Truth Magazine

By Fred A. Shewmaker

If the Mosaical law did not give “instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), how was it possible for Zacharias and Elisabeth to be “righteous” and “blameless” (Lk. 1:6)? Not long ago it was necessary for me to address this question. Another person read my answer, and urged me to put it in an article. The following is that answer:

The word “righteous” is translated from the Greek dikaios. That is the same Greek word which is the Septaugint translators used to translate the original Hebrew word in Genesis 6:9. English translations render it “just” – “Noah was a just man.” It is the same Greek word used when the Gentile, Cornelius, also is called “just” (Acts 10:22). Thus we have one dikaios before the law of Moses was given, one dikaios who never was under the law of Moses and two who were dikaios under the law of Moses. This indicates being under the law of Moses was not the determining factor regarding whether one was or was not dikaios. Regarding those under the law in Romans 2:13 Paul writes, “For not the hearers of the law are just (dikaios) before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (dikaioo). Verse 14 addresses those not under the law of Moses, when they “do by nature the things contained in the law, . . . are a law unto themselves.” I take it that Noah, before the law of Moses was given, did the things which the law later required of the Israelites and Cornelius, not being of Israel nor under the law, nevertheless, did the things required by the law. Whatever is meant, it is certain none of these four were without sin (cf. Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12).

From Romans 3:19,20 please observe three purposes of the law: 1. “That every mouth may be stopped.” 2. “That all the word may become guilty before God.” 3. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” A fourth purpose of the Law is given in Galatians 3:24: “to bring us to Christ.” Another thing which needs to be considered is the plain statement in Galatians 3:21: “if there had been a law given which could give life, verily righteousness (dikaiosunee) should have been by the law.” It was not “by the law” because verse 22 states, “the scripture hath concluded all under sin.”

Now in Romans 1:16 and 17 observe where righteousness (dikaiosunee) is revealed. “For therein the righteousness (dikaiosunee) of God is revealed. . . . ” “Therein” refers back to “the gospel.” These verses also show “the righteousness (dikaiosunee) of God revealed from faith.” This brings us back to the point made in Galatians 3:24: “. . . the law was our school master to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified (dikaioo) by faith.”

From these considerations I conclude that “the holy scriptures” which Timothy had “known” “from a child” were the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They served the purpose of leading to Christ and by that means were “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. It is not said that they afforded Timothy, or any one else, salvation. Now consider very carefully 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17. “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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

There are several things which indicate the word “all” here includes the New Testament: 1. The Old Testament is not “profitable for” teaching “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb. 6: 1); “Repentance from dead works” (works of the law – cf. Heb. 9:14, 15 and 7-10); “faith toward God”; “baptism”; “laying on of hands”; “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment.” This is not to say the Old Testament made reference to none of these things, but it did not make any of them clear “principles.” Therefore the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all doctrine. 2. In John 16:8, speaking of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin.” Therefore the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all “reproof.” 3. Paul used “the truth of the gospel” to correct Peter at Antioch, not the Old Testament. Thus the Old Testament was not “profitable for” all “correction.” 4. Galatians 3:21,22 shows that “righteousness” is not by the Old Testament law and Romans 1:16,17 show righteousness revealed in the gospel. 5. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, . . : That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). If the Old Testament alone is under consideration, Paul here declares it sufficient to make “perfect” and “throughly” furnish “unto all good works.” If that is what he is meaning, he is contradicting 2 Corinthians 3:6. Giving “life” is a good work. It is the work of “the new testament” which the law could not do (Gal. 3:21).

There considerations lead me to the conclusion that “holy scripture” (2 Tim. 3:15) refers to the Old Testament. They also lead me to the conclusion “all scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) refers to both the Old and New Testaments.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 459
August 1, 1991

By Lewis Willis

In his Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine defines the Greek word oikonomos, which is translated “steward, stewardship.” He said it “primarily denoted the manager of a household or estate,” usually slaves or former slaves (74). The principal idea of ” steward” was servant – “stewardship” was a service role. What might we learn about this word and its application? Is something applicable to us that we may not be observing? Herein we briefly look at this subject.

The Apostle Paul told the Church at Corinth, “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). For “faithful,” the Greek word is pistos, which means “to be trusted, reliable” (Vine 72). Therefore, whoever the New Testament identifies as a “steward,” they are “to be trusted, reliable” servants in that capacity. Their master can confidently expect them to do their assigned task.

The New Testament identifies three areas where stewardship is assigned.

(1) The duty is assigned to preachers of the Gospel and teachers of the Word of God. “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). It should go without saying that those who preach and teach must be reliable in handling the Truth, so that those who hear can trust their word. We need only look about us at the religious confusion of our world to see what can happen if preachers and teachers are not faithful, as stewards.

(2) The second application of the word is made to elders or bishops. Paul wrote, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Tit. 1:7). His duty is that of “manager” of the house of God. Thus, Paul will ask, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5) The stewardship of elders is to faithfully, reliably, trustworthily care for the church, which is God’s house (1 Tim. 3:15).

(3) The third area of responsibility refers to general work on the part of all Christians. Peter, speaking of our varied abilities, wrote, “As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). Whatever work we are qualified to do, we must do it faithfully – be reliable – be people who can be trusted to do as we should. This third duty encompasses the entirety of our service to God as his people.

It is an unfortunate fact that many to whom God assigns stewardship,” do not fulfill their tasks with diligence. We can find too many reasons not to do as he says. There seems to be little readiness to step forward to do what we can in our service to him. I was reminded of this when I read a brief quip in Reader’s Digest (6-91) about a feisty 91-year old Missouri grandmother. She had had a total hip replacement and was confined to her home. Because there was no family nearby, a call was made to Meals On Wheels to assure that she had the food she needed. The organization was asked to approach her carefully because she did not like to think of herself as helpless. When the volunteer telephoned her, she explained that Meals on Wheels was a volunteer service to the elderly and ill. She was asked if she would be interested in it? There was a pause. “Well, sure, if you can’t find anybody else to get food to the old people, I guess I can.”

That attitude is a far cry from that which is so frequently heard today – “let somebody else do it.” Is the task something that needs to be done? Is it assigned to us as a duty by God? Is there a legitimate reason why we cannot handle the matter? Are we waiting on someone else to do what we are personally obligated to do? When God tells his people to teach the Truth to the lost, to edify and up-lift saints that are weak, and to bear the burdens of others who need us, he has assigned stewardship and we are to be faithful in the discharge of duty.

The motivation for stewardship is the knowledge that God says do it. We will be blessed or punished, depending upon our response to the duty. Stewardship is what being a Christian is all about. The paper, The Light (5-91) makes this statement, “Stewardship is what a man does after he says, ‘I believe.”‘ That pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 453
August 1, 1991

By Tom M. Roberts

One of the most unique religious exchanges between brethren occurred during the lectures at Florida College, February 5, 1991. The participants were Ed Harrell and Mike Willis, introduced by then-president Bob Owen, as they discussed Marriage, Divorce and Fellowship. Though not a part of the regular lectures, the feature was arranged by the college due to the heightened interest among brethren upon the publication of Homer Hailey’s book: The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to the Lord. The single session was arranged so that each speaker had one thirty-minute speech, a ten minute response, a period of questions from the audience (moderated by Clinton Hamilton), concluding with a short summation by both participants. The open forum has proven to be, historically, one of the highlights of the lecture week and this year was no exception.

The uniqueness of this particular discussion lay not in the fact that a controversial subject was brought before the audience. Indeed, open forums seem to imply contradictory positions. But this session was outstanding in that the disputants both disavowed the position that Hailey advocates while disagreeing on the limit of fellowship brethren should have with Hailey. This writer was struck with how nearly bizarre a situation was created in which two brethren agree so entirely about a teaching that both regard as destructive to society at large and to the Lord’s church in particular, yet in which one brother felt so compelled to defend his continued fellowship with the chief advocate of the error in question. The broader application of this thorny problem is that of limiting fellowship with anyone who teaches false doctrine that might cause brethren to lose their souls. The approach each participant made in attempting to answer this was his own as each represented only himself: not the college, any congregation or “the brotherhood.”

It was felt by the editor of Guardian of Truth that sufficient time has passed since the time of the lectures (Feb., 1991), so that a more dispassionate approach to this subject can now be made than earlier. Certainly it is a time for deliberate and not rash consideration of a volatile issue that carries the potential of alienation of brethren.

While not eager to review this exchange, I was in the audience and heard what was said. I have both printed copies of the material and tapes of the speeches, having covered the material many times. I do not claim to be neutral. I believe brother Harrell to be woefully wrong in his position and practice and will say so in this review. In my opinion, he is unduly influenced by feelings of loyalty to a friend. But I will try to be fair and just in my remarks, believing that Ed will know that I am sincere and free of animosity. I believe he knows that I bear him no ill will whatsoever; on the contrary, one can only admire the candor and frankness with which he speaks. This is a serious matter and feelings run deep, but so does our desire to communicate and understand what each one is saying.

It is well-nigh impossible to separate the defense Ed makes of his position from the defense he makes of brother Hailey. He takes severe umbrage at what he sees as personal attacks on an esteemed friend and, while defending brother Hailey’s honesty and integrity, weaves honesty and integrity into the very definition of fellowship with those who teach error. Those “personal attacks” became “the trigger for this present larger discussion.” He labeled those attacks as “mindless creedalism that crushes free discussion and intimidates brethren,” “a reign of terror,” and attempts by critics to “coerce into conformity by personal threats.” Yet this personal defense of Hailey as a “comrade” of long standing did more to inject Homer Hailey as a personality into the discussion than did those who object to the doctrine which he teaches. Universal attestations by critics of Hailey’s doctrine of their love and esteem of Hailey himself were viewed by brother Harrell as “fawning praise” and “slobbering compliments.” This assessment of the honesty of brethren (which was pointedly rejected by Connie Adams in the following day’s open forum), will figure prominently later in noting the arguments Ed advances on behalf of fellowship with those who teach doctrines which will condemn one’s soul.

Basically, two views of fellowship were espoused. Beginning at the question of fellowship toward brethren such as Homer Hailey, the broader question encompasses fellowship with anyone who teaches doctrines that might cause souls to be lost. Mike Willis urged a limitation of fellowship; Ed Harrell proposed continued fellowship.

Mike Willis affirmed a Bible basis for fellowship established upon (1) a total and understandable revelation of all truth in the Scriptures, (2) the revelation of the specific will of Christ regarding marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:9; et al) which calls for (3) fellowship within that revelation and rejection of those who go beyond it. Clearly, Willis associated his position with that of the apostle Paul in that men should “speak the same thing and be of the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). ” His plea was that “early restorers sought to achieve unity of all Christians by a restoration of the primitive gospel.” His approach was that which most in the audience, rightly or wrongly, had advocated through the years as being the heart and soul of the restoration concept. Brother Willis quoted from Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration and Address,” N.B. Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, and M.C. Kurfees, among others, to identify what he was teaching with that position held by brethren through the years. Division among brethren, on the other hand, splintered the restoration when some began to teach “unrevealed opinions” regarding mechanical instruments of music in worship and church support of institutions. Brother Willis labeled Homer Hailey’s position on marriage, divorce and remarriage as an “unrevealed opinion” which divides brethren. As noted, Ed- Harrell would agree that brother Hailey’s position is an “unrevealed opinion,” but would insist on maintaining fellowship with him even as he teaches it. By contrast, brother Willis sought to prove that a call for fellowship with those who teach “unrevealed opinions” is a call for union and not unity; a step toward the denominational “unity-in-diversity”; an abandonment of the restoration plea.

Romans 14 was widely used by both brethren in their discussions. Mike Willis applied it to matters of individual judgment or opinion (“matters of authorized liberties” such as meats and days, the context of Romans 14). In careful consideration, he noted that one brother is “weak in the faith” (“lacking in knowledge” quoting Bryan Vinson’s Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, p. 260) and another 6 1 strong,” but neither is sinful. It is equally right to do either action; it is sinful to condemn one another; both do what they do “as unto the Lord”; both are clean; their actions are good. In such areas of judgment, God receives both brethren and brethren are to continue fellowship with each other. Pressing this point with telling force, Willis asked, “Does adultery fall into the category of things discussed in Romans 14?” “Is the man who commits adultery ‘weak in faith’ or sinful?” “Is it equally right to commit or not commit adultery?” “Can one commit adultery ‘to the Lord’?” “Is adultery ‘clean’?” etc. These penetrating questions drove to the heart of the issue and to the proper use of Romans 14.

Noting that brother Harrell improperly uses Romans 14 in argumentation, Willis referred to Ed’s series on “The Bounds of Christian Unity” as advocating “unity-indiversity” on matters of “the faith” “tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions’ (Ed Harrell, Christianity Magazine, May, 1990).”

That which seems to lift the issue clearly above a consideration of Homer Hailey’s position only is hereby addressed: If Romans 14 permits fellowship with brethren who advocate “contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions,” how and where does one draw the line of fellowship? Our institutional brethren are asking, “If you can have fellowship with Homer Hailey, why can’t you have fellowship with us?” Mike also asked if Romans 14 thus applied to the deity of Christ, water baptism and homosexuality. Why does Romans 14 cover the preaching of error on divorce and not on these other “important moral and doctrinal questions?” Beyond a doubt, these are questions that are to the point and which, in my judgment, brother Harrell did not and cannot answer. Further, there are very practical considerations which come to mind and must be addressed. Is one only to allow brother Hailey to teach this doctrine or should we receive into our fellowship those who would practice what he preaches? Are we to allow aliens the right to keep mates of adulterous relationships but restrict children of God from keeping mates of adulterous relationships? What happens when children of God intermarry with aliens and we have a mixedadulterous relationship? This approach to fellowship with those who teach sinful doctrines about divorce and remarriage would open a snake’s nest of problems which none can foresee or unravel. Brother Harrell is, in my view, opening the door to larger and knottier problems than his defense of brother Hailey’s right to continued fellowship and use by faithful brethren. Brother Willis, while urging an absence of “intolerance and rash action,” rightly called for a return to preaching a revealed gospel while we avoid unrevealed theories which divide brethren.

Review of Harrell’s Material

Brother Harrell rejected Mike Willis’ explanation of the Bible basis for fellowship out of hand as a “simple assertion” with no basis in fact, stating that Mike “refuses to address that question.” Referring to the first eight articles of his Christianity Magazine series, he claimed to have addressed that question himself, professing fellowship to be limited by: (1) a climate of dissension, (2) clear and intolerable immorality, (3) where no good conscience preval s and (4) judgment calls as to the clarity of NT instruction and the honest intent of brethren. He stated he (Ed) has “tried to outline how I decide (how to distinguish faith and opinion, tr); brother Willis has informed us what the decision is.” He accused Mike of making a “sectarian creedal statement” by affirming that certain issues (pacifism, the covering question) fall into the category of Romans 14 and others do not (divorce, etc.) without detailing “how” the issues are different. On the other hand, brother Harrell proposed a new hermeneutic on fellowship based upon at least three principles.

First, he suggested a different exegesis of Romans 14. He denied that it applies to matters of no consequence to God, to matters of personal judgment, in spite of the context, and concluded that matters of “the faith” were included. Ed would thus apply Romans 14 to matters of moral and doctrinal importance (without himself stating why this does not violate the context or without stating why this application would not include institutional brethren, homosexuals, etc., as well). Nothing in the four principles from the Christianity articles nor this first hermeneutic principle provides substance to the claim that Ed has provided an answer to the “how” brethren are to make a distinction between faith and opinion.

Secondly, Ed proposed that each Christian and local church make a determination of the “honest intent” of those who teach other views of morals and doctrines (but not fellowshipping those who “flaunt” truth). This determination of “honest intent, ” however, must not hinge on the subject matter being taught. It is rather a heart judgment based on the observed life of the person who teaches otherwise. Hailey’s honest intent would make what Hailey teaches of no consequence to fellowship. Any brother’s honest intent would make his contrary view of no consequence to fellowship. Theoretically, an honest brother could never hold a false position! Ed’s “how” he would fellowship brother Hailey (and others who teach contrary doctrines on divorce, etc.) is a highly subjective determination that the teacher is honestly intent on teaching the truth. I would like to hear why this is any different from the denominational plea that “any belief is right if you honestly believe it.” Denominational people claim honest intent; churches of Christ have not cornered the market on that. As Mike reminded Ed: Oral Roberts claims to be honest. Ed Harrell is on record that he believes Oral to be honest. Is Ed ready for fellowship with Oral Roberts? This hermeneutic seems to force Christians to read hearts (a subjective process), rather than judge doctrine (an objective process). Just a thought: If we can determine hearts of those who teach contrary doctrine, why can’t we judge hearts of those who agree with us and get rid of dishonest brethren who teach the same doctrines we do? This might be as beneficial as reading the hearts of those who disagree with us!

Thirdly, brother Harrell proposed that contrary views of Scripture, if honestly held, should not limit fellowship since all biblical teaching is not of equal clarity.” In other words, teaching a contrary doctrine does not make it false and one cannot be labeled a false teacher on the basis of teaching alone. While certainly agreeing that the book of Acts is not as difficult to study as the book of Romans we must still press the point that perception does not determine whether or not a matter is truth. Truth is objective, not subject to my permission, approval or agreement. The fact that something may not be clear to me does not alter its binding force nor suggest that we may have fellowship simply because we disagree or fail to understand it alike. Does a lack of understanding on one thing suggest that we cannot be sure about any doctrine? The question is: “Is Scripture clear on anything?” How does Ed Harrell determine what Scriptures are clear and which are unclear? That they may be clear to him does nothing to establish an article of revealed truth. He may be clearly wrong. Which is faith and which is opinion? If Mike is guilty as charged by Ed in that he does not give a “how,” in determining between faith and opinion, so also is Ed guilty. Further, does this lack of clarity apply only to divorce or is baptism, worship, institutionalism, etc. included? Why is it that only divorce is so unclear that we should not limit fellowship on it? Should we be able to plead toward God for fellowship with him on the basis that he did not give an understandable revelation, a “clear” statement of faith?

Frankly, this approach that truth may be bound only if one understands it scares me. Does truth lie in my perception of it or in the fact that God has revealed it? My lack of perception of truth does not excuse me; my disagreement with truth does not make my belief right; there is only one way on some matters. I know Ed would vehemently disagree with this and I certainly do not charge him with this view, but the consequence of this statement would imply that God has not given an understandable revelation simply because brethren have debated it for 45 years or because five or six views exist. Is baptism not clear simply because the majority of the religious world has never understood it or because there are different views around about baptism? Is there not a single teaching on baptism? On marriage? On divorce? Is it not true, or are we just being simplistic when we preach “be not foolish but understand the will of the Lord” (Eph. 5:17), or “Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4).

Brother Harrell’s view of fellowship seems to be a demonstration of reaction, dependent upon “whose ox is being gored.” He stated that neither he nor Hailey would fellowship a “clear adulterer.” This begs the question. Whose definition of “adulterer” shall we use? If we use the definition of children of God who are living in adultery, he and Hailey would agree though more liberal brethren would be gored who would permit the guilty party to remarry. But if we use Hailey’s definition of aliens who are living in adultery, Ed would not limit fellowship because this is Hailey’s ox that is being gored because of his particular definition of what constitutes adultery.

What about the institutional “ox”? Ed would limit fellowship with liberals. But why is the institutional ox any different from the divorce ox? Johnny Ramsey, Roy Lanier, etc. are examples of those brethren who would claim to be honest persons who differ with Ed about institutionalism and would like to have fellowship with Ed. Why is their ox gored, but not Hailey’s? Yes, let us be, as Ed stated, “clear about clarity.” Is the truth on institutionalism clearer than on divorce? Who said so? Are aliens in adultery more honest than brethren in institutionalism?

In trying to deal with the inconsistency of fellowshipping Hailey and not fellowshipping liberals, Ed defined a false teacher as “either ignorant . . . deluded . . . or a deceiver . . . he is not honestly mistaken about God’s clear instructions.” Accordingly, he can fellowship Hailey because he is honest, but he cannot fellowship liberals because they are all dishonest, having been exposed to clear truth but disobedient to it. Hailey has been exposed to truth (Ed has tried to convert him) but simply holds a different view about an unclear subject and cannot be a false teacher.

But try that definition on the apostle Paul when he laid waste the church. He was involved in the murder of Christians and taught that Jesus was an imposter. He was guilty of both doctrinal and moral sin and he pleaded ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13). Was he a false teacher when he was guilty of denying Jesus? Or was he just guilty of holding to a contrary view that was covered by his good conscience (Acts 23:1), his honest intent that would have permitted fellowship even when he blasphemed? Here is a clear case of something that Ed says cannot exist, but does, and which is a denial of his very definition of a false teacher. Paul was informed yet ignorant, honest but errant. Ed stated: “I have been dismayed to read articles on Homer Hailey that have been filled with fawning praise of his honesty and integrity while accusing him of violating clear biblical teaching. That is absurd. If honest and informed people disobey clear biblical instruction, God is the author of confusion.” Either God authored confusion or Ed is wrong in his definition. Paul was informed, being advanced beyond his peers (Gal. 1:14), honest, yet ignorant of the clear teaching of Scripture and a false teacher and a murderer. Was he worthy of fellowship? By Ed’s definition, he was. But if Ed can judge a person’s honesty no better than to accuse many friends of Hailey as “slobbering” and “fawning” when they express love for Hailey, how can he be assured that he can judge the honesty of liberals when they also claim to love God? This suggests that any system of fellowship that is based on subjective reading of hearts is flawed.

Brother Harrell suggested that we have two alternatives: either follow the hermeneutical approach which he has outlined (which suggests a solution) or demand “total agreement about ‘the faith’ – a term with undefined boundaries but including, apparently, a single teaching on divorce” (which suggests chaos). Brother Willis’ material did suggest a broader choice than this. While emphasizing the objective approach to fellowship that is provided by measuring every doctrine by the word of God, Mike also acknowledged that Romans 14 has been provided by God to permit differences in matters of indifference to God. Brother Harrell may scoff at this but it is a part of the inspired wisdom which God provided to avoid the splintering condition its absence would demand. Romans 14 is the safety valve, if you will, of the fellowship question. Matters which are truly parallel to the examples in Romans 14 (meats and days), matters which are of personal opinion (though strongly believed), and of “doubtful disputation, “provide areas of disagreement between strong (taught) and weak (untaught) brethren wherein fellowship may be maintained while judgment is deferred to God. This has been our actual practice in the past concerning the covering question, pacifism, and a host of other problems. We have permitted God to be the final Judge and have maintained fellowship in thousands of local churches while yet recognizing a continuing need to study. None of us will ever be able to make an exclusive list that will determine which subjects of study are to be included in Romans 14. (And both Mike and Ed agree that no one should even try.) But this chapter, with all its relevance to so many questions of fellowship, cannot be stretched to cover a single item of revealed truth, the disobedience of which would condemn one’s soul. Homosexuality, the divorced and remarried who would come to God, institutionalism, and other subjects that matter to God and, about which God will hold us accountable, have no place in the deliberations of this great chapter. But it must occupy a place in our determination of fellowship between brethren who hold differing opinions.

Conclusion

No brotherhood decisions were attempted nor made at the open forum study between Ed Harrell and Mike Willis. We will continue to be faced with choices as to whom and over what subjects we will fellowship one another. The ball is in our court now as we turn to God’s word and continue our study. Let us be sure that we conduct our studies and attitudes in such a manner that God will be pleased lest we lose that most important blessing of all: fellowship with God.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 432-435
July 18, 1991

By Jeffrey Asher

The following statement appeared in The Southwest Story (Vol. 23, No. 11), a publication of the Southwest Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas:

I am anticipating a wonderful day Sunday as we spend a whole hour devoted to the Lord’s Supper. To prepare our minds and bodies for Sunday, the elders have called a church-wide fast. The fast will begin Saturday afternoon and continue until we break the fast with communion Sunday morning. This is a perfect opportunity to share your beliefs about Jesus to your children. I pray that this fast will focus your mind and cleanse your heart for our worship time Sunday. Please include in your prayer time a special request that God opens the doors of opportunity to you to bring a guest for our special Resurrection Sunday service.

The above was written by Brad Small, the new “pulpit minister” at Southwest. The front page of the newsletter contained a large announcement, Day of Prayer and Fasting.

The above is of great concern to me. I believe that it is representative of a progressive departure into denominationalism, characteristic of many Churches of Christ in Amarillo. It is the same behavior that led eventually to the formation of the Christian Church denomination. For the truth’s sake I ask that you read and study with me concerning what the Bible has to say about this matter. Honest hearts will realize that the danger is real.

Where Is Authority?

The apostle Paul taught, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him” (Col. 3:17). This verse, and many others, teaches the necessity of Bible authority for all that we believe, and practice in religion. We are not at liberty to accept whatever pleases us, or is convenient, or is approved by the majority. Rather, we are limited to “the things that I say” (Lk. 6:46) which are “the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

There are several things in the statement, quoted above, which raise the question, “Where is the authority?” Churches of Christ have long pleaded that men “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11). Where then is the Scripture that authorizes the elders at Southwest to “call” a “church-wide fast” and observe “Resurrection Sunday”?

Biblical authority is established either by direct statement or command, approved example or necessary implication. All that the Bible has to say on the subject *of the Lord’s Supper is found in the following passages of Scripture: Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22- 25; Luke 22:14-20; Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:14-21; 11:17-34. From these passages, there is not found one statement, command, example or necessary implication to authorize the “call” for a “church-wide fast.” There is not one mention, stated or implied, that fasting is either necessary or helpful preparatory to the Lord’s Supper.

Neither brother Small, nor the elders at Southwest, made any effort to show that their “call” was authorized in the Scriptures. We think it strange that preachers and elders do not feel the need to give book, chapter and verse for their practice.

Jesus and Fasting

Did Jesus think fasting, as brother Small does, would prepare our minds and bodies for worship, specifically the Lord’s Supper?

First, consider the context in which the Supper was established (Matt. 26:17,18; Mk. 14:12-14; Lk. 22:7-13; cf. Jn. 13:1-5). Jesus and his disciples were eating the Passover (cf. Exod. 12:3-10). This meal was a religious festival, but nonetheless a meal, consisting of lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. It was after they had eaten (Lk. 22:15,20) that Jesus instituted his Supper. Thus, it is evident that a fast is not necessary to prepare to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Neither did Jesus regard fasting helpful as preparation for worship (Matt. 9:14; Mk. 2:18-20; Lk. 5:33-35). The disciples of John asked him why his disciples did not fast. Jesus’ reply was that it was not appropriate for them to fast (Matt. 9:15). Surely, if Jesus was of the same opinion that brother Small is about fasting, i.e., it produces spirituality, then he would have had his disciples fasting (cf. Jn. 13:10). Yet, Jesus clearly taught that fasting did not make men spiritual (Lk. 18:9-14; Matt. 6:16-18), and what one ate had nothing to do with whether or not his heart was defiled (Matt. 15:1-20; 23:25-26).

Jesus taught that men are clean through his word (Jn. 15:3). By it they are sanctified (Jn. 17:17; Eph. 5:26), not through fasting. If we are in need of the forgiveness of sins we are told to “repent and pray” (Acts 8:22), not fast and pray. The spiritual mind is obtained by subjection to the law of the Spirit of Life (Rom. 8:1-14), not by fasting. Jesus exemplified this truth in the temptation when he said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Jesus had been fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry, and this is when the Devil came to tempt him. That which Jesus relied upon in this situation was the word of God. Jesus did not tell men that they should fast in order to overcome sin and resist Satan: He said, “It is written.”

Fasting in the Book of Acts

There are several examples of fasting in the book of Acts. With respect to examples one of three things is true: (1) We may do what is exemplified; (2) We must do what is exemplified; (3) We must not do what is exemplified. What is true in this case?

I have found four approved examples of fasting that someone might consider as justifying the elders’ action at Southwest. These are: (1) Saul of Tarsus prior to his conversion (9:9); (2) Cornelius prior to his conversion (10:30); (3) the prophets at Antioch prior to the sending out of Paul and Barnabas (13:2,3); (4) the Christians in Galatia at the appointment of elders in the churches (14:23). However, notice that in not one of these examples is there any association with the Lord’s Supper.

Furthermore, each of these examples represents the private, voluntary devotions of individual Christians. The elders did not “call” the entire church to fast and make an announcement to the public that thev were observing the fast in connection with “Resurrection Sunday” (cf. Matt. 6:16-18). In each of these cases the individuals chose to fast because of the circumstances. Paul and Cornelius were anxious about their salvation. The prophets at Antioch were moved by the revelation concerning the evangelistic efforts of Paul and Barnabas. The Christians in Galatia were responding to the somber occasion of the appointment of overseers. There is absolutely no indication that these saints were fasting in order to prepare themselves to worship God or to eat the Lord’s Supper.

These verses clearly teach that it is right to fast at some time (Matt. 9:15). Yet, in each case the fast comes as a result of the circumstances, and that voluntarily and privately. The indication is that times of sorrow, distress, and occasions of deep solemnity will naturally lead to fasting (cf. Matt. 15:32; 2 Cor. 6:1-11; 11:23-28; 1 Cor. 7:5). However, never do we find such imposed upon the church by the elders as an impetus to spirituality. Nor do we find that such was efficacious to the cleansing of men’s hearts. At the time of their fasting, both Saul and Cornelius were alien sinners who knew they were lost, but did not know what to do to he saved. Once they heard the gospel, obeyed it and were saved they stopped their fasting (Acts 9:19; 10:30). Fasting did not have anything to do with cleansing their hearts, and they did not continue the practice on the way to the Lord’s Table after their baptism.

Fasting and the Law of Moses

Fasting is often times mentioned in the Old Testament. -However, there was only one day appointed by law as a day of fasting, the Day of Atonement (Lev. 26:29-31; 23:27-32). All other fasts observed by those under the Law were either voluntary fasts or those appointed by religious authorities. In either case, they were observed in connection with great occasions of calamity, mourning, or as public demonstrations of repentance in the face of judgment from Jehovah.

To seek justification for the elders to 14call” a “churchwide” fast on the basis that Phinehas, Samuel, Jehoshaphat or Ezra called a “nationwide” fast is to make the same mistake the Christian Church people do regarding instrumental music. They have long contended that David, Solomon and Hezekiah used the instrument in praising God; therefore, we may use the instrument in praising God now. Yet, what they fail to recognize is that Christians are not under the Law (Col. 2:14-17; Eph. 2:11-18; Gal. 3:10-22; Heb. 7:11-19: 8:6-13: 9:15: 10:1-10). If this argument has any merit, then consistency demands that we tolerate every item that some would wish to bring into the worship from the Old Testament (e.g., incense, ceremonial washing, clerical robes, etc.).

However, to call upon Christians to observe such things is to lead them back into the weak and beggarly elements of bondage (Gal. 4:9-11; 5:4). It is to bring us back under the curse of the Law and burden us with the obligation of sinless perfection (Gal. 3:10-12). The consequence of this practice is to frustrate the grace of God (Gal. 5:4; 2:21).

Brother Small and the elders at Southwest are guilty of adopting or promoting numerous other errors in this “call” for a “church-wide” fast. Space will not allow a thorough treatment of them at this time. Yet, we believe that we should encourage you to consider the following. I am prepared to show any that are interested that they are true.

(1) Neo-Asceticism. The idea that fasting promotes spirituality and sin cleansing is contrary to truth and is an example of will worship (Col. 2:18-23).

(2) Observance of Days. The setting aside of 17 March as “Resurrection Sunday” exalts one day above another in violation of Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16. It also apes the Catholic and Protestant practice of Easter.

(3) Not eating the Lord’s Supper. Paul said that those who treated the Supper as a common meal ate and drank damnation. Brother Small revealed such a view of the Supper when he wrote, “The fast will begin Saturday afternoon and continue until we break the fast with communion Sunday morning” (Acts 27:33-37; 1 Cor. 11:20-22,27-29).

(4) Conscience Searing. When brethren start turning to external rites and emotional inducements, they begin to sear their consciences (1 Tim. 4:1-3). The conscience is seared when we experience no mental pain at doing wrong and no mental pleasure at doing right. Why call this fast unless some, at least, have lost their enthusiasm for the scriptural observance of this beautiful memorial?

It is my sincere desire to call attention to what I believe is a serious departure from the ancient order and a gross perversion of a beautiful and sacred memorial. There is no desire to make any enemies, only friends who upon seeing the error will be thankful that someone pointed it out. I encourage brethren to discuss these matters with the elders at Southwest and with myself. Let us seek a “thus says the Lord” in all that we believe and do. In this way, and only this way, can we all be pleasing unto God and confident in our hope eternal.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 436-437
July 18, 1991