Truth Magazine

By Robert Wayne La Coste

It would appear from the outset that Jacob and Esau were destined to have problems between them. The Scriptures reveal that even while in their mother’s womb, “the children struggled together within her” (Gen. 25:22).

Parental partiality didn’t seem to help their relationship either. The Genesis account continues. “And Isaac loved Esau . . . but Rebekah loved Jacob” (Gen. 25:28).

From their youth up they simply did not treat each other as brothers. Esau was a flippant personality that took important items for granted. For a small portion of food, he sold his birthright. Jacob, taking obvious advantage of his brother’s hunger, bought a valuable commodity for a little of nothing.

Finally, to add insult to injury, Jacob lied to his own father, telling the aged and infirmed Isaac that he was Esau, so as to receive his blessing before he died. In receiving such a blessing, Jacob was in essence made Lord over Esau in all things. The elder would be subject to the younger. The behavior of both sons, particularly to each other as brothers is without excuse. While it is evident that God’s decision was to choose Jacob over Esau (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” – Rom. 9:13), let no one think that God condones the chicanery of any man.

Many years passed between these events and the time that Esau and Jacob would see each other again. It seems almost like poetic justice that, in view of how Jacob had treated his brother he similarly should be treated by his fatherin-law, Laban. His love for Rachel constrained him however, and she finally became his wife after additional years of service to Laban.

God blessed Jacob with many children and many possessions. He became a wealthy man with many flocks and herds (Gen. 32:5). He eventually departed from Laban and took his family and all his possessions nigh unto the land of Seir, the land of his brother Esau. He sent messengers unto Esau that he might “find grace in his sight.” The messengers returned telling Jacob that Esau was coming out to meet him with 400 men! Upon hearing of this, Jacob was greatly distressed. He was so afraid he made plans to divide his people, lest they all be smitten when his brother came (Gen. 32:1-8). Is it not all together possible Jacob was afraid because of what had happened in the past? He knew what he had done to his brother. He knew of Esau’s hatred for him and he knew he and his family would surely be at Esau’s mercy.

Jacob’s fear compelled him to pray to God to be delivered from the hand of Esau (Gen. 32:9-12). He could only wait for what appeared to be impending doom!

Upon the appearance of Esau, Jacob divided his family as he had purposed to do (Gen. 33:1-2). He bowed seven times as he approached the man who would surely be his executioner. Would Esau thrust him through with the sword? Would he capture Jacob and make him watch his wives and children tortured and killed for the horrible things early in life he had done to him? Would Esau make Jacob’s family watch as Esau tortured Jacob before them? The Scripture then reads that “Esau ran to meet him.” Perhaps he was running in great haste to take his revenge. Finally at last he would have retribution. But no, something else is about to happen! Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him: and they wept.”

What? How can this be happening after all the bad deeds, hatred and years that had come between them? How? Let’s make some appropriate observations and in these observations, dear reader, let us make our teaching relevant!

Isaac and Rebekah like all parents had their faults, but they were righteous people. Even righteous people make mistakes. It’s just that mistakes with the righteous are the exception and not the rule and when one looks at the lives of these two parents, such lives are evident. Therefore, even their children are not always going to be what they should be.

Sometimes similar actions exist with all the same feelings, and emotions that divide brethren of the Lord. Brethren, perhaps not even intentionally, will take advantage of brethren, lie, cheat or in some other way hurt them. It’s wrong and it’s sinful. However, have not both come from the same spiritual parentage? Have they not both become brother or sisters in the same way? All Christians who indeed are such, became such by being “born again of the water and of the spirit” (Jn. 3:5). Paul put it this way, “For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27). Yes, by faith in Christ Jesus, we who were baptized into Christ became God’s children and consequently brethren.

In being properly taught the things of God, is there doubt they were taught the importance of family and brotherly kindness? What about the virtues of humility and selflessness? Though Jacob and Esau may have often forgotten at times these matters, they came back to them and as might be expected, to one another!

Brethren, we must do likewise. We must come together on the truth of God; that must forevermore also be our foundation! When there are barriers between God’s people, pray tell, who put them there? Surely the Father has not. We put them there and we must do all we can to take them away! I for one, have been greatly encouraged by the recent meetings of brethren both in Nashville and Dallas in an effort to do this very thing. It is my prayer that such meetings will continue. Of course, though I’m an optimist, I’m also a realist. There may never be the unity existent among brethren that once was existent, but at least we can try, yea we must try! If we do not at least try, then we have failed the Lord in one of the most serious of commandments ‘ “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Speaking of trying, how about the local church when problems arise? Should we not like Esau and Jacob at least try to reconcile our differences? I seriously doubt that our wounds could ever be greater than the ones Esau and Jacob inflicted on each other and yet they were still brothers. No power on earth could change that fact. It’s as though this fact helped them find a way. There was a day that finally came and a common ground of mutual understanding that finally was made manifest. No, it didn’t happen overnight, but Jacob and Esau found a way. It’s as though their brotherly tie surmounted and surpassed all obstacles! As they made their approach toward each other and as they finally laid eyes on each other and then embraced as brethren, the past seemed to vanish as though it had never happened. Even if Esau had vindictive plans in route to Jacob, even if his temper burned within him, it all melted at the sight of his brother Jacob.

Brethren, we can not live and dwell upon the past. It will make us bitter and cold to those we should love the most and finally we will quit serving the Lord all together, because after all, “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn. 4:20)

It Does Take Two

Like man’s reconciliation to God, it takes action on the part of both parties. Of course, God stands ready at all times to have fellowship with man. God has shared the terms of reconciliation to man, thus showing his willingness to be one with him, but man must accept the terms of reconciliation by way of obedience.

If one brother wants to be reconciled and yet the other will not, then they will never be reconciled. Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he ran to meet his father, and in turn his father met him on the road home. Surely, this must be our attitude. Brethren, we must be willing to meet each other half way and then go all the way with each other home! Home to the Lord. Home to the truth. Home, the most precious of places.

The story of Jacob and Esau like so many others of the past have been preserved by God “for our learning and admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11). What shall we learn brethren? More importantly, what shall we do with our differences? One day we must stand before the great judge of all the earth. What a difference in judgment there will be of those who at least tried to be a brother in God’s family!

The best way to be a proper brother or sister is to strive to be God’s son or daughter. When God is first and when his word is first in my heart and yours, then you and I will always, somehow, find a way!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 460-461
August 1, 1991

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