Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

A reader poses several questions in a letter to me which he desires to have addressed in this column. Basically the questions center around a Christian’s having business dealings with a non-Christian or with one who is a wayward Christian. These questions are considered in this article.

Question: May Christians utilize facilities owned/operated by denominations or “liberal” churches of Christ?

In pinpointing the issues he wishes discussed, the querist gives examples. “Is it right for a Christian to buy material from a ‘Baptist Bookstore’?” Then he gives another, “May a Christian obtain a degree from a ‘Baptist’ college?” He then adds, “If yes, may parents (Christians’ send their children to a preschool which is part of a denomination’s or ‘liberal’ church’s local work?” In further amplification, he adds these comments: “If it’s wrong for churches to operate or maintain orphanages, wouldn’t it be equally wrong to use them for adoption purposes? Is it not inconsistent for one to not buy clothes from the Salvation Army but allow them to assist you in need?”

Response: Paul said, “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. ” In these words are embodied some principles of behavior that should prove helpful in consideration of the question posed.

Later in the querist’s letter, he mentioned the need to look at the question of fellowship. He raised this fellowship issue in particular with some other matters which will be dealt with in this article in due course. Fellowship in the New Testament is from two basic words: koinonia and metoche. Their sense or meaning is crucial to a correct understanding. Koinonia is a sharing jointly in something, a sharing in common, joint participation, or communion. It is obvious that some action is the predicate on which the sharing rests. Early Christians had a bond of being children of God through obedience to the gospel (Acts 2:37-38,41) that was indeed fellowship or a sharing together (Acts 2:42). But this joint participation was predicated on their acts that enable them thus to share. Christians are called by the gospel into fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor. 1:9). Without one’s responding to the call of God through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14), he cannot be in fellowship with the Son. One’s action of obedience to the gospel is the predicate for that sharing or communion with the Son of God.

Since light and darkness in the moral or spiritual world are antithetical, there can be no sharing between them (2 Cor. 6:14). For this reason, Christians are not to participate as a child of light in the works of darkness (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1). Unless one does or endorses the works of darkness, he has no fellowship with darkness.

Metoche means a sharing, communion, or partnership. Both koinonia and metoche are used in 2 Corinthians 6:14. In speaking of righteousness and lawlessness, Paul said there is no metoche, or sharing. Conforming to the standard of right shares nothing with violations of it. In speaking of light and darkness morally or spiritually, he said there is no koinonia or communion between them. Sharing, participation, or partnership is established by two individuals doing or endorsing the same thing.

Another term that needs attention is the term company appearing in 1 Corinthians 5:9,11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14. It is translated from sunanamignumi. It is compounded of three terms: sun, together or with; ana, up; mignumi, to mix or mingle. With Christians who are obstinate in rebellion to God in that they participate in the works of darkness, one is not to mix and mingle so that they do not come to the conclusion that their conduct is acceptable. However, there is to be some contact because one is instructed to “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). Fellowshipping or sharing in the work or deed is one thing and not mixing up with or mingling with is another thing.

If one comes teaching something other than the doctrine of Christ, one is not to tell such a person to rejoice in that work because if he does, then he becomes a partaker of his evil deeds (2 Jn. 10-11). Partaker is from koinoneo, to share with or take part in. One who teaches error or endorses one who does and encourages him in that endeavor is a sharer of the evil work.

Certain principles of truth should be clear from the preceding discussion. First, one can associate with people in the world in a way or manner in which he is not so to do with Christians. One in the world has not established a relation in the Lord common with the one who has obeyed the gospel. Accordingly, their association is predicated on a different basis altogether than the fellowship or sharing in Christ common to Christians.

Second, there is a difference in fellowship and company. One must do or endorse a work of darkness to be in fellowship with it. On the other hand, one shares in righteousness or light when one does righteousness and walks in light. “If we say that we have fellowship (koinonia) with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jn. 1:6). One can refrain from being in fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5: 11) but can keep company with an unbeliever who does fellowship darkness.

Third, Christians engage in business dealings with people of the world. When one buys a product and exchanges money for it because he believes the product has the value to him in the amount he pays for it, there is no endorsement or encouragement of the individual from whom he buys it in his religious, personal acts. The business transaction is independent of any predicate of sharing in spiritual issues.

Fourth, another principle is that the context in which a deed is done has relevance to whether one is right or wrong in the doing of it. For instance, one in Corinth might go to an unbeliever’s home and eat any food set before him but if the one providing it says that it has been offered to an idol, then he was not to eat for the sake of the conscience of the one who showed it (1 Cor. 10:27-28).

May one buy a product from a Baptist Bookstore? If that product is exchanged for an equivalent value, then one may buy the product without endorsing error. May one utilize a facility owned or operated by Baptists? Let us take the instance of a college partially supported by Baptists. If the college offers a program of higher education of which one desires to avail himself and he exchanges money for the instruction and services received, then the transaction has no relevance to endorsing a religious doctrine or giving God speed to the false doctrine. If one buys goods or clothing from one who denies that Jesus is the Son of God, that does not cause one to participate in the person’s infidelity. The predicate for the transaction – the buying of goods – does not set up the context of endorsing or supporting infidelity. Rather, it is in the context of the exchange of money for a product perceived to be of at least the value for which it was exchanged. Conceivably there could be a context established in which one could not execute the transaction. That would be special to the occasion and one would have to make the determination of what to do when faced with it.

May one utilize a preschool operated by a “liberal church of Christ”? In a context that does not cause one to endorse error either in teaching or practice, one could buy the product of instruction or service. But if there is an association or conversation that could be interpreted as endorsement, then one could not engage in the transaction or deed.

May one adopt an orphan from an agency supported by a church? The adoption of an orphan to provide the orphan with parents and care is not a sinful act. One who does such is not participating in a work of darkness. One would have to examine the context in which the adoption occurs. So long as the context in which it occurs does not lead to the conclusion of the endorsing of error or the practice of it, one could execute the adoption. Situations and circumstances do vary. The principle remains clear: one does not fellowship darkness unless one participates in, or endorses, it.

The Salvation Army is a denomination such as is the Baptist Church. What the Salvation Army does typically is in a different context than say, a Baptist Bookstore. Goods sold in a Salvation Army thrift shop are contributed to support that organization’s work. The goods, however, are worth some value. Just as clothes sold by one who may take a portion of his earnings to support the teaching that Jesus is not the Christ, so may earnings from a Salvation Army thrift store be used to support Salvation Army doctrine. The contexts may be entirely different but the exchange of goods for an equivalent value in money is the same in principle. One must decide what to do on the basis of the context in which the transaction occurs.

The querist in the second half of his three and one-half page letter asks whether fellowship is to be left in the realm of individual conscience. He then comments, “Sadly brethren refuse to act on what they boldly proclaim as sin. It’s a sin to smoke – yet nothing is done about those who have heard lessons, admitted addiction, and continue to smoke (for years). It’s a sin to use mechanical instruments in worship – yet nothing is done to those who use it in their homes or sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs at civic programs at Christmas time. It’s a sin to dance but nothing is done to those who encourage their children or the children who go to the prom, etc. . . . etc.” The writer adds that he would “like to see the subject of the individual and the extent they may involve themselves with ‘institutions’ of unscriptural origin. . . . We aren’t trying to cause trouble only allow us to see we must think of our actions as individuals as well as collective.”

In Ephesians 5:11, Christians are instructed to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to reprove them. The verb fellowship in this passage is sunkoinoneo, which is compounded of sun, together or with, and koinoneo, to share or to participate with. The idea is that if a work is one of darkness or sin a Christian is not to share in it. Rather, he is to reprove it. Reprove is from elencho, to convict or to rebuke.

It is essential that a work be tested against the teaching or doctrine of Christ to ascertain whether it is one of darkness or light. Having done this, and assuming that one is correct in his classification of the work, one is not to partake of or share in one that is of darkness. If another does, the obligation is to tax that one with the fault, which is the sense of convicting or rebuking.

If one is singing praise to God, this should be unaccompanied with a mechanical instrument of music (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19, et. al.). Jesus taught men how to pray and said after this manner pray ye (Matt. 6:9). He was teaching and not praying when he uttered the words following his exhortation. Although the words might under some circumstances be uttered as a prayer, that was not what he was doing. Rather, he was instructing them how to pray in contradiction to the way hypocrites of his day did. One may seek to learn a song and not be offering it as praise to God. The purpose or intent of the heart determines whether it is praise and to be unaccompanied by a mechanical instrument of music.

One’s obligation as a child of light is to be separate from darkness and to reprove any Christian who engages in a work of darkness. In a congregation, only a few may be in fellowship (sharing) with God (Rev. 3:4). At Sardis, there were a few who had not defiled themselves; God called them worthy and said they would walk with him in white. The obligation is not to fellowship, or share in, sin. Under some circumstances, as has been pointed out, one is not to keep company or to mix up together with some members of the body of Christ. Every Christian, in his or her context, must make this determination on whether to mix up with or to mingle with other Christians. In no event, should one participate in the sin.

One must be convinced that what one is doing is right. If there is doubt in the heart while one does something, it is a sin because Scripture says “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). If one doubts he should engage in an act, he is condemed because it is “not of faith” (Rom. 14:23). Taken by itself the act may be permissible according to the doctrine of Christ. However, in the context of one’s personal doubt, or in the context by influence to lead one to do a sinful act (for him), one would sin to do the act (1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:23-33).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 293-295
May 16, 1991

By Tony Eldridge

What would life in America be like without movie theaters and video stores today? Dates, parties, and entertainment itself would totally change without movies. Though I am not advocating that Christians give up this pleasure, I am, however, strongly grieved at the irresponsible way many Christians view some movies without taking into consideration their soul’s condition. I would like to consider the one question, “Can we as Christians view these things and still be pleasing to God?”

First of all, let’s look at what the ratings mean to a child of God. Of course they are G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and X. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has adopted these ratings to help in the selection of movies according to content. Rated G (general admittance) is usually suitable for young children. According to TV Guide, rated PG (parental guidance suggested) may contain one or all of the following: strong language, violence, nudity, sexual situations, and adult themes. PG-13 (under 13 not admitted without a guardian) may contain the same material as PG only more intense. Rated R (restricted) may contain the same material as PG, only even more intense. Rated NC-17 (no one under 17 admitted at all) is tailor made for soft pornography; and we won’t even discuss rated X since I hope that no child of God would ever try to justify that garbage.

To a Christian, those ratings shouldn’t mean too much. It is given by the world, for the world; and Christians shouldn’t let the world rate their morality. We have a God-given responsibility to guard the things that go into our minds and we will be judged based on his Word, not the MPAA rating system. I believe that it is foolish to justify a movie based on its rating alone. We must look at the content of a movie and see if it is contrary to God’s Will.

Let’s take an objective look at the content listed above as seen in the Bible. First of all, what does the Bible say about strong language? Ephesians 4:29 admonishes us to “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” Its sister passage in Colossians 3:8 tells us to put off blasphemy and filthy language out of our mouth. The Bible makes it clear that profanity of any sort is considered a sin by God and there is no way around that! And let me add that there is no way a child of God can make it to heaven if he uses the Lord’s name in vain. Of all filthy language, this type should be most offending to the children of God. If you can sit in a theater and listen to his name used in vain with-out even giving it a second thought, you need to take a good look at your relationship with him.

How does the Bible view violence; the murders, revenge, treating enemies spitefully? They are all condemned by his holy Word. Romans 13:9 – “Thou shalt not kill”; Rom. 12:9 – “Vengeance is mine”; and Matthew 5:44 – “Pray for those who spitefully use you.” These verses should suffice to illustrate God’s view of violence.

One passage alone will take care of illustrating the Creator’s view of nudity, adult themes, and adult situations. 1 Corinthians 6:18ff says, “Flee sexual immorality . – . do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. . . T’ I believe that this command is obvious.

Now I know that Christians aren’t practicing these things when we view them on the silver screen, but I do want us to understand how God views them whether or not we participate in them. The question again is, “Are we sinning when we view these things?” People usually have one of two responses when you hold their feet to the fire concerning this issue. “We certainly don’t practice these things!” This is the favorite justification; however, it forgets the reason for the Gentile’s guilt. In Romans 1:28-32, Paul listed some of the same sins that we have already studied as being the same ones that led them from God. Among them, sexual immorality, murder, and violence. Notice verse 32: “. . those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. ” My friends, if you are paying to be entertained by things contrary to the Word of God, then you are worthy of the same punishment as if you did those things yourself!

Another justification given to view these movies is, “You might have a problem handling that, but not me.” Paul talks of people who can make such statements in 1 Timothy 4:2 – “having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” My friend, it is not to your credit if you can sit through a movie filled with garbage and walk out unaffected. If you can make a statement like that, I plead that you do what David did in Psalms 51:10 and pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Jeremiah speaks of women in Israel who have forgotten how to blush (Jer. 6:15). And you, have you forgotten how to blush?

Plainly, I believe that we are sinning by watching these movies that contain such filth because we voluntarily subject ourselves to evil influences. Proverbs 4:14-15 says, “Do not enter the path of the wicked, and do not walk in the way of evil. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn away from it and pass on.” We must heed this warning as we choose the movies we watch. Verses 20-22 of Proverbs 4 admonish us to take these words to heart. The young man in Proverbs 7:6-9 flirted with what he knew was wrong simply by taking the path to the harlot and it ultimately led to his death. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 instructs us to, “abstain from every form of evil. ” Haven’t we more than proven that these movies contain evil?

If we haven’t shed the gospel light on this subject enough, let me encourage you to read Ephesians 5:1-17, for in it a Christian is admonished not to have fellowship with the works of darkness, but expose them. It’s all around us – theaters, TV, video stores. Be wise, walk circumspectly – but remember, on Judgment Day, you will stand before God, not the MPAA and if you are sinning against his laws, you will go to hell. Be careful in your entertainment, but have fun. And never forget who you are.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 289, 311
May 16, 1991

By Connie W. Adams

It is argued by some that if people in unscriptural marriages must sever that relationship upon obeying the gospel, that penance is being exacted rather than repentance. Brother Homer Hailey holds this view and has stated it clearly. I believe he is wrong about this.

The Catholic doctrine of penance imposes some penalty which must be carried out in expiation for sin and that is tied together with the doctrine of absolution granted by a priest who is thought to fulfill the extended role of an apostle in forgiving sin. The intricacies of this doctrine are not taught in the Bible and the attempts to defend it rest upon a misuse of the Scripture.

But the Bible does teach repentance. The word metanoeo, translated repent, literally means to perceive afterwards, implying change. It denotes a change of mind which results in amendment of character and conduct. John preached “Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8). On Pentecost those who had been guilty of the blood of the Son of God were told to “repent and be baptized” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Scriptural baptism was contingent upon genuine repentance. They could not undo what had been done, but they could resolve in their change of heart, not to be guilty of such a thing again. On Solomon’s porch Peter told his audience to “repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Notice that the blotting out of sin was conditioned upon repentance. On Mars Hill, Paul made it clear that repentance is a universal mandate of God who “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Peter said God would have “all men to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

The doctrine that an alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and that therefore in baptism all previous marriages are forgiven so that the one baptized may now remain with his present marriage partner, regardless of the cause of all previous divorces, is fatally flawed in that it nullifies repentance. In fact, if the doctrine is true, then the previous marriage state was not sinful anyhow, for sin is not imputed where there is no law. If no law, then there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15).

It is contended further that there is no such thing as “living in adultery.” But Paul wrote the Colossians and listed “fornication” along with other sins and then said, “in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them” (Col. 3:5-7). In that same context he listed “inordinate affection” or unlawful lusts, a reference to homosexuality. Some had “lived” in that sin. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul showed that these sins of the flesh bad been removed by the “circumcision of Christ” when they were buried with him in baptism. Question: Was it required that these change their practice? Or did baptism purify the state in which they lived so that they could continue in it? What did repentance demand?

This doctrine raises all sorts of questions. If the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ, then should he be a polygamist, upon what ground could it be argued that he must give up all his wives, but one, upon obedience to the gospel? Polygamy was tolerated under the law of Moses and under the “moral law” under which it is argued that alien sinners still operate until they obey the gospel. If a man can keep wife number three when his first two marriages ended in divorce without the cause of fornication, then why could not a polygamist keep three wives upon obeying the gospel? Where would repentance be in all of this? Would it be penance for the polygamist to give up these extra wives? Or would repentance demand it? I believe this is a fair question.

The gospel invitation is offered to every kind of sinner. Jesus came to “seek and save that which is lost” (Lk. 19:10). They that are sick need the Great Physician. Such passages as Colossians 3:5-7 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 treat a wide range of sinful conduct on the part of those described before they became Christians. The blood of Christ was able to cleanse every sin. It still is. But, baptism does not sanctify any sinful action or relationship. Murder is still murder whether before or after baptism. Drunkenness is sinful, before or after baptism. Homosexuality is sinful before or after baptism. Polygamy is wrong before or after baptism. Violation of God’s law on divorce and remarriage is wrong be f ore and after baptism. Baptism does not wash away wives!

Baptism is for those who have truly repented of their sins. What good does it do to baptize a man who is a thief who has no intention of giving up thievery as a way of life? What good would it do to baptize a murderer who is totally impenitent? What good would it do to baptize a p olygamist who has three wives and fully intends to keep them all? What good will it do to baptize a woman who has her third husband when the first two were not put away for adultery when she fully intends to remain in that condition? Ther e may be times when we do not know all the circumstances in the lives of those who present themselves for baptism. All we can do is be sure they know what God requires of a sinner for the remission of sins. I once refused to baptize a man who came forward during a gospel meeting in Richmond, Virginia and told me he wanted to be baptized. Why? Because he was clearly intoxicated. We talked with him after the services and offered to be of whatever help we could, but when he sobered up we saw no more of him.

Brethren, we have placed great stress on scriptural baptism and for that none of us should apologize. But there is a great need to stress Bible repentance. This is a prer~equisite to Bible baptism. Without it, baptism is invalid. I freely admit that we have to accept the word of those who say they understand what the will of the Lord is and that they are acting accordingly. But we have too many who are counted among the saints who have never made any change in life. Some have been converted to baptism but not to the Lord. True conversion involves a change of heart which is manifested in a changed life.

When James D. Bales wrote his book, Not Under Bondage, I wrote him that one of the errors of his position was that it denied repentance its fruit. That is the same error our brother Hailey has made and that is made by those who stand with him in arguing that the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and that God’s marriage law only applies to those who enter the kingdom. No earthly priest can forgive sin, as is taught in Catholicism in relation to the notion of penance. But there is a high priest in Heaven who does forgive sin and when he forgives, he treats the forgiven sinner as if he had not sinned. But never forget that he forgives the genuinely penitent who have resolved to stop doing whatever is offensive to God. “Shall we continue insin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 272, 276
May 2, 1991

By Mike Willis

On 1 March 1991, one part of the Willis clan assembled in Houston, Texas to celebrate their parents’ 60th wedding anniversary. It was a joyous occasion; I appreciate my brother Don and sisters Sue Morris and Ouida Stover who worked to arrange the celebration. There were over 60 descendants from Onan J. and Wilhelmina Willis who gathered to observe their 60th anniversary.

Mom and Dad had seven children. The four sons (Cecil, Don, Lewis and myself) dedicated themselves to full-time gospel preaching. One of the daughters (Ouida) is married to Billy Stover, an elder at the Southside church in Pasadena, Texas and another daughter (Sue) is married to Forrest Morris, a deacon in the Alvin, Texas church. Aside from the children who were too young to be Christians, there were few non-Christians present in the 60 + who assembled that evening.

One of the most emotional parts of the celebration occurred when the family joined together to sing “Through the Years,” during which time the grandchildren and great-grandchildren marched in front of Mom and Dad and placed red roses in a vase. The singing was interrupted by tears of joy and happiness. Even now my eyes water as I recall the moment.

After this, each of the children paid tribute to his parents, recalling in his own way the memorable moments of his youth. These tributes were living proof of the statement in Proverbs 31 about the “worthy woman”: “Her children arise up, and call her blessed” (31:28). We laughed and cried together.

After each of the children had paid his tribute, Mom and Dad had some things to say. One of the statements from Mom has lingered on my mind through these several weeks since the celebration. When Mom spoke, tears were flowing down her check and her speech was broken by emotion, but she finally got out the words, “I’m the richest woman alive!”

To fully appreciate that statement, you must understand the relatively meager circumstances in which Mom and Dad live. They live in a modest, three-bedroom brick ranch in Woodlake, Texas where property values are low. They probably have very little in their savings account. Mom had no financial connotations in her statement that she was the “richest woman alive.”

Rather, she recognized as her treasure her faithful, Christian children. She has been blessed with longevity of life to see her children reach maturity, marry, and give birth to their own children. She has been blessed to see all of her children and most of her grandchildren become Christians. She has witnessed several of her grandchildren marry and have children of their own. She witnesses the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ being passed down in her family and recognizes this as the greatest of life’s blessings.

Mom’s statement, ” I am the richest woman alive, ” emphasizes in my mind the necessity of placing our values in the right places. Many who have much more money in the bank and are worth much more in wealth do not have the peace, joy and contentment which my parents experience.

I appreciate he indelible mark which my parents have made on our family by transmitting values to us. They told us to worship God and serve him daily and then showed us how to do it. My parents were not hypocrites. They never manifested pride and arrogance. Rather than being concerned with mere reputation, they were concerned about character.

I have been deprived of much of their company by preaching the gospel 1000 miles away from where they live for 24 years. Only in recent years have I recognized the sacrifice which was made that the gospel might be preached. My children barely know two of this earth’s greatest people — their grandparents. Were it not for the expectation of all of us sharing heaven together, the recognition of the importance of preaching the gospel to others, and the good which I have witnessed from the work which our preaching has done, I would so regret the choice to be away preaching that I might change my life. Having the choice of these goods not being accomplished were their sons to move, I doubt that Mom and Dad would encourage us to quit what we are doing to live nearby.

I pray that Sandy and I will be as successful as parents who have passed the gospel down to their children and grandchildren as Mom and Dad have been. The wise man wrote, “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). Mom and Dad, thank you for the rich heritage.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 290, 311
May 16, 1991