Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In the New Testament “fellowship” means communion, sharing, partnership, or joint participation. It is a term of intimacy. When Christians work and worship together, following the same Master, “striving together for the faith of the gospel,” being “of one heart and of one soul,” walking “by the same rule,” and speaking “as the oracles of God,” there is a divine fellowship that transcends social sharing, association with neighbors and friends, and other kinds of human togetherness.

What happens when mechanical instruments of music are used in worship? Is such a practice a barrier (hindrance, roadblock, or impediment) to intimate spiritual fellowship? This is the question to be addressed in this article. 

Learning from History

Historically, numerous cases could be cited to demonstrate that the introduction of instrumental music into congregational worship has been a barrier to fellowship. The following are a few examples:

The church in Waxahachie, Ellis County, Texas, began using instrumental music in the fall of 1885. C. McPherson, the preacher, took an active part in introducing the organ, soliciting funds for its purchase, and ordering the instrument. The organ was used (under protest) for two consecutive Lord’s days in October. Isaac M. Fuston, one of the elders, requested a 3:00 p.m. meeting of those who were opposed to the organ. McPherson came and proposed a compromise. He suggested that the organ be used in Sunday school and in the opening services when there would be preaching, and set it aside at other times. This plan was rejected as being contrary to the Scriptures. Two of the elders and some other families deemed it best to quietly withdraw and meet in private homes. To them the organ was a barrier to fellowship. David Lipscomb commented on the situation at Waxahachie by noting that it is clear that McPherson “pressed the organ into the Church, to the driving out of a number of members, that he had testified were good brothers.”1

A congregation at Kaufman, Texas, was troubled over instrumental music in 1895. Christians who could not in good conscience worship with the accompaniment of the organ felt compelled to meet elsewhere. The pro-organ group made a gesture to regain those who had left their fellowship. They agreed not to play the instrument on the Lord’s day at the hour of worship and on Wednesday night at prayer meeting, provided they be allowed to play it in Sunday school and on all other occasions. T.R. Burnett observed, “That is like unto a man saying he will not swear and drink on two days of the week if you will let him swear and drink all the rest of the time!”2

The Walnut Street church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, began using instrumental music in its worship in 1886. The congregation had met at different places and without its own building since its establishment in 1871. When a lot was purchased and a new building erected, the new meeting house contained an organ. Dr. D.E. Nelson, a physician, opposed the organ and asked that it be removed. To him it was a barrier to fellowship. After his request was denied, Dr. Nelson and a few others left and started a congregation in South Chattanooga.3 Nelson explained his position in these words: “For me to believe the use of the organ wrong and then go ahead and worship with it, I am sure would be sinning.”4 E.A. Elam encouraged the South Chattanooga brethren for building up a church where they could “conscientiously worship God.”

The church in St. Louis, Missouri, purchased a building from the Episcopalians in 1867. It was located on Olive Street at Seventeenth, and the deal included a $3000 organ. There was agitation over the organ for two years. The majority favored its use, but a strong minority, led by Dr. Hiram Christopher, brother-in-law of J.W. McGarvey, opposed instrumental music in worship. For the sake of peace the organ was rarely used. The pro-organ group eventually took control, forcing the opposition to leave.5 Dr. Christopher wrote in 1867, “We must never forget that it is not our province to determine what is or what is not acceptable worship. What pleases God should please us.” He noted, “In the apostolic church the music was entirely vocal and congregational.” He concluded that using musical instruments in the worship of the church “is an innovation on apostolic practice.”6

The New Testament instructs that we are to sing and make melody in the heart (Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:18-20; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13). Singing (vocal music) is specified; playing (mechanical music) is not authorized. All who have strong convictions that we should follow the New Testament plan for worship and regard instrumental music as a perversion of that plan must either stifle their consciences or else conclude that the use of the instrument is a barrier to fellowship.

Admissions and Warnings

Respected historians generally agree that instrumental music has been a major cause of division among people pleading for New Testament Christianity. Sober minds warned that pushing the instrument would disrupt fellowship.

W.E. Garrison, historian among Disciples of Christ, acknowledges that “many churches” divided on this issue.7 A.W. Fortune concedes, “The introduction of the organ into the worship of the church was the occasion of bitter controversy, and was one of the main causes of the division which finally came.”8 Herman Norton of the Disciples Divinity House, Vanderbilt University, avows that the practice of using musical instruments in worship “gradually increased, causing an eruption at practically each introduction” in earlier years.9 Stephen Eckstein says, “As a result of bitter controversy over instrumental music, Texas churches of Christ split into two irreconcilable bodies.”10

During the dark days of the Civil War, Moses Lard warned, “The day on which a church sets up an organ in its house, is the day on which it reaches the first station on the road to apostasy.” He proposed, “Let those brethren who oppose the introduction of an organ first remonstrate in gentle, kind, but decided terms. If their remonstrance is unheeded, and the organ is brought in, then let them at once . . . abandon the church so acting; and let all such members unite elsewhere.”11

J.W. McGarvey chastised J.S. Lamar in 1870 for his defense of instrumental music, and warned, “We can inform Bro. Lamar and all others who advocate this innovation upon apostolic worship, that they are driving a wedge which is destined to split asunder hundreds of congregations and cause worshiper alienation among both preachers and churches.”12

Conviction or Compromise?

Attempts have been made to place instrumental music in the same category as meats and days in Romans 14. The fallacy in such reasoning is that Romans 14 deals with things which are permissible but not required, whereas we are not given permission in the New Testament to add another kind of music to that which is uniformly authorized. Music in worship is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of indifference. It is not something left to our discretion. Instrumental music is more than an aid to the singing; it is the addition to the singing of another act.

People who suppose that instrumental music is optional do not consider it as a barrier to fellowship. Their attitude is, “I can sing with or without the instrument.” They deem it rather ridiculous to make the music question an issue, often arguing that whatever is not expressly condemned in Scripture is allowable.

Others take a different attitude toward the Bible. It is their persuasion that in all acts of worship we must do only what the New Testament teaches. It is what the Bible says, not its silence, which is our guide. Any practice which deviates from the divine plan revealed in the New Testament, whether in the work, worship, organization, or life of the church, is to be rejected. This attitude leads to the conclusion that instrumental music is a perversion or corruption of New Testament worship.

Some who claim to oppose instrumental music in worship covet fellowship with those who use it. LaGard Smith admits to worshiping frequently with a group in England where the “singing is accompanied by instruments.” He writes, “I tried to content myself with the thought that while everyone else was singing with the instruments, I was singing without them! Of course that didn’t solve the problem for someone like myself who is strongly opposed to musical instruments in worship! Their presence continually marred an otherwise enviable worship ideal.”13

How can one who is “strongly opposed” to instrumental music worship with it? If one can worship with the instrument in England, why not in America? If six months out of the year, why not all year long? Can one stifle his conscience and compromise his sincere convictions and still please God?

If a congregation corrupted its worship by serving roasted lamb as part of the Lord’s supper, would that be a barrier to fellowship? Would the burning of incense be a roadblock to fellowship? Or, would some higher aim, such as “unity,” justify compromise in such situations? Does the “unity of the Spirit” call for stringing along with error? Should one practice error while attempting to teach truth on the same subject? Would it make sense to sprinkle  infants while professing to be strongly opposed to infant baptism?

Whatever is sinful is a barrier to fellowship with God. If one believes that instrumental music in worship is sinful, he should not participate in such perverted worship. Teach those who are in error? Yes. By word and example!

Endnotes

1. Gospel Advocate, Feb. 3, 1886, 66-67, “C. McPherson’s Retreat.” 
2. Gospel Advocate, Nov. 14, 1895, 723, “Burnett’s Budget.” 
3. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians, 163-164.
4. Gospel Advocate, Feb. 22, 1888, 8, “The Organ Question Bearing Fruit.”
5. Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order, II: 8 1.
6. Dr. H. Christopher, Lard’s Quarterly, Oct., 1867, 349-368, “On Instrumental Music in Churches of Christ.”
7. Winfred Ernest Garrison, Religion Follows the Frontier, 237.
8. Alonzo Willard Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky, 372.
9. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians, 159,
10. Stephen Daniel Eckstein, Jr., History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 250.
11. Moses E. Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, Mar., 1864, 330-333, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing.”
12. J.E. Choate and William Woodson, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, 33. Quoted from Christian Standard, Mar. 26, 1870, 102.
13. F. LaGard Smith, Who Is My Brother?, 102-103.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603

By Mike Willis

The ancient town of Megiddo was destroyed so many times and by so many different conquerors that its name became synonymous with all out war and total destruction. Megiddo overlooks the Jezreel Valley and has been important militarily since ancient times.

The fortified hill of Megiddo is a remarkable tel (settlement mound) where 20 layers of civilization have been uncovered since excavations began in 1903. Megiddo is located in the only pass through the Carmel mountain range. A major trade route that skirted the coast passed through the Carmel range of mountains at Megiddo. Of vital military and trading importance, this highway was named by the Romans Via Maris. Whoever controlled the Jezreel valley controlled northern Israel and the trade routes that passed through it.

About 4000 B.C. Canaanites took over the settlement here and remained there for some 2000 years. A Canaanite temple and fortifications survive. Egyptian records indicate that Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.) defeated an Asiatic coalition headed by the king of Kadesh. The name “Megiddo” first appears in the Bible when Megiddo was conquered by the Israelites under Joshua in the 13th century B.C. (Josh. 12:21; 17:11) and given to the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:11). The Philistines subsequently held the city (Judg. 1:27), but it was retaken by David in 1000 B.C. Solomon enlarged the city and there are many remains from that period (1 Kings 9:15). The six chambered gate is from the time of Solomon. 

King Ahab built an underground shaft and water tunnel 118 ft. deep and 213 feet long. On the site of Solomon’s palace, he built a chariot stable for 450 horses, chariots, and riders (1 Kings 9:19; 10:26). In front is a large circular grain silo. Conquered by the Assyrians in 733 B.C., the site frequently changed hands and was abandoned in 538 B.C. 

Megiddo was the scene of some major battles in the Old Testament. Deborah and Barak defeated Sisera and Jabin, king of Hazor, there (Judg. 5:19). Ahaziah died here when Jehu led a successful rebellion in Israel (2 Kings 9:27). Josiah was killed in a battle with Pharaoh-nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). The battlefield was so renown that Armageddon is used in the book of Revelation to describe a great spiritual conflict.

Significant artifacts found here include:

• In 1903, a seal that said “belonging to Shema, the servant of Jeroboam.” Could this be from the servant of King Jeroboam I or II?
• A collection of 282 ivories from the 13th-12th centuries B.C.
• A circular altar for Canaanite worship.
• A water tunnel belonging to the time of Ahab.
• Solomonic double gateway entrance.
• Ruins for stables from the times of Omri and Ahab. These formerly were thought to be from the reign of King Solomon, but are now generally thought to have been from Omri and Ahab. The stables housed 450 horses. Megiddo  

By Eugene Britnell

The great apostle Paul had appealed his case unto Caesar (Acts 25:11). After all the charges had been made, Agrippa said, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (Acts 26:32). At his trial in Rome, due to insufficient evidence, he was about to be released when the chief of the Jews said, “But we desire to hear thee, what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against” (Acts 28:22).

The word sect was used by Paul, but in denial. Paul said to Felix, “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14, NKJV). In Acts 26:5, Paul said, “that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” In Acts 24:5, Paul was described as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” In Acts 5:17 the word is applied to the Sadducees, and in Acts 15:5 it was applied to the Pharisees. It is ironic that the word would be used in reference to Paul, for the Holy Spirit used his pen to say more in opposition to sectarianism than all other writers of the New Testament combined.

What Is A Sect?

“A group holding similar views; a party. In religion: a party dissenting from an established or parent church; a body of sectarins. One of the organized bodies of Christians; a denomination” (Webster).

Hairesis, a choosing, is translated “sect” throughout the Acts except in 24:14, A.V., “heresy” (R.V., “sect”); it properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage; hence a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of “the truth” held in toto; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue; the order “division, heresies” in “the works of the flesh” in Gal. 5:19-21 is suggestive of this (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words 1007).

Cruden’s Concordance comments: “This word is generally used to mean a party in religion, differing in belief from the main body. In our old version it is usually translated heresy, which the revisions changed to sect. The religion preached by Christ and his disciples was frequently called a sect, for it was quite a number of years before it was extended to the Gentiles, and the Jews who embraced it were faithful to the major part of their ancestral faith.”

According to these definitions, the term “sect” is synonymous with heresy, division, and denomination, all of which are condemned in the New Testament. Therefore, this cannot describe the church of Christ.

What Is The Church?

Having defined a sect or denomination, we now define the church according to the Bible. Please understand that we are not necessarily discussing any particular congregation you may know or think about. We are concerned about the church we read about in the New Testament.

When the apostle Peter confessed the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). That’s the one we are speaking of in this study. When Jesus promised to build the church, he meant that it would be of himself and belong to him. That is why a plurality of congregations were called “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). It is noticeable to the student of the New Testament that we never read of denominations as branches of the church. They all came into existence after the close of the New Testament and without the authority of God. This thought may be impressed upon our minds by simply asking the question: Which denomination did Jesus have in mind when he said he would build his church? The answer is that he had no denomination in mind. From this thought we gather three important lessons: (1) All denominations exist without the authority of Christ; (2) No denomination that exists today is the church of Christ; (3) The church of Christ, or the church that Jesus built, is not a denomination!

Seven Reasons Why The Church Is Not A Denomination

1. Christ was the builder. He said “church” not “churches.” He spoke of “it” not “them.” Read again Matthew 16:18.

2. Christ is the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). It was built upon Peter’s confession of Christ. In his early years he was familiar with building and grew up in a carpenter’s shop (Matt. 13:55). Did he lay a foundation large enough for his building (church) and hundreds of others? No, the foundation was designed and adequate for the building he erected.

3. The church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23). He is the head of the body. Is he the head of many bodies or a divided and mutilated body? No. “And he is the head of the body, the church” . . . “for the sake of his body, which is the church” (Col. 1:18, 24).

4. Christ is the creed of the church (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2). His word is our guide and the basis for unity. Denominations are created and function by their own human creeds.

5. The church must honor the name of Christ, not some man or doctrine. “He is the head of the body, the church . . . that in all things he may have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). His name is the basis for unity. The three rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians 1:13 show that we are to wear only the name of him who is not divided, was crucified for us, and in whose name we were baptized. That produces unity, not denominationalism!

6. The church of Christ has no earthly or denominational headquarters. Contrast that with Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other denominations.

7. The church of Christ has no denominational organization. Christ is the head, and each congregation is to have a plurality of elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Man-made denominations have formed hierarchies and systems of government not found in the Bible. For example: Catholicism, with the pope, cardinals, arch-bishops, priests, etc.

Present Conditions In The Church

Until recently, nearly everyone in the church understood what it was and that denominations were sinful. But we see change in the teaching of some brethren. Rubel Shelly is a good example of this change. In 1972 he wrote:

Liberal elements within the churches of Christ have made great strides toward turning the church into a denomination. Although not many brethren seem to realize it, we are being influenced to abandon our distinctiveness. I have recently encountered several individuals who are frankly urging that we admit to being a denomination.

If we do not intend to maintain our distinctiveness, we have no right to exist. If we are not going to preach the truth boldly, let us not preach it at all. If we are unwilling to oppose false teachings and false practices, let us quit claiming to be the people of the holy God! . . . The church of Christ is not a denomination. But it will soon be if some among us have their way! As soon as we cease preaching the distinctive message of the gospel, we cease being the true church of Christ and become something less (What Is Happening In The Church).

In view of the above statements, let us consider recent efforts by Shelly to “abandon our distinctiveness” and “turn the church into a denomination.” One of many will be sufficient. 

Billy Graham is the nation’s leading exponent of denominationalism. In his weekly newsletter, “Love Lines,” February 23, 2000, Rubel wrote:

God willing, Billy Graham will be preaching four nights in Adelphia Coliseum this spring. I hope you have marked June 14 on your calendar . . . I hope you are praying over your “Operation Andrew” list of people you plan to invite to the crusade. The likelihood that you know an unsaved person who would attend one or more nights of the Graham Crusade is very high. For one thing, curiosity alone might be enough to motivate that person. Hearing Dr. Graham speak in one of the final crusades his age and health will allow him to conduct could get someone there — and the Spirit of God can handle things from there. The preached Word of God can be his instrument to touch that person’s heart.

Brethren, can you believe what you just read? The “Spirit of God” can handle things, but Billy does not preach what the Spirit has revealed. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit guided Peter to tell believers to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Billy does not preach that for he doesn’t believe it!

Shelly, who preaches for the Woodmont Hills church in Nashville, is a General Committee Member for the Graham Crusade. He wrote that “Several of our shepherds wrote letters of invitation to Dr. Graham to encourage him to come to our city.”

There are more than fifty churches of Christ in Limestone County where I live. The vast majority of them are conservative, understand what the church is, and oppose denominationalism. Two churches (Valley Church and Seven Mile Post Road) joined with fourteen denominational groups in promoting and conducting a rock/gospel concert on a ball field at Athens State University. The newspaper reported that souls were saved on the field, and no one from those two churches denied it. The program had mechanical music with the gospel songs and sectarian speakers.

One of the errors the two churches teach is that we are not under law today. On their radio program June 4, the speaker said that each and every one of the churches of Christ in the county is a sect. I deny it! If they want to use labels, “faction” would be a good one for them for they were formed in rebellion to elders in the churches where they were raised.

Inconsistent and Confusing Teaching

F. LaGard Smith has written a book entitled Who Is My Brother? In it he says many good things, and seems to want to defend the church and the gospel plan of salvation. In other statements he seems to want to compromise what he has said and extend fellowship to those in denominations. Here is a sample of what I mean:

If indeed there is such a thing as “faith fellowship” apart from true “in Christ” fellowship, the next question is, How does that fellowship operate in practical terms?

It means, first of all, that we must be bold enough to acknowledge Christ-centered faith wherever we find it — even in those who may be outside the boundaries of Christian fellowship. We must come to accept that it is not wrong to fellowship as believers others who wear the name “Christian” but aren’t. Without giving anything away we can honor their faith, learn from their faith, be rebuked by their faith, be prompted by their faith, read the words of their faith, and sing the feelings of their faith (112).

How can he say that they have Christ-centered faith, and that we can emulate their faith in many ways if they are not in the faith and walking by faith that comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17)? If, as he said, they are wearing the name Christian but are not, then they are in darkness. But true Christians are told to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). I don’t follow his thinking. To accept those who are not Christians and fellowship those who are in error is not being bold; that is cowardly!

We are in complete agreement with the following statements by brother James P. Needham:

When people say one church (denomination) is just as good as another, they are correct, and all denominations put together are not as good as the one God purposed in eternity, our Lord bought with His own precious blood (Acts 20:28), and brought to fruition on Pentecost (Acts 2), which was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, and fulfills God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10, 11). To say this divine organization is equal to or parallel with human denominations is to border on blasphemy and endanger the souls of those who so teach.

Those brethren who seem determined to make the church of Christ just another denomination have lost their faith in the Lord’s order of things, and have bought into the so-called ‘new hermeneutic.’ They should study to regain their faith, repent of their sins, and pray for God’s forgiveness, or failing that, join some human denomination where they will feel more at home. When it comes to the Lord’s church, one should love it or leave it (Gospel Truths, May 2000).

At the end of Pentecost (Acts 2), every saved person in Jerusalem was in the church of Christ, for the Lord had added the saved to it (v. 47). There was not a saved person who was not in the church, and every responsible person outside the church was lost. That divine process continues today. Therefore, the church of Christ is not a sect or a part of anything; it is the whole thing!

P.O. Box 505, Athens, Alabama 35612 
ebritnell@iopener.net

By Truman Smith

When we were asked to take this assignment, to deal with such an often debated topic, the admonition of 1 Peter 2:17 where Peter said: “Love the brotherhood,” came to mind. Peter’s use of the word “love” conveys the idea of care and concern. Though the exercise of it often leads to an emotional love, it is not, within itself, of that nature. But, it is the kind of love that the Father expressed when he gave his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world (cf. John 3:16). Thus, if we know our own heart, and we think we do, and though we write with emotion, what we have to say here emanates from our love, care and concern for our great and wonderful brotherhood. However, since we wish to write so as to be clearly understood, we will therefore “use great plainness of speech” and make no apology for it (2 Cor. 3:12).

Brethren, we are being treated to the philosophies and ideologies of this age. Our first observation of these ideas came in the 1960s when we started hearing from the vulgar, long-haired marchers who were bent on change! They were protesters! Characterizing themselves as advocates of “love,” they protested against using the old math in the public school system; corporeal punishment of children in schools; dress codes in the schools, etc. You could depend upon them to be opposed to capital punishment for capital offenses. These were the folks that advocated children having the right to sue their parents in a court of law. It was about that time that we first began hearing: “It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it!” In the name of “love,” lest the atheists be offended, they pressed for no Bible reading or prayers in the public schools. And, though the teaching of evolution could have free course, they opposed the teaching of the Bible account of creation in the public schools. In the name of “love,” they viewed these as violating the law of “separation of church and state.” When it came to mercy, they tried to out-do God himself!

The spirit of “positivism” has come of age! It was in the days of the “old hermeneutic” that the church experienced its greatest growth. We never questioned the need for direct statement or command, apostolic approved example, or necessary inference in order to obtain authority from God’s Word for what we did. We challenged the denominations in debate on the basis of such authority and multiplied thousands were converted to the Lord. Indeed, it was that attitude toward Bible authority that led this scribe out of religious error many years ago! Now the cry is for a “new hermeneutic”! Yet, no one seems to want to spell out just what the “new hermeneutic” consists of, for one will tell you one thing while another will tell you something else. But let us tell you the truth about the matter: it is simple rebellion against the authority of the Scriptures. Not only do these people want to throw out the old hermeneutic and bring in the new, they also are attempting to rewrite the definition of just what constitutes a “false teacher.”

Here again, brethren, there was a time not so long ago that we all seemed to be in general agreement on the definition of a false teacher. In fact, it was only since we learned about brother Homer Hailey coming out publicly and teaching what we once called “the Fuqua position” on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Belen, New Mexico, then the 17 articles written by brother Ed Harrell in Christianity Magazine from November 1988 to May 1990 in which we were all encouraged to continue having fellowship with brother Hailey in spite of his false teaching on MDR, that this question has been brought to the fore. Does that not seem a bit strange? Generally speaking, our brethren understood that a false teacher is one who teaches false doctrine. It seemed, however, in this case that the definition of a false teacher needed to be changed in order to accommodate an old, beloved brother, and one who has done so much good back through many long years of Bible teaching at brotherhood colleges. Have we forgotten the words of Paul? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

There is much said in Scripture about false teachers. No, the designation “false teacher” is not specifically mentioned  very many times, but the subject is! For example, Paul referred to false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:16-18; but spoke of their teaching as “profane and vain babblings.” Were these teachers of truth? Certainly not! Their “profane and vain babblings” made them “false teachers”! Apollos was a false teacher, though Luke does not use that terminology to describe him, until Aquila and Priscilla “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). Thankfully, our brother Apollos was honest and stood corrected and became a teacher of the truth. Just why are some folks so insistent in saying that they must find in the Bible the expression “false teacher” before they can consider them such? We often preach against the sin of dancing, of gambling, etc., though such are not condemned in Scripture by name. But many are saying today that to be a “false teacher,” one must fit the descriptions of 2 Peter 2:1-19, such as having “pernicious ways,” being “covetousness,” etc. One brother even says: “Being a ‘false teacher’ is not simply about doctrine but about character as well.” Granted such men as Pat Robertson and Billy Graham say a lot of good things in their sermons, yet are they not “false teachers” by reason of the error they teach? We dare say any of us would deny that such men are “false teachers.” However, can you name anything about their “character” that fits the description of 2 Peter 2:1-19? We think not! Is it not true that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”? Do these men “privily . . .  bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them”? Honestly, is that an apt description of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham? We think not! But these are considered to be some of the most prominent “false teachers” of our day! What makes them “false teachers”? It is obvious that it is their false teaching! You see, the thing emphasized in the Word of God that makes one a false teacher is that which he teaches. Beloved, the same thing that makes the above mentioned men “false teachers” makes brother Homer Hailey a “false teacher.” If not, why not? This writer always had the utmost respect for brother Hailey and considered him one of the very best of scholars, especially of the Old Testament prophets.

We have visited him in his home in Tucson. We have a picture of us both together! We have cherished our friendship for years! But since we learned of his false teaching on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” We must consider him a “false teacher”!

Why do men desire a “New Hermeneutic,” a new definition of a “false teacher,” and a new interpretation of Romans, chapter 14? What will be next? Will our children and grandchildren want to just rewrite the Bible? Already, we have every kind of “new revision” of the Bible on today’s market that one can imagine! All such things point up the fact that many in our society today have lost respect for the plain truth, and thus continue their search for something more palatable to their fancy. All of which reminds us of Paul’s words to the Galatians: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).

We do not wish to sound too simplistic, but brethren, remember that the very nature of truth is that it is the opposite of that which is false; thus anything that is not according to the truth of God’s Word is antagonistic to truth. Is this not the reason God’s Word has so much to say about us coming unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4)? Surely we will be judged in that final day by that Word (John 12:48; Rev. 20:12). Conversely, just look at the warnings that reflect the need for the truth being taught in its purity and simplicity (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). Furthermore, we are warned not to have fellowship with false teachers (2 John 9-11). We are admonished 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); so it is imperative that we know how to “rightly divide,” or “handle aright” the truth. This is one of the reasons James admonishes: “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). And such complies well with the context of 2 Peter 2. Just observe the context prior to it and that also which follows. Oh, yes! This applies as much to this writer as to anyone else! Thus, if we teach “damnable heresies” then we are a “false teacher” also! And, even if one is sincere, yet fails to understand the consequences of his error, he is a “false teacher” as long as he teaches it.

One of the most significant parts to Billy Graham’s teaching is that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved; thus, think of the consequences of such a doctrine! Just so, suppose every local church were to allow false doctrine to be taught on “marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” Think of the consequences! Every congregation would become a haven for adulterers! That certainly would qualify as being “damnable” (“destructive,” NASVB), would it not? But, brethren, the responsibility rests upon us to study God’s Word and teach only that which we know as true from the Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15). Indeed, the truth can be understood. Paul said: “Therefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is “ (Eph. 5:17). So, if I fall to understand it, I must study it until I do. How else can we carry out the directive of 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul said: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Paul also said: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

In conclusion, let us plead with all of our brethren that since we are all required to be teachers of truth in whatever capacity is permitted in the Scriptures, let us study diligently to know the truth, then teach it with all the force within us! Let us teach it by every scriptural means available to us, whether by word or epistle; but when we discover, at any given time, that we have embraced destructive error, let us be like Paul and Apollos and give it up, so we can be teachers of truth and righteousness. At the same time, let us not guard and protect those who are teaching false doctrine, regardless who they might be; but let us hold up the hands of those who have the courage to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

130 Audubon Ave., Florence, Alabama 35633