eats, the apostle adds, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (14:4). He goes on to show that both parties acted “to the Lord” and were “the Lord’s” (14:6-8). Paul said the determining factor about how one is to act in this type of matter is, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (14:5b). Whether or not one was fully convinced in his own mind that he could practice some sin would make no difference. His conviction would only make a difference in whether or not he should practice it if the practice itself involved no sin. That is the pattern discussed here!

In speaking to those who did not share such scruples, Paul commands that they not use their liberty in such a way as to cause those with such scruples to stumble. In the midst of so exhorting this group, the apostle repeatedly reaffirms the indifferent nature of the practices under consideration. He starts by saying, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14). He again affirms that conscience is the determining factor by stating, “All things indeed are pure, but it is evilfor the man who eats with offense” (14:20b).

The text leaves no doubt about the type of difference being considered. This chapter is a pattern for how brethren are to act regarding indifferent matters wherein our thoughts and practices vary. We must come to understand that the basis for our divergent conclusions is a difference of conscience, not doctrine. Though some may think it to be a doctrinal difference (as in Romans 14), the matters under discussion are still indifferent to God.

Conclusion

We often have to show our sectarian friends the difference between the pattern for the pardon of an alien sinner and that of the baptized believer. When our sectarian friends fail to make that distinction, they seek to justify the alien 1 9 praying through” for forgiveness rather than realizing the need for water baptism. One must understand that two patterns exist for pardon – one for the alien and one for the Christian. Once that is seen, the passages dealing with each pattern can be easily fitted into their proper places and the harmony of God’s teaching can be seen.

The same thing is true regarding the two patterns for dealing with differences declared in 2 John 9-11 and Romans 14. Failure to recognize the two as separate patterns dealing with separate types of differences will lead to as much trouble as the failure to see God’s two patterns for pardon. We cannot switch the provisions or applications of the patterns determined by God. If we “do not receive” one because we differ over a matter of indifference to God, he will hold us accountable in judgment. If we “receive” one teaching or practicing error as defined in the doctrine of Christ, God will again hold us accountable in judgment. Each of us will answer to God about our respect for both patterns. Eternity lies in the balance.

In our time, some brethren are switching those patterns when it comes to dealing with Christ’s doctrine regarding divorce and remarriage. Brethren, let us again go back to the Bible and read what Jesus says about the definition and effect of unlawful divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mk. 10:2-12; 1 Cor. 7:10-11). Those whose practice violates that doctrine of Christ are guilty of adultery, whether intentional or not. Is adultery a matter of indifference to God? Obviously not! Those who justify such unlawful divorce and remarriage are guilty of aiding the continued practice of adultery, regardless of their motives. Is that an indifferent matter to God. Obviously not! It is past time for brethren to start having more concern about action that attempts to save souls lost in the practice and justifying of adultery rather than displays of our emotions over mere men! Let us regain our respect for God’s word and “hold fast the pattern of sound words.” If we do not, souls will be lost as we blur the line and exchange the patterns. May God help us to love eternal souls more than temporal friendships.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 23-25
January 2, 1992

By Ron Halbrook

Romans 14:1-15:7 teaches there is a realm of individual conscience, personal opinion, liberty, and expediency. This context opens and closes with an emphasis upon mutual acceptance and forbearance in this realm:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

Within this realm, “there is nothing unclean of itself, ” but “all things indeed are pure” (vv. 14,20). The weak brother feels conscience bound to do something (such as setting aside a certain day for special devotion to the Lord), or to not do something (such as eat meat). No sin is involved in doing or not doing such things, so far as God and truth are concerned, but each person is to keep a clear conscience in such matters.

Neither the strong nor the weak is to consider such matters as equivalent to the gospel of Christ or essential to the kingdom of God. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (v. 17). So long as both brethren abide within this righteousness, peace, and joy, they are to receive one another. They are to worship together, and do everything possible to strengthen, encourage, and edify one another (14:19; 15:5-6). As to the matters at hand, “let every brother be fully persuaded in his own mind” and avoid judging brethren who have a different practice, content to let each one “give account of himself to God” (vv. 5,12). Romans 14 challenges the weak brother not to press his conscience upon others, and challenges the strong brother not to cause the weak to sin against his own conscience. Thus, unity is preserved and souls are saved.(1)

Two approaches have appeared which abuse Romans 14-15 to accommodate false doctrine. The first approach recognizes the scriptural limit of this passage to matters of individual conscience and liberty, but considers certain matters of direct revelation to be merely matters of liberty. Thus, adulterous marriages, abortion on demand, and other immoral acts may be declared liberties and tolerated by appealing to Romans 14. The second approach claims that the passage was never intended to be limited to matters of personal opinion but is designed to accommodate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions. By utilizing one of these two approaches, every false doctrine to appear in the last 200 years has appealed to Romans 14-15 to pave the way for compromise and to open doors for fellowship.

Catholic creeds and denominational doctrines codify unrevealed opinions and human inferences not required by the text of Scripture. Some of these opinions and inferences are harmless as purely individual possessions (such as eating no fish on Friday, or being a vegetarian every day), while others are vicious and immoral in nature (such as refusing to help destitute parents on the basis that a person’s money has been promised to the Lord). When unrevealed opinions and human inferences are codified and commanded, they are doubly dangerous, being sinful additions to God’s Word and driving wedges of division among God’s people (Matt. 15:1-9; Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Two Keys to Restoration Efforts

In the early 1800s anxious souls were seeking “the old paths” in order to escape the doctrines and divisions created by men (Jer. 6:16). In the providence of God, two key points were discovered, carefully examined, and then courageously proclaimed. The first key was to recognize the Bible as the only standard of authority in religion. Men must go directly to the text of Scripture, test all things by that standard, preach and practice only what the Bible teaches, and not go beyond the things which are written. A study of such passages as 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Peter 4:11, 1 Corinthians 1:10 and 4:6, Galatians 1: 8-9, and Revelation 22:18-19 led Thomas Campbell to resolve, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” “It was from the moment when these significant words were uttered and accepted” in the summer of 1809 that a great restoration effort formally began. The restoration plea came “into direct antagonism with the entire religious world” by insisting that “it was not merely necessary to take Divine revelation as a guide, but equally so to prohibit the addition and admixture of human opinions.”(2) Silence, the absence of divine authority, prohibits.

The second key was to recognize a realm of liberty in matters of expediency and personal conscience where no sin is involved. Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address of 1809 emphasizes “Union in Truth” on the basis of a “Thus saith the Lord” repeatedly, but the realm of liberty in conscience is also clarified at length, often with references to Romans 14-15.(3)The exclusion of human creeds and commandments does not preclude the use of “expedients” and “circumstantials . . . necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances,” nor the use of literature designed simply “for the Scriptural elucidation and defense of Divinely revealed truths.”(4)

In discussing Romans 14-15, Campbell defended “the private judgment of any individual, which does not expressly contradict the express letter of the law, or add to the number of its institutions.” Noting that Jews and Gentiles were taught to maintain unity in spite of personal differences over meats and days, Campbell then asked, “But had the Jews been expressly prohibited, or the Gentiles expressly enjoined, by the authority of Jesus, to observe these things, could they, in such a case, have lawfully exercised this forbearance?” Romans 14 is clarified by 1 Corinthians 10:23 in the following observation:

“All things are lawful for me; but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me; but all things edify not.” It seems, then, that among lawful things which might be forborne – that is, as we humbly conceive, things not expressly commanded – the governing principle of the apostle’s conduct was the edification of his brethren of the Church of God.

As Campbell further clarified, this latitude or liberty allowed among lawful things cannot be extended to those who set aside some of the Scriptures’ “express declarations and injunctions, to make way for their own opinion, inferences, and conclusions.” In dealing with matters of liberty, Paul “spoke by permission, and not by commandment.”(5)

Just because we profess principles of truth is no guarantee that we properly apply them. Campbell is no authority but we can learn from his studies and struggles. He was both inconsistent and too liberal in his application of basic principles in 1809. For instance, he still approved of infant baptism at that time, and after he gave it up he still extended undue tolerance toward the “pious unimmersed.” Men like him were coming out of the darkness of denominationalism with no one to help them and it took some time to accurately apply the principles they discovered.

The road they traveled to come out of error has been taken by brethren retracing those steps in the wrong direction, going back into error and apostasy. Both of the key principles which take us back to the Bible have been perverted by those who profess them. Silence, the absence of divine authority, is interpreted so as to grant permission for all sorts of theories, doctrines, and practices. Also, liberty of conscience in Romans 14 is applied so as to accommodate false doctrine and to appease false teachers.

Instrumental Music and Missionary Societies

Those who advanced instrumental music in worship, missionary societies among the churches, and subsequent forms of liberalism constantly appealed to Romans 14. When the Gospel Advocate, American Christian Review, and Apostolic Times warned that such practices represented a growing apostasy, Editor Isaac Errett of the Christian Standard retorted that the divinity of Jesus and the necessity of baptism were still being preached. Beyond that, we must not “dictate where Christ has not dictated,” he said, but some brethren are guilty of a “murderous stifling of free thought and free speech . . . we insist that Romans xiv. allows a very large liberty which we have no right to trench on.”(6) From 1870 on, a host of liberals made this identical plea in advancing not only instruments and societies but also open membership, theistic evolution, and various theories renouncing the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Those who opposed liberalism as a perversion of the liberty granted in Romans 14 were accused of “intolerant dogmatism.”(7)

J.B. Briney in debate with W.W. Otey appealed for the toleration of instruments on the basis that the objecting brethren were weak, and instruments could be used where no one objected. “I will close the debate in fellowship and love if he will . . . agree that unless the instrument may hurt somebody else, it may be used just as the meat may be used if it don’t (sic) lead somebody to sin,” said Briney. Otey pointed out that Briney must “prove conclusively that the use of instrumental music is authorized,” in keeping with the limits of Romans 14.(8)

False Unity Movements

Brethren have been plagued through the years by false unity movements which abuse and misapply Romans 14. Beginning about 1917, John B. Cowden and others in the Christian Church formed a Commission of Unity in Nashville, Tennessee, and held a series of unity meetings for several years. Cowden wrote many articles, pamphlets, and books on unity and liberty. He complained that churches of Christ emphasized law and doctrine:

They tolerate no differences in doctrine . . . on church music, church organizations, church conventions, church colleges, church benevolent institutions, church socials, worldly amusements, secular fraternities, denominations, denominational affiliations, the millennium and many other “Mint, anise and cummins,” or tweedle dees and tweedle dums.

Christian Churches emphasized liberty, he said, and the two groups must cross the bridge of fellowship with unity-in-diversity. He indicates that only things lawful fall into “the realm of Christian liberty,” but says that Romans 14 allowed Christians to change “the day of worship” and that not even “differences over essential doctrines” are sufficient grounds for division.(9) In his later years he wrote a “swan song . . . for the unity of my ‘own brethren'” in the Christian churches because sprinkling was tolerated and Bible “doctrine has fallen into disrepute.”(10)

The torch of false unity movements was taken up by James DeForest Murch of the Christian Churches and Claude F. Witty of the churches of Christ. Private contacts in 1936 laid the groundwork for several local meetings in 1937, followed by a series of “National Unity Meetings” (1938-41). This work was carried on by a journal, The Christian Unity Quarterly (1943-47). Throughout these years, many direct and indirect references were made to Romans 14-15. During the 1939 meeting H. Leo Boles made a stirring appeal for unity based upon divine revelation, and for the repudiation of and unrelenting opposition to every unauthorized innovation. This led to a lengthy and pointed exchange in the Christian Standard between Boles and Edwin R. Errett, editor of the Standard. Errett repeatedly used Romans 14, saying at one point that Boles “will have a difficult time ruling us out of the brotherhood and sitting in judgment upon the servants of Another.” One article was entitled “Judging the Lord’s Worshipers.”(11)

From the mid-1950s until the present, W. Carl Ketcherside (1908-89) and Leroy Garrett have published journals and conducted meetings perpetuating false concepts of unity, often using and abusing Romans 14-15. Garrett says people of all denominations should apply Romans 15:7, “Receive one another even as Christ has received you.” This includes the Seventh Day Adventists and also members of the universal Fellowship of the Metropolitan Community Church, which is made up of homosexuals, although we may hold different views from these groups. From 1966 through 1975, Garrett helped to organize and promote a series of unity forums around the country with speakers claiming some historical connection to the restoration efforts of the 1800s, including those who have departed from the faith to embrace everything from modernism to one cup to the charismatic movement.(12)

At the 9th Annual Unity Forum, Edward Fudge presented a paper on Romans 14 entitled “The Relation of ‘Faith’ and ‘Opinion’ to Unity and Fellowship.” He advocated unity-in-diversity on instrumental music and institutionalism, allowing for separate congregations but a full reception of one another “in church affairs and worship” across the lines. He now applies that concept to women leading in various roles when the church is assembled together.(13)

Another series of false unity movements have been spearheaded by Don De Welt (1919-1990) and, a spokesman for Christian Churches who lived in Joplin, Missouri. He founded and published the One Body magazine in 1984, edited by Victor Knowles. DeWelt and his cohort Ken Idleman put together a national “Restoration Summit’ for 1984 in Joplin with the help of Alan Cloyd and Dennis Randall, preachers among institutional churches of Christ. When someone put out copies of H. Leo Boles’ 1939 sermon on the true way of unity, the Summit organizers whisked them away! The organizers want “men of an irenic spirit,” but “no knuckleheads please!” These so-called “Restoration Forums” and One Body work hand in hand, abundantly abusing Romans 14.(14) The ninth forum was held in November 1991 at Portland, Oregon.

Premillennialism

When premillennialism was infiltrating churches of Christ in the 1930s-40s, many pleas for tolerance were based on Romans 14-15. R.H. Boll was opposed by such stalwarts as J.C. McQuiddy, G. Dallas Smith, M.C. Kurfees, and H. Leo Boles because of teaching his millennial theories in the Gospel Advocate 1912-15. He was dropped from the Advocate staff in December 1915. In the 30s-40s, N.B. Hardeman and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. were outspoken opponents of Boll’s theories, but his speaking and writing abilities along with his pleasing personality made many brethren reluctant to draw lines of fellowship.

Stanford Chambers started Word and Work in 1915 in New Orleans, but shortly moved it to Louisville, Kentucky, where Boll lived. Boll edited the paper from 1916 until his death in 1956. Many articles on unity were written in Word and Work by Boll, Chambers, H.L. Olmstead, E.L. Jorgenson, Don Carlos Janes, J.R. Clark, and other premillennialists, often appealing to Romans 14. Boll’s argument for “tolerance” of millennialism on the basis of Romans 14 attempts to parallel the issue to the Bible class question, which was much discussed at the time (1926). Olmstead uses a similar approach in 1930, claiming that such passages as “Romans 14:1-12” solve “bickerings and hair splittings” over “local congregations . . . conducting” schools with secular classes, “orphan homes, homes for the aged, etc.,” as well as premillennialism. A popular parallel used by Clark was “the war question.” He explained,

In conclusion, my proposal for a ground of unity and fellowship to our challenging brethren is as follows: on the basis of Romans 14, although we feel that you misinterpret many of the prophetic passages, we will receive you as brethren; and on the basis of Romans 14, though you think we are unwarranted in giving these prophetic passages their literal import, we request that you receive us.

Many such efforts by premillennialists to pervert Romans 14 could be cited.(15)

J.N. Armstrong was much beloved for his many years of helping young people at Harding College, but he was also a close personal friend of Boll, Jorgenson, and other premillennialists. He wished they could cease their teaching, and thus spare everyone the controversy, but he claimed they had a right to teach their views on the basis of Romans 14. The issues found in the chapter are not “indifferent,” but involve “vital” error and “false teaching,” in Armstrong’s view, and yet, “Each group is left to abide in its own doctrine.” Besides that, the line between what is “essential” and “nonessential” cannot be determine “except by a dictator or a pope. God has not fixed it,” he said.(16)

Because of his concept on Romans 14, Armstrong felt justified in writing his premillennialist friends many letters of sympathy, and sharply criticizing their critics. The premillennialists did not cause the “cleavage,” he wrote B.C. Goodpasture, but “our trouble” began “just as soon as our ‘radicals’ began to make ‘demands,’ began to ‘line us up, , and to mark all who did not comply with those demands.” He added he could not “mark men whom I believe to be as faithful to the word of God (though in error in some matters) as I am myself.”(17)

These misconceptions on Romans 14 were shared by premillennialists, their sympathizers, and the promoters of the Murch-Witty unity movement, which contributed to resentment of militant gospel preachers and papers trying to stem the tide of such influences. Unintimidated by such resentment, W.W. Otey wrote, “He who opposes error causes no division, but he who teaches error causes the breach.” Men who promoted the above influences should be dealt with in keeping with Romans 16:17, not chapter 14, Otey observed. “To bid them God’s speed, in defending them or contributing to their support, is to become full partners in these disturbing errors.” Otey insisted that 2 John 9-11 forbad faithful brethren compromising with the above trends, and he quit writing for the Christian Leader because it was accommodating these very trends.(18)

Constant, misguided appeals to Romans 14 in the face of dangerous error reflected a creeping softness among brethren. Armstrong wrote that the Gospel Advocate’s determined opposition to Boll was “wholly unnecessary and hurtful,” and he called the Bible Banner the “Bitter Banner” in a sympathetic letter to Jorgenson. When he earlier started a new paper as an “open forum . . . free from personalities,” Cled Wallace commented,

Fortunately, Timothy and Titus and Paul are not living. If Timothy should ask to use the new paper to “charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine,” it would be embarrassing to the editor to turn him down because of “personalities.” Titus might ask for an “opportunity” to rebuke sharply and stop the mouths of some “unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers. ” Paul might want to brand Hymenaeus and Philetus as heretics, or rebuke Peter when he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. We hope the new paper can find enough writers nicer than Timothy, Titus, and Paul to keep copy for the printers.(19)

Later this paper combined with the New Christian Leader with the financial support of Clinton Davidson, a compromiser who promised a higher level of journalism and who copyrighted his paper, forbidding quotations and controversies over its contents. In the meantime, anonymous letters were circulated, attacking the character and ethics of Foy E. Wallace, Jr., editor of the Bible Banner. After Wallace analyzed this new paper as “foreign to all gospel preaching and gospel journalism,” and as a tool of apostasy, “Copyright” Davidson sent him a letter warning that he had “been informed by eminent legal counsel” that the article was “libelous.” Wallace wryly suggested, “Contrast this with that sugar-coated, non-pugnacious, non-controversial, sweet-spirited, high-toned, ethical journalism to which this new movement has been pledged.”(20)

Institutional Apostasy

Just as happened during the instrumental music and missionary society digression, the institutional apostasy of the post-World War II period was defended by specious appeals to Romans 14 for freedom, diversity, and tolerance. As happened before, subsequent forms of liberalism have resorted to the same maneuver in an effort to promote everything from the charismatic movement to modernism, including women leading the mixed assembly, sprinkling, and open membership. Pleading for unity-in-diversity on sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, a professed gospel preacher wrote,

We would do well to listen to Paul’s sentiments: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” Tragically, a diversity of baptism has led to an ugly exclusivism never intended by God. It has been an excuse not to love those in other churches.(21)

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

The spread of rabid and destructive false doctrines on marriage, divorce, and remarriage has forced us to study Romans 14-15 again. Olan Hicks applies these chapters to institutionalism, to Christian Church folks with instrumental music and other innovations, and to all sorts of fanciful theories and false doctrines on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He declares all such issues to be matters of opinion or expediency and therefore not binding except as personal scruples. He teaches the bizarre theory that adultery need not involve sexual intercourse, but may involve merely divorcing a mate and completing a civil contract of marriage to another person (without sexual contact). Subsequent sexual intercourse with the new mate is not adultery, according to this theory, and a person is permitted to remain in the new marriage.(22)

Homer Hailey teaches that the alien sinner is not answerable to the marriage law taught in Matthew 19:1-9, and so the alien can obey the gospel and continue in a marriage which is contrary to that law. Jerry Bassett teaches the Hicks’ theory on adultery, and that the person who destroys his marriage by fornication may be free to marry another mate. Both Jerry and Don Bassett concede that Romans 14 deals with matters which are “of no doctrinal consequence,” 64matters of indifference.” Both agree that the question of adultery falls into the realm of the revealed faith, but they say we can continue in fellowship in spite of all our differences on divorce, remarriage, and adultery. They treat these issues as though they came into the purview of Romans 14, but admit that this approach goes beyond the limits and boundaries of the passage. This same approach of acknowledging the limit of Romans 14 to “the realm of expediency” but applying it “much more broadly than just that realm” is taken in Samuel Dawson’s book on fellowship.(23)

Ed Harrell wrote 17 articles in Christianity Magazine explaining why he can continue in fellowship with brethren holding “five or six, perhaps more,” contradictory positions on “divorce and remarriage.” In seven of those articles, Romans 14 is used. After granting that the issues found there “were not matters bound by God,” he adds, “but the intent of the passage clearly encompasses more than that.” We are not told how he discovered this broad “intent,” but he repeatedly asserts it includes differences of “serious” or “considerable moral and doctrinal import” -“contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions.” A request that both sides be printed in the spirit of Acts 17:11 was met with the answer, “Christianity Magazine is not intended for the type discussion brother Halbrook suggests.”(24)

Conclusion

Brethren, now is the time to look before we leap, and to back up while we can. We must not open a gate for “the man of sin.” History shows us how he will use it. Even now men like Cecil Hook and papers like The Examiner have embraced the logic of going beyond the scriptural limit of Romans 14. Already they accommodate instrumental music, all sorts of institutionalism, the social gospel, premillennialism, the Lord’s Supper and collections not on the Lord’s day, divorce and remarriage for any and every cause, evolution, dancing, immodest dress in mixed swimming, gambling, social drinking, abortion, and much more!(25) When this gate is opened, every form of false doctrine, worldliness, and carnality march boldly through!

The proper use of Romans 14 is vital to the true unity and harmony of God’s people. Its proper application is limited to things lawful, pure, and clean. It is limited to a realm of liberty of conscience in which no divine law is violated, though there be differences of consciences. To apply the passage so as to accommodate false teachings and contradictory practices on important moral and doctrinal matters is to abuse it.

Endnotes

1. For further study on Romans 14, see Connie W. Adams, “Observations on Romans 14,” Searching the Scriptures, Nov. 1988, pp. 539-40; Harry Osborne, “Romans 14: What Saith the Scripture?” and “Romans 14: How Readest Thou?” Guardian of Truth, 19 Apr. & 3 May 1990, pp. 262-64 & 240-42; Bill Cavender, “Love Worketh No III to His Neighbor,” GOT, 20 Apr. 1989, pp. 234-35; Cecil B. Douthitt, “Deference to Weak Brethren,” and Mike Willis, “Divorce and Remarriage and Fellowship,” GOT, 7 Feb. 1991, pp. 76-78 & 80-88 (Douthitt reprinted from Gospel Guardian, 5 Oct. 1967, pp. 337-39). On the proper use of Romans 14, see also the special issue of GOT on “Factionalism: A Threat to the Church,” 2 Sept. 1982.

2. Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and Co., 1868), 1:236-27, 352.

3. Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address and Barton W. Stone, et. al., Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery in one volume (St. Louis, Mo.: The Bethany Press, 1955; reprint by Mission Messenger, 1972), “Union” on pp. 50,94; “Thus saith” on pp. 26,60,90 and often; realm of liberty often, esp. pp. 61-80.

4. Ibid., expedients on p. 48; literature on pp, 86-87.

5. Ibid., private judgment on p. 64; forbearance on p. 65; lawful things on p. 66; latitude on pp. 70-71; permission on p. 72.

6. Quoted by James DeForest Murch, Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Pub., 1962), p. 171.

7. Adron Doran, “Liberalism, Evolution and the Christian Church Apostasy,” Gospel Advocate, Sept. 1991, pp. 24-26.

8. W.W. Otey and J.B. Briney, Otey-Briney Debate (Cincinnati, Ohio: F.L. Rowe, Publ. (ca. 1908]; reprint Gospel Guardian), pp. 152 and 110-11.

9. On unity commission, see Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in Worship (Nashville, Term.: Gospel Advocate Co., 1924, 1957; reprint Fairmont, Ind.: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1981), pp. 5-22; Cowden, Law versus Liberty and The Bridge (West Nashville, Tenn.: author, 1953), tolerate no differences on p. 20; realm on p. 12; Romans 14 on p. 9; essential doctrines on p. 22.

10. Cowden, Whose Business Is It? (West Nashville, Term.: author, n.d.), pp. 12-13.

11. Boles’ 1939 address was published: “The Way of Unity Between ‘Christian Church’ and Churches of Christ,” Gospel Advocate, (25 May-15 June 1939): 476-77; 508-509,516; 532-33; 554-55; also publ. as tract by G.A. in 1939, and reprinted in 1984 by Getwell Church of Christ, 15 11 Getwell Rd., Memphis, Tenn. 3 8111. On ” ruling us out, ” see Errett, ” Speaking Where the Bible is Silent,” Christian Standard, 10 June 1939, pp. 551-52; “Judging. . .,” 26 Aug. 1939, pp. 818-19, 835.

12. For Garrett on all denominations, Adventists, and homosexuals, see “Arkansas Correspondence,” “Seventh Day Adventists,” and “A Church for Gays and Lesbians,” Restoration Review, Apr. 1988 and Sept. 1989, pp. 278-79, 266-71, and 131-35 respectively.

13. On 9th unity forum, see Ron Halbrook, “‘Free to Be One’: A Report on the Nashville Unity Forum,” Truth Magazine, 19 Dec. 1974, pp. 104-106. On Fudge, see Halbrook, “Edward Fudge: ‘Free to Be One,”‘ TM, 27 Mar. 1975, pp. 314-15, and Fudge’s unpubl. ms., esp. pp. 8 and 10. On women, Fudge with other elders, “Bering Dr. Church of Christ Report of the Elders on the Use of Gifts in the Church, July 31, 1988.”

14. On irenic spirit and knuckleheads, see Victor Knowles, “Restoration Summit,” and Alan Cloyd, “An Open Letter to All Restoration Summit Participants,” One Body, Nov. 1984, pp. 3 and 21 respectively. On Romans 14, see Seth Wilson, “39 Steps to Unity,” ibid., p. 8.

15. Boll, “Words in Season”; Olmstead, “The Basis of Unity”; and Clark, “Unity and Debates,” Word and Work, 1926, 1930 and 1951, pp. 257-59, pp. 203-206, and pp. 57-59 respectively.

16. For quotations of Armstrong’s views, see L.C. Sears, The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong: For Freedom (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publ. Co., 1969), pp. 279,294 and 277.

17. Armstrong letter to Goodpasture, 27 Aug. 1942, photocopy in my possession.

18. For Otey on opposing error, see Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith (Akron, Ohio: author, 1964), p. 265; on Romans 16:17, see p. 266; on 2 John 9, see p 297.

19. For Armstrong on the Advocate, see F.W. Smith, “As a Matter of Simple Justice,” Gospel Advocate, 23 Sept. 1920, pp. 930-32; on Banner, Armstrong letter to Jorgenson, 13 June 1944, photocopy in my possession. Cled E. Wallace, “A Free-for-All Opportunity,” GA, 9 May 1935, pp. 433,453.

20. For Foy E. Wallace, Jr. analysis, see his article “The Combination Paper,” Bible Banner, Nov. 1938, pp. 12-13; for David son’s letter and Wallace’s comments, see BB, Jan.-Feb. 1939, p. 4.

21. On institutionalism, see Jimmy Allen and Eldred Stevens, “How to Attain and Maintain Fellowship,” The Arlington Meeting [1968] (Orlando, Fla.: Cogdill Foundation, n.d.), pp. 341-63 and 375-80. On baptism, see R. Scott Colglazier, “Many Baptisms,” Mission Journal, Jan. 1984, pp. 17-19; response by John Mark Hicks, “Baptism: Unity or Diversity?”, MJ, May 1985, pp. 15-16,18.

22. For Hicks on Romans 14, see his book In Search of Peace, Unity and Truth (Searcy, Ark.: Gospel Enterprises, 1984); for his marriage theories, see Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1987).

23. Hailey, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God (Las Vegas, Nev.: Nevada Publ., 1991). Jerry Bassett, Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Eugene, Or.: Western Printers, 1991), pp. 131-33 on Romans 14. For Don Bassett on “matters of indifference,” “Differences – Romans 14,” tape of sermon at Brentwood (Tenn.) Church of Christ, 8 Sept. 1991. Samuel G. Dawson, Fellowship: With God and His People (Santa Monica, Cal.: Gospel Themes Press, 1988), p. 128.

24. The 17 articles appeared Nov. 1988-May 1990. For five or six positions, see Harrell’s “Homer Hailey: False Teacher?” Christianity Magazine, Nov. 1988, pp. 326-29; on intent, see “The Bounds of Christian Unity (3),” CM, Apr. 1989, p. 102. On differences, see “Bounds . . . (15),” CM, April 1990, p. 102; “Bounds . . . (4),” CM, May 1989, p. 134; and “Bounds . . . (16), ” CM, May 1990, p. 134. On request, Halbrook letter to editor with Harrell’s response, CM, Sept. 1990, p. 263.

25. Hook, Free in Christ (New Braunfels, Tex.: author, 1984, 1988), pp. 4-7, 33-34; Dusty Owens, “Answering the Mail,” The Examiner, Sept. 1987, pp. 12-13.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 27-32
January 2, 1992