Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

My attention was caught by the following item in the September 27, 1991 Zululand Observer, the weekly paper which serves this area of South Africa.

Church groups from all over Zululand will take part in a colorful ‘March for Jesus’ in Empangeni and Richards Bay on October 12 as part of a countrywide campaign to say to the nation that ‘Jesus is Lord’ and that His church is ‘one and undivided.’

Empangeni churches will be holding a prayer and planning meeting on Friday September 27 at the Church of Christ to make arrangements for the local march. All enquiries to be directed to Rev. Arthur Loans at 0351-26096.

The church of Christ in Empangeni is sponsored by a large church in Abilene, Texas and their preacher, Brian Lister, is a South African with a Masters Degree from Abilene Christian University. They have long been active in community affairs, being hosts for dinners and parties to various community clubs. When their building was opened about five years ago the Methodist preacher was one of the speakers who welcomed them at the afternoon tea. They have also been moving in the direction of observing religious holidays. On Easter morning the members brought lawn chairs and sat in the parking lot of the building watching the sun rise.

When I read the news items I phoned Mr. Loans, who is the Methodist minister in Empangeni, and asked him if the article correctly represented the purpose of the March. He said that the paper gave part of its purpose, but that it was also to pray for the land at this time. Brian Lister was not present at the prayer meeting at the Church of Christ because he was out of town, but Mr. Loans phoned him about the March and Brian was happy to announce it. A member of the Empangeni Church of Christ told me that it was announced as a “march for peace” and the members were invited to take part.

This sad affair illustrates two truths: (1) The liberal churches of Christ are becoming indistinguishable from the denominations. Their departure from the old paths while seemingly small in the 1950’s and 60’s set them on a path of further departure. We brethren who opposed that departure predicted exactly what is happening now. Once set free from the need to prove all things by the Scriptures they have been guided only by what the feeling of the people is. As a congregation becomes filled with denominationally-minded people there is nothing to keep it from denominational practices.

(2) The liberals have long been noted for their softness in condemning sin, especially denominationalism. It is important that everyone be happy in their services. At Emvanizeni those who have birthdavs durina the week are given a special badge to wear during the service on Sunday morning and “Happy Birthday” is sung to them. During the communion “spontaneous” songs are sung. Everything is saccharine-sweet. The amount of solid, scriptural explanation is very small and naming a denomination and showing from the Scriptures that it is in error is strictly taboo. Since the congregation is obsessed by a desire to be accepted in the community it leans over backward to be involved in community affairs. How then can it refuse to “March for Jesus”? The denominations are always trying to drag the Church of Christ into cooperating with them; nothing would make them happier. And after years of softpedaling opposition to their doctrines the congregation is ripe for taking its place as a sister to the rest of the denominations.

What a heartbreaking business.

But those of us opposed to the institutionalism and softness of the liberals need to keep our guard up. We need to hammer sin without mercy, especially the sin of denominationalism. Without constant teaching on this subject the future generation can easily succumb to the same sweetsounding spineless “gospel” that has seduced the liberals into complete denominationalism.

Further, we need to cry rut publicly so that all who are in the world will know of our stand against the denominations. When Mr. Loans learned that I opposed their March for Jesus he was astounded. I was the only person who had voiced any criticism of their unscriptural project! The world needs to hear our protests of denominationalism, no matter how unpopular it makes us. Pray for boldness, brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 23, pp. 705, 726
December 5, 1991

By Harry R. Osborne

If the above title causes some confusion to you, do not feel alone. My understanding about the need for this type of preacher came only during a conversation with several brethren during the 1991 Florida College lectures. The need for this new kind of preacher may be a little difficult to explain, so please bear with me as we discuss the matter as briefly as possible.

Several brethren are now contending that alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ as declared in the gospel. They say that alien sinners cannot be convicted of sin because of violating the law of Christ found in the gospel. Instead, they tell us that alien sinners are properly convicted of sin only as they are shown to be in violation of God’s Ctuniversal moral law.”

Of course, this doctrine is relatively new. It has arisen at this time in an attempt to justify some unlawful divorces and remarriages. Those espousing this doctrine would have us believe that an alien sinner who is baptized may continue in a marriage which originated in violation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 and related passages. They argue that the alien sinner is not obligated to keep that law of Christ since it was given only for those in the kingdom, Christians. Therefore, they are forced to affirm that an alien sinner is free to divorce and remarry as many times as he chooses for any cause or without a cause, but only becomes obligated to live by Matthew 19:9 at his baptism.

Various writers, including this one, have written in some detail ref ting this theory with the clear teaching of the Bible. In this article, however, we simply want to look at a need which will arise if brethren teaching this error do not abandon it for the truth.

The Need For “Moral Law Preachers”

If these brethren are right in their teaching, the need for a change in their practice of preaching should be obvious.

They are forcing the audience to determine which part of the preacher’s message is for Christians and which part is for alien sinners without clear guidelines. For instance, when the preacher sees an alien sinner in the audience and tries to say something to convict that alien of sin, how are the Christians supposed to know that the message does not apply to them? On the other hand, when the preacher is bearing down on the worldliness of the brethren using passages from the epistles (written to Christians and supposedly binding only upon Christians), how is an alien sinner to understand he should not be convicted of such sins even though he might be doing the very things as an alien that the preacher is condemning for Christians? You see, the whole thing could get very confusing. I suggest that these brethren hire a second preacher, a “moral law preacher,” who could preach to the aliens while their “gospel preacher” limits himself to preaching for Christians only. This division of labor would help the audience immensely.

This arrangement would also help the “gospel preacher” to get out of some difficult situations. For example, suppose the “gospel preacher” had a class with an alien sinner to convict him of his sins. The alien sinner might ask, “Are you a gospel preacher?” What is the preacher supposed to say? He could say, “Yes I am, but I am not right now.” He could answer more fully saying, “Yes, I usually preach the gospel, but today I am preaching God’s universal moral law to convict you of sin. After you are convicted of sin, I will become a gospel preacher again to show you the remedy for your sin problem established when I was not a gospel preacher.” You see the Problem don’t you? The alien sinner may decide he is dealing with a certifiable schizophrenic and end the study. If these brethren are not going to leave their error and accept the truth, a two preacher arrangement with one “gospel preacher” and one “moral law preacher” would at least minimize the confusion.

Qualifications For A “Moral Law Preacher”

In establishing any new position, it is essential that clear qualifications and guidelines be laid down to delineate the obligations. I have been giving this matter a great deal of thought over the past few days and hope the following suggestions will be considered by our brethren teaching their “two law theory” as they seek one to fill the needed position of “moral law preacher.” They are as follows:

(1) A “moral law preacher” must never mention Matthew 19:9 or related passages. This point should be obvious since avoiding the consequences of such verses is the very goal of the “two law theory.” It might be good to look for a man who has never memorized these verses. Hypnotic suggestions to completely forget every part of the verses might also prove helpful in ridding any vestigial thought of the passages from his memory.

(2) A “moral law preacher” cannot condemn polygamy or concubinage for the alien sinner. This point became obvious to me with the release of a new book advocating the “two law theory” and its application to the divorce and remarriage issue. Notice the writer’s statement:

In Abraham’s case, God said, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:5). Sarai gave her handmaid to Abraham “to be his wife,” and he went in unto Hagar and she conceived (Gen. 16:3,4). He also had concubines to whose sons he gave gifts (Gen. 25:6). There was nothing in God’s universal moral law violated by Abraham’s having a plurality of wives and concubines (Homer Hailey, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God, p. 15).

Since this writer claims the alien sinner today is regulated by the same “universal moral law” as Abraham, the conclusion is unmistakable. Of course, a slight problem may take place in some church in Utah when the new brother Smith with his seven wives and twenty-five children walk into the first service following their baptism. However, my suggested solution will take care of the whole thing, as I see it. When a well-studied brother asks them, “Don’t you folks ‘Know what the gospel says about this?” the Smiths can reply, “Yes, but we weren’t under the gospel when we started in polygamy, so the moral law preacher told us to ‘abide in the calling wherein we were called.”‘ Surely that explanation will suffice.

(3) A “moral law preacher” may never use any part of the old law or the New Testament to show an alien sinner’s guilt in sin. of course, that eliminates virtually all of the Scripture. Since I have never tried to convict an alien sinner of sin apart from the Scripture, I am afraid I cannot help a “moral law preacher” with much advice. Perhaps transcendental meditation to find that “universal moral law” within one’s self might prove helpful. Now, those of you who are tempted to condemn this as a violation of the gospel, remember that the alien sinner is not regulated by that law yet, according to our “two law theory” advocates.

(4) A “moral law preacher” must never use the old law or the New Testament to teach an alien sinner about the nature of God. Since the alien is not amenable to either law, why should he have to know anything about that which is in them? This will create a difficult task for the “moral law preacher.” He will have to find some way to explain the nature of God from this unwritten “universal moral law.” It would probably be helpful for the “moral law preacher” to have a philosophy degree to jumble his mind to meet this confusing task.

(5) A “moral law preacher” cannot use the New Testament to condemn any denominational practice. This conclusion is necessitated due to the insistence of the “two law theory” advocates that the alien is not regulated by “kingdom law” found in the gospel. This will demand that “gospel preachers” stop debating sectarian preachers on instrumental music in worship, denominational government, the clergy system, the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, and a host of denominational doctrines. Since the denominationalist is not regulated by the law of the gospel, he can do as he wishes in these areas without sin. The “gospel preacher” will have to learn his place and stop convicting the world of sin and stick to preaching directed at Christians only. These brethren will also need to censure Alexander Campbell, N.B. Hardeman, J.D. Tant, W. Curtis Porter and a host of other “gospel preachers” who stepped out of their place to debate denominationalists in the past. Much to the delight of those wanting an exclusively “positive” message with no condemnation of error, any debates or classes designed to expose denominational error will have to be canceled. The countless numbers reached by these means in previous years will be a relic of the past.

Conclusion

Leaving the satirical theater of the absurd, please allow me a few closing comments. In an effort to justify the acceptance of those in unlawful marriages, some brethren have embraced a doctrine which is ridiculous when carried to its end. If it were not so serious in its consequences, we might be able to just laugh about this error and go on. The tragedy is, however, that countless souls may be lost eternally if we fail to oppose it. People all over this country are being urged to remain in their adulterous marriages by the “two law theory” advocates among us. Churches are being divided as a result of this error. As this happens, some of our brethren are urging us to compromise by accepting those teaching and practicing this error. Those opposing the error are even being labeled as “young trouble-makers” by some brethren. The time has come for those who love the Lord and the souls of men to stand boldly for the truth regardless of the cost! If we do not, the cries of lost souls in an eternal hell will forever testify of our careless disregard for the horrible effects of sin and error.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 23, pp. 712-713
December 5, 1991

 

By Dick Blackford

Here is a lesson from history that needs to be learned by the Independent Christian Church, institutional, and non-institutional brethren alike. It has been said, “About the only thing we learn from history is that we refuse to learn anything from history.” A shame, but often true. Israel refused to learn from their history. Things written aforetime were written for our learning.

1. “No Pattern” in the work of the church. The Missionary Society had its inception in 1849. It was argued that the Lord did not tell us “how” to do our evangelism and benevolence, therefore, whatever seemed expedient should be used. The Missionary Society (which also had an arm for benevolent work) violated the pattern God gave for evangelism (Phil. 4:16-18; 2 Cor. 11:8) and for benevolence (Acts 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 8,9).

2. “No Pattern” for the organization of the church. The Missionary Society affected a change in organization. A centralized organization sought to oversee the “brotherhood.” Today, the Disciples of Christ (D of Q are in the process of electing a President for that body.(1) Since Jesus is the only officer in the universal church and he did not ordain “brotherhood” (actually, a “churchhood”) oversight, this violated his pattern for local churches (I Pet.5:2; Acts 20:17,28; 14:23).

3. “No Pattern” in the worship of the church. Instrumental music became an innovation into the worship in the late 1850s. One of the earliest cases was when the melodeon was introduced into Midway Christian Church, Midway, Kentucky (1859), since “the Scriptures did not forbid it.” In a 1987 debate, a preacher for the Independent Christian Church argued that there is no pattern to the worship. “Worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it.”(2) This violated the specific teaching of the Scriptures that we worship by singing (Eph.5:19; Col.3:16, etc.). The Scriptures did not say sing only, but they only said sing. We have no right to generalize where God specified, and no right to specify where God generalized.

The D of C also have a number of ordained women preachers.(3) This violates the Lord’s pattern that preachers be men (1 Tim. 2:11,12; Tit. 2:15).

4. “No Pattern” in the plan of salvation. The D of C have become one of nine denominations which formed the Consultation On Church Union (COCU). The COCU-nuts (as they whimsically refer to themselves) have a total membership of 23 million. Each, in their ecumenical way, has accepted the baptism of the others, which includes Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians.(4) The D of C now accepts those sprinkled in infancy. Their position is that there is no pattern to the plan of salvation (one may be baptized without believing) and there is no pattern to baptism (sprinkling and pouring are as acceptable as immersion). This violates God’s pattern on the purpose and nature of baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom.6:4; Col.2:12; 1 Pet.3:21).

Their ecumenical error has led the Lexington Theological Seminary to form an alliance with the Catholic Diocese of Covington, Kentucky. The seminary offers a Master of Arts degree in Catholic subject matter to those who will use the degree to teach the Catholic faith. The material covers the Sacraments of Initiation, Eucharistic Rites, Doctrinal and Moral Teachings as well as a History of the Roman Catholic Church.(5)

5. “No Pattern” in morality. At the 1987 biennial general assembly of the D of C that body refused to pass a resolution that would call homosexuality a sin.(6) Michael K. Kinnamon, dean of Lexington Theological Seminary, is all but a shoo-in -to be President of the D of C at their election in October, 1991. He is being opposed by a small minority because he feels that homosexual behavior is acceptable before God. Said Kinnamon, “My own concern is not to condemn homosexuals, but to stand where Jesus stood. In a society that tends to exclude and reject them, the church needs to stand with them . . . I would advocate ordination of any persons called of God, whether heterosexual or homosexual, who are prepared to carry out the tasks of ministry.” This is saying God has no pattern for morality. It violates God’s pattern of one man and one woman (Gen. 2,3; Matt. 19:3-9; 1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 5:22-33).

6. “No Pattern” on the number of saviors or the number of bodies. Also at the 1987 general assembly, the governing body refused to pass a resolution declaring that “there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ. . . Many Disciples said they believe that calling Jesus the only Savior would be detrimental to ecumenical relations.”(7) They want to leave room for Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, etc. This violates God’s pattern, for there is one body (Eph. 4:4) and one Lord (Eph. 4:5). He is the only way to come to the Father (Jn. 14:6). There is no salvation in any other name (Acts 4:12).

7. No resurrection. When I preached in Owensboro, Kentucky, I lived three blocks from a D of C group whose minister did not believe Jesus was literally resurrected. He said it was “a resurrection of the cause.”

8. No atonement. I have no evidence that the “figurative resurrection” view is widespread among the D of C. If it is, how could there be any atonement for sin?

This is just a step from agnosticism and then total atheism. The alarming thing that should grab Independent Christian Churches, institutional, and non-institutional brethren, is that a little over 100 years ago these would have been our brethren! While we often think apostasy occurs slowly, this one has occurred at breakneck speed.

We do not charge each member of the D of C with approving all these doctrinal changes. But because of the pyramid structure (President, General Assembly, etc.), the rank-and-file are helpless to stop it. Caught in their own trappings.

What This Means to Independent Christian Churches

Some of them are already on the fourth step downward, a few steps behind the D of C, having accepted denominational baptisms, the social gospel, instrumental music, conventions (though not identical to some denominational conventions they assemble to partake the Lord’s Supper, something that only local churches are authorized to do).

What This Means to Institutional Churches of Christ

They have lectured and written tracts advocating that “there is no pattern” to “the work of the church.”

By their “brotherhood” elderships in the Sponsoring Church and their boards for doing benevolent and evangelistic work, they have said there is no pattern to “the organization of the church.” Some who are leading the way are on the same step with Independent Christian Churches. They believe instrumental music is premissible, thus no pattern to the worship. Freed-Hardeman University has volunteered to be a battleground by hosting a discussion from men on both sides of this controversy on October 12, 1991.(8) Women have been singing solos and teaching classes over men, such as at the “Nashville Jubilee” (1989-91).(9) Some are teaching that we are saved by grace alone, totally apart from any human activity.”(10)

Two groups are emerging. Some are trying to hold the line at the second step. They are now teaching “Pattern Authority.” Robert Taylor spoke on this topic at the Southwest Lectures (reprinted in In Word and Doctrine, July-September, 1991). Sounding like an “anti,” he said “Pattern authority undergirds every fundamental facet of the Lord’s church.” He then enumerated the areas: the Christian life, our worship, the organization of the church, the names we wear, the mission, our fellowship, the plan of salvation, etc. But he forgot to tell us about a pattern of cooperation in evangelism and benevolence. Since he believes “pattern authority undergirds every fundamental facet of the Lord’s church,” he must believe there is a pattern for church cooperation. None of them has ever told us what that pattern is. They have always denied that there was one. Brother Taylor will have to go against a whole line of institutional brethren, tracts, and articles who have argued that “there is no pattern.”

Brother Taylor and others are trying to put the brakes on, but they are too late and their opposition is weak. The brakes are greased with a little “liberalism” and won’t hold. They can’t afford to argue too strongly that there is a “pattern for every facet of the church” without having to give up their sponsoring churches, benevolent societies, “fellowship” halls, day care centers, kindergartens, etc. If brethren are going to preach “pattern authority” they need to begin with the work and organization of the church. This is where apostasy began for the Disciples of Christ and it is where it began for institutional churches of Christ.

What It Means for Non-Institutional Churches of Christ

I don’t know of any non-institutional brethren who are headed down these steps at the present, but some who have gone out from us are on step number four and are engaged in ecumenical relationships.(11)

It means we must not grow weary in pressing the issues with institutional brethren if we are to salvage any of them. It means we must put ourselves and our people in remembrance, though we may have grown tired of preaching these truths “lest haply we drift away from them” (Heb. 2:1). It means we must be more militant in attacking error and pointing out where some of these “seemingly harmless” views lead. Each step downward represents a degree of unbelief in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures to furnish us completely.

Before you head down these steps, take a look at the bottom one.

Endnotes

1. George W. Cornell, “Theologian Is Tapped for Top Church Office,” Associated Press, Jonesboro Sun, Jonesboro, Arkansas (Aug. 9, 1991).

2. Given O. Blakely, The Highers-Blakely Debate (Apr. 12-14, 1988).

3. George W. Cornell, ibid.

4. George W. Cornell, Associated Press, Owensboro MessengerInquirer (May 16, 1987).

5. Intercom (Apr., 1987).

6. Carol Elrod, “Church Rejects Stand Against Homosexuality,” Indianapolis Star (Oct. 22, 1987).

7. Carol Elrod, ibid.

8. From the Calendar, Gospel Advocate (Aug. 1991).

9. The Spiritual Sword, published by Getwell Church of Christ, Memphis, Tenn. (Apr., 1991), pp. 45,46.

10. Yokefellow, published by Memphis School of Preaching (Apr. 15, 1991).

11. Edward O. Bragwell, Sr., “Where Are They Now?”, Guardian of Truth (Jan. 7, 1988).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 684-686
November 21, 1991

By Douglas Matlock

While watching a television interview with Mickey Rooney, the fact of his many marriages came out. I believe he said he had been married and divorced eight times. It was amazing to me that he stated, “the one real love of my life I have never married.” Perhaps if he had, he would have concluded that she was not so great and divorced her also.

Sometimes, we are given emotional arguments involving people who have been married and divorced (without fornication being the cause) and now are in another marriage with children born to that relationship, and they come to obey the gospel. We are asked, “How could you say they must get out of that marriage in order to repent of their sins and be acceptable to God?” Could we not also use an emotional case and say, “What if Rooney came to obey the gospel with wife number nine, would you say that he would be pleasing to God?”

We are told the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ. That, actually, there are two laws in effect. One for the alien and another for the Christian. That Christ’s remarks in Matthew 19:9 were for those in the church but not for the alien. But look at the verse: we hear Jesus saying, “Whosoever divorces his wife. . . . ” Does that sound like it referred only to church members? Again, let us look at another passage. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus used “everyone who divorces his wife.” Does this sound like a directive to the church only? If Jesus had intended for his words to be applied generally, what other language could he have used?

Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and he would “convict the world in respect of sin and of righteousness and of judgment” (Jn. 16:8). The world, not just Christians were the subjects of the Spirit’s efforts. Paul writes also, “God will judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Were only the secrets of Christians to be judged? Paul said, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30).

But, let us suppose it is true, that the alien is under a moral law that applies only to them; would it be, or could it be any different than the teaching of Christ in the gospel? Paul wrote to the church in Corinth an& stated that the former life of some had been in such sins as fornication adultery, homosexuality, etc., but they had been “washed” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Doesn’t this tell us that they had violated God’s law? Where there is no law, there is no transgression. They were guilty of sin. In obeying the gospel they were called upon to believe and repent (change of mind bringing about a change of life) and to be baptized for the remission of sins. The Jews understood Peter’s words to mean that “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). The leader of Kuwait has four wives currently. This is the maximum allowed by their law. Could we tell this man that repenting would include putting away his wives, even though he may have children by each of them, or would they all be allowed to remain together?

To ask such questions is to answer them. Men and women need to be impressed with the truth of God’s word on this very important subject and not be carried away with the popularity or person of those who teach such. If we can take the plain passages of our Lord and explain them away, so that it allows the person living in adultery to obey the gospel and remain in a sinful state; then it will only be a short step to twist other passages to allow the Christian to put away a mate for any cause and feel acceptable to God as well.

Matthew 5:32 records the words of Jesus, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery. “

It’s rather amazing that this plain passage could be interpreted to mean that in the event this woman should remarry there would be no adultery involved in that union.

One brother states, “Yes, Colossians 3:5 (please read) indicates people can live in sin by their walk of life, but it does not even hint that anyone lives in adultery within a marriage.”

I heard a denominational preacher say concerning this problem, “You can’t unscramble eggs.- It looks like we have a lot of brethren trying to say the same thing, only they are trying to work out a formula that will put God’s stamp of approval upon it.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, p. 683
November 21, 1991