Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

The task of reviewing brother Homer Hailey’s booklet, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God gives me no satisfaction. He has been my good friend for about forty years, having first met him while I was a student and he was a professor at Florida College. I took every class, as I recall, that he taught.

Brother Hailey instilled in his pupils a deep trust in the providence of God, a devoted love for the Lord Jesus Christ and a humble reverence for the word of God. He made us sense the plight of Job, appreciate the fidelity of the prophets and feel the devotion of the psalms. Indeed, he is a gentleman and a scholar, respected by all who have known him.

However, the position brother Hailey espouses in the booklet under review necessitates a response because of its far-reaching consequences, viz., that alien sinners who have been divorced and remarried for any reason whatsoever may remain together as husband and wife after they are baptized. I believe they are living in adultery; brother Hailey says, “No”! If I am correct in my understanding of the Scriptures, then we have people going to the judgment guilty of adultery. Paul said they cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Gal.5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). This is why our difference is such a serious issue.

Our examination of brother Hailey’s treatise will be considered under the following headings: 1. Distinctive Differences; 2. The Universal Moral Law; 3. The New Covenant; 4. Repentance; 5. Medley of Matters.

Distinctive Differences

In this installment we will go through brother Hailey’s book and specify places wherein we disagree, or have serious concerns, at least in those regions of major significance. Some of these areas will be more fully developed as we proceed in this review. First:

Dangerous error. “Because of misconceptions of what I believe, and what I consider to be dangerous error of the generally accepted view of the subject, I hereby set forth the grounds of my position” (p. 9). On page 74, we read, “Some have closed this door (reclaiming fallen sinners, wew) by their traditional teaching, and not by the word of God.”

Obviously, if brother Hailey has the truth on divorce and remarriage, then those who differ with him would hold “dangerous error” and “traditional teaching.” But from my perspective it is not I who is the one guilty of a presumptuous doctrine. Who is advocating a “dangerous error” on divorce and remarriage will have to be decided by an honest evaluation of the positions espoused in light of the Scriptures.

What puzzles me is that, though we hold a view that is “dangerous error,” brother Hailey has been relatively quiet about it for 50 years (p. 9), and he has (4no intention to entering into or carrying on a discussion on the subject” (Preface). He has not done this on instrumental music, premillennialism, institutionalism, denominationalism, liberalism, etc. Why just on the divorce and remarriage issue? If the matter is “dangerous error” and “traditional teaching,” how can he remain silent? I realize one can become a hobbyist on any subject, but a thorough discussion of vital issues, such as divorce and remarriage, is imperative to help lead honest souls to truth.

Genesis 2:18-24. Brother Hailey wrote, “Genesis 2:18-24 reveals the divine origin, purpose, intimacy, and the divine intent for permanency of marriage. To this extent it expressed the moral law of God and is universal; it reveals the foundation of marriage for the human race” (p. 57). Yet, on p. 41 he says, “Where in the Old Testament is there an appeal to Genesis 2 establishing a rule concerning marriage-divorce-remarriage addressed to those out of covenant relationship with God?” Brother Hailey answers his own question on p. 57, as quoted above, in that he concedes Genesis 2 is the foundation of marriage for the human race.

Expressed in Genesis 2:18-24 is God’s marriage law for all mankind. Clearly and explicitly stated is that marriage is monogamic in form (one man-one woman) and indissoluble in nature. Man shall cleave (“to cleave, to adhere, specially firmly, as if with glue . . . to be attached to any one, to be lovingly devoted,” Gesenius, p. 185) unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.

On p. 12 brother Hailey says Genesis 2:24 “was probably added by Moses, for Adam could have had no concept of such at the time.” However, on page 41 he seems to contradict himself where he says, “Furthermore, the law of Genesis 2:18-24 was stated when God created Eve for Adam.” Genesis 2:23 has Adam speaking and v. 24 is apparently included in what Adam said. Lange suggests that v. 24 is “most closely connected with what precedes, and suits better here the mouth of Adam” (Vol. 1 , p.209). God spoke through Adam, seemingly, although Adam may not have understood all of its import. Verse 24 would, therefore, have been made known in Eden.

Polygamy and concubinage. “Polygamy and concubinage were within the scope of God’s marriage law thus far revealed” (p. 15). This was said in reference to Abraham having a plurality of wives and concubines and Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel as well as his taking two concubines. On p. 16 brother Hailey stated that “God has never regulated a practice that was wrong.”

The first record of polygamy is Lamech in Genesis 4:23. Kcil and Delitzsch commented, “Lamech took two wives, and thus was the first to prepare the way for polygamy by which the ethical aspect of marriage, as ordained by God, was turned into the lust of the eye and lust of the flesh” (The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, p. 118).

Polygamy was a departure from God’s law given in Eden, Jesus sets forth the basic reason why there were allowances and concessions on the part of Jehovah concerning what God had said about marriage originally – “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” (Matt. 19:8). But notice in the same verse, Jesus said, “but from the beginning it was not so.” Vincent says, “The verb is in the perfect tense (denoting the continuance of past action or its results down to the present). He means: Notwithstanding Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superceded, but continues in force” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 108). The concessions allowed under Moses were also permitted before Moses.

Paul says that God “in times past suffered (permitted) all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16) and that God passed over (showed clemency) those sins before Christ (Rom. 3:25). God did not ignore them but left them unpunished. On Mars Hill Paul said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now (emphasis mine) declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, NASB).

Therefore, polygamy and concubinage were concessions by God, hence, permissible among those of the Old Testament times. But does God concede the same to us today? May we have several wives and concubines, scripturally? Certainly not! The law of Christ prohibits it (Matt. 19:3-9). But those who teach aliens are under universal moral law, apart from the new covenant, cannot logically oppose polygamy and concubinage. They will have to quit condemning Joe Smith and the Mormons for having several wives.

Furthermore, there is no example in the Bible where men were told to give up their plurality of wives, when baptized; therefore, following the reasoning of brother Hailey, we would conclude they kept them and cohabited with them. He wrote that there is no example of a husband and wife separating before baptism (p. 68). A position that permits polygamy as its logical consequence has to be a false position.

A recent article in Christianity Today, entitled “Can Mr. Mombasa Keep All His Wives?” contains some interesting observations about polygamy in Kenya. The story reads:

When Ron Severns went to Oloombokishi in Kenya, East Africa, he found the church (denominational church, wew) struggling with a problem. . . . Most of the church’s male leaders had been converted as adults, already having two or more wives. .

Missionaries to Africa in the nineteenth century, struggling to find appropriate response to such plural marriages, had usually concluded that only one of the marriages could be valid . . . . One wife – usually the first – could be kept, and the others had to be sent away . . . .

This position always had its problems, however. . . Were the children to be deprived of one of their parents?

And what of the wife who was sent away? . . . . Dissolving second or third marriages put the church in the situation of causing pain and injustice rather than healing it.

Some say that baptizing Polygamists amounts to cheap grace and will set a poor precedent for the future . . . . Couldn’t the church’s teaching on marriage become an ideal that nobody practices? – Feb. 11, 1991

It would be interesting to hear how the brethren who claim divorced and remarried aliens may keep their mates when baptized, regardless of the circumstances, deal with polygamy.

Crucial point. “The Jews will be judged by the law they lived under; from the beginning to the end of history, men will be judged by the universal moral law of God which they rejected, and which sinners today continue to transgress; and those under Christ, the spiritual kingdom, will be judged by the law of Christ. This is a crucial point in our discussion” (pp. 29-30).

On pages 46-47, brother Hailey wrote that the universal moral law is the “law under which all the unregenerate people live and transgress today. . . . This law, though never codified in written form, was never abrogated.”

Granted, the Jews who lived under Moses will be judged by that law. Too, the Gentiles of the Old Testament cra will be judged by what Paul calls “a law unto themselves” (Rom. 2:14). Those, however, who live during the gospel dispensation will be judged according to Jesus’ word. Jesus clearly said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12.48). All are amenable to the gospel, the universal law of Christ (Mk. 16:15-16). (This will be considered more extensively later.)

If Gentiles were saved before the cross by living righteous lives in harmony with the dictates of the law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15), why can’t they be saved in the same way today? If the blood of Jesus covered the sins of the faithful before the cross, why does not the blood of Christ cover the sins of those now (Jew & Gentile) who are faithfully following this so-called universal moral law that, allegedly, has never been abrogated? It seems to me this is a crucial point!

Brother Hailey makes “the law of sin and death” in Romans 8:2 the universal moral law, but this is an assumption. He declares, “when Paul speaks of it (universal moral law, wew), he refers to it simply as law or , as in Romans 8:2, ‘the law of sin and of death,’ that is, the moral law” (p. 35). In the first place, there is no universal moral law referred to in the New Testament, separate from the law of Christ, to which aliens are under today. If so, does it condemn polygamy? Wife swapping?

Iin the second place, “the law of sin and death” is apparently “the principle or rule of law and death.” It is the same as “the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:23). H.A.W. Meyer states that it is “the power of sin in us . . . so that sin and death are regarded as ruling over man” (Romans, p. 300). Bryan Vinson, Sr. interprets the law of sin in Romans 7:23 and 8:2 as “rule and control” (Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, pp. 139,144). Sanday & Headlam define the law of sin and death in Romans 8:2 to mean, “the authority exercised by Sin ending in Death” (Romans, p. 191).

Moral law exists now. “How do we know that the moral law exists now and will continue operation until the end of time” (p. 37)? Brother Hailey quotes 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 wherein Paul said, “the power of sin is the law.” Since this chapter is discussing the end of time, brother Hailey reasons, “what law is the power of sin tc, those at the end of time? It is not the Mosaic law, for no one, Jew or Gentile, would be under it because it has been taken out of the way (Heb. 10:9-10). It is not the law of Christ, for that makes us free and alive (Rom. 8:1-3). This leaves only the universal moral of Romans 5:12,13,20).” He also says, “Christ’s law cannot make dead” (p. 37).

The fallacy in the preceding argument is that the law of Christ cannot bring about sin and death. But this is not true. Consider Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:19-24), erring brethren (Jas. 5:19-20), fornicator at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-13), Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), Judaizers (Gal. 1:6-9), Gnostics (1 John) and those who practice the works of the flesh (Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). Sounds like to me the law of Christ, when violated, has the power of sin and death in it. Of course, we know it has the power to make us free and alive.

Not under law. Brother Hailey quotes Romans 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law . . . but under grace. . . . Can this be said of a baptized believer today? If so, what law is he now not under? It cannot be the law of Moses for he was never under it. Is it the law of Christ? If, as some claim, he was already under the law of Christ, then he is free from that also and so is under no law at all” (p. 38).

He makes “not under law” the so-called universal moral law that the Bible nowhere indicates as being in effect, exclusive of the gospel, today. R.L. Whiteside correctly concluded, “This verse does not mean that we are free from all law. Grace predominates . . . . If we were under no law, we would be guilty of no sin . . . . This verse is a figure of speech in which the less is denied so as to emphasize the greater. We are not merely under law, but more especially under grace” (Romans, p. 137). Cf . Jn. 1:17 grace is emphasized over law under Christ.

Matthew 19:3-9 is addressed to Jews. “In considering Matthew 19:3-9, it should be carefully noted that Jesus is talking to Jews, men in covenant relationship with God . . . . Gentiles, people out of covenant relationship with God, are not under consideration” (p. 55). Though Jesus spoke to Jews, he was setting forth the marriage law for the gospel age. Moses’ law is not being regulated, but rather Jesus is restoring the sanctity, intimacy and permanence of marriage as it was instituted in the garden of Eden. It is whosoever (v. 9), not just covenant people.

Because Jesus spoke to covenant people under Moses’ law does not mean what he said just applies to covenant people under Christ’s law. If this is the case, then everything Jesus said is only applicable for covenant people because he came only to the house of Israel.

On page 35 brother Hailey states that the universal moral law was “revealed in its fulness (Col. 2: 10) by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant under Christ.” On page 46 he wrote “All the universal law . . . is included in the law of Christ.” Then Matthew 19:3-9 reflects the moral law on marriage, divorce and remarriage and aliens, as well as saints, are amenable to it. If aliens are not accountable to what Jesus said on divorce and remarriage, then they are not subject to the universal law, which is revealed in its fulness in the New Covenant.

To confine the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9 to citizens of the kingdom makes marriage a church ordinance, similar to the marriage sacrament of the Catholic Church. Marriage is a universal institution, having begun with our first parents and is recognized as a legitimate union among people of all races, nationalities and religions.

God joins together in matrimony unbelievers as well as believers and he breaks the bond on the same principle for the unbeliever as the believer. Otherwise, God has different guidelines for the heathen than he does for the believer. If there are different marriage laws for believers and unbelievers, we would like to know what they are.

Some of the preceding things we have responded to will be amplified and enlarged upon later, and, also, such things as “abiding in our calling” (p. 66), Herod and Herodias (p. 67), David and Bathsheba (p. 73), living in adultery (p. 56), etc., will be considered.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 273-276
May 2, 1991

By Luther Bolenbarker

During the 200 plus years of our history, America has engaged in six wars (listed below) in which Americans have died at the hand of the enemy. In the table of war below, each cross (+) represents 25,000 Americans killed. These war casualties represents all the American combat-related deaths.

Revolutionary War (Freedom from England) +

Civil War (1860-1865) 498,332 +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++

World War I (1917-1865) 116,708 +++++

World War II (1941-1945) 407,316 +++++ +++++ +++++ +

Korean War (1951-1953) 54,246 ++

Vietnam War (1963-1972) 58,655 +++

These crosses all represent people who loved life and were looking forward to a future, but they all had it cut short by an enemy who threatened what they believed in: America, freedom to live, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we can be thankful and proud of these men and women who answered their call to duty, even above and beyond, they gave their all, so we could pursue the American dream of life, liberty, and happiness.

However, on January 22, 1973 our Supreme Court handed down a decision that radically altered America’s thinking on the question of life and its abortion. The Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolten decisions made abortion a “constitutional right.” Much like December 7, 194 1, it was a day that will live in infamy. In order to put this all in perspective with the other wars, look at the number of crosses that would be needed to represent these babies killed (yet they get no crosses since they are treated as trash, and thrown away like our unwanted garbage). Remember, each cross represents 25,000 babies.

War on the Unborn (Legal Abortions Performed in America since 1973): +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ (560 x 25,000 14, 00 000)

Now double the above number of crosses and they represent 28,000,000 babies who have been murdered legally (in man’s mind, not God’s). I am sadden to say that the crosses are being added at the rate of one every five days, or approximately 5,000 babies aborted daily.

In Luke 1:44, the yet to be born John was called by the Holy Spirit “the babe” (Greek brephos). In Luke 2:12, the Holy Spirit calls the “already born” Jesus, a “babe” (brephos). God uses the exact same word for the unborn and the born child.

Would someone tell me why it is not right to kill the brephos after it is born but that it is permissible to kill the brephos before its birth?

Brethren, many souls will be lost because of abortion: the officials who legalize it, the mother who obtains it, the father who allows it, the doctor who performs it, and the preacher who advocates it (Rom. 13:9; and 2 Jn. 9-11). Abortion is immoral; it is murder. Murder is forbidden from the first book of the Bible to the last (Gen. 9:6; Exod. 20:13; 1 Jn. 3:15; Rev. 21:18). We need to kill abortion and stop killing innocent babies!

A personal thought: I can’t imagine any God-fearing person being anything but “pro-life” on abortion and I wonder how much longer God will continue to “bless America”? Surely his longsuffering must be going short!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, p. 297
May 16, 1991

By Theron E. Martin

This eulogy has been delayed for two years because of my grief. My good and faithful wife, Janie Fleniken Martin, passed from this earth on March 28, 1989. Only now can I attempt to praise her before God and men. She was an exceptional Christian and one without guile.

I first remember meeting Janie in high school in the year 1928. We had several classes together and she was a good student, loved by the teachers. We lived at that time in the same general area of Texarkana, Arkansas and I found myself following her home or in that direction, watching her golden hair bounce on her shoulders. I can see the same scene vividly today and in a short while I was carrying Janie’s books. I found her to be a quiet, reserved person and not at all flippant, as was the custom of so many teenage girls of that period. I found myself more and more attracted to her as time passed. We were serious with each other, but not too serious, and both of us continued association with other friends.

After graduating from high school in May 1929, we both became employed, she as a secretary at a local bank and 1 in the service of a railroad. We continued to see each other and after discussion with her on such subjects as family life ‘ children, head of the family and religion, I asked Janie to marry me. The year 1930 had arrived and Janie wished for more time to consider. She was a member of a large family, twelve of whom were still living, and all dedicated to the Baptist faith. They were a good moral family and served God as their conscience dictated. Janie and I had discussed this thoroughly and agreed that we would study the Scriptures together in order to determine how God wanted us to worship in accordance with the gospel of Christ. In July 1930 1 had the courage to ask Janie’s mother, with Janie’s permission, if she would permit our marriage in December 1930. Janie’s mother never answered my request, but arose from her seat and left our presence. My only conclusion was that she was saddened to lose her last child and that when Janie left, the house would be empty. Six daughters and four sons would have left the nest, plus one deceased. We went ahead with our plans, without objection from either of our families, even though we were very young (only nineteen). I had been in the Lord’s church for seven years and was strong in the faith.

Since we had planned our marriage for several months we went ahead with our plans. Janie was to be the homemaker and take care of children. I was to dedicate myself to my family and God and supply the family with their needs. It was a serious day for both of us when we were married by a gospel preacher on December 16, 1930. Jasper N. Reed performed the service at 6 p.m. in the home of Janie with only our immediate family present.

The months went by and I found the girl I had selected was kind, gentle and always spoke quietly. She had always honored her father and mother and had always loved her brothers and sisters. Hers was a good and happy family. Our love increased day by day and in the following years two sons were born to us, the first in October 1931 and the second in July 1936. My job with the railroad resulted in our moving to Marshall, Texas in 1932 and then to Big Spring, Texas in the year 1937. These were depression years and on several occasions we were without money, but being young and full of confidence, we did not worry. Janie did not worry as she knew that Christ taught that we were to give no thought of tomorrow as to what we would wear or what we would eat. She was a happy person and a good mother.

At a gospel meeting at the Lord’s church in Big Spring in March 1938, the visiting evangelist, Trine Starnes, baptized Janie into the church, the kingdom of Christ. It was a glorious day for us as we had pleasantly through the years discussed the mystery of salvation through the obedience to the will of Christ and his apostles. I asked Janie what was said that moved her to make the decision and she replied, “Your steadfastness and the preacher’s explanation of the Scripture 1 Peter 3:21.” This passage says,

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As the years passed, Janie and I continued to grow in knowledge of the Scriptures. We lived in Big Spring eight years and our ministers during that time included Melvin J. Wise and Byron G. Fullerton. Janie was active in the ladies Bible class and took part in all vacation Bible schools. I worked seven days per week and long hours during World War II. Janie continued to be an excellent homemaker and kept close watch over our sons. The boys grew up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and never gave us any bother or apprehension. While there was considerable discipline, the quiet and authoritative voice of Janie, with her love, conquered all problems. While Janie was busy with the home she always had time to send me off to work each morning with a happy face and greeted me each evening with a fresh face, a clean dress and a warm embrace. It was always good to go home because it was a quiet place of rest and personal contact with the family.

We enjoyed working with the church in Commerce, Texas in the years 1945 through 1947. 1 served as deacon under the elders Tom Lafferty and Marvin Allbritton. Willis Jernigan Sr., was our minister. Janie worked in vacation Bible schools several years. Transferred by the railroad in December 1947 to the city of Tyler, Texas, we associated ourselves with the West Irwin Street church. Austin Seibert was minister. Roy Cogdill held meetings while we were there. It was during this time that problems developed in the various congregations (1950-1951). Our two boys were added to the church at Tyler, Texas.

Another transfer took place in July 1951 when I was offered a position in the General Office of the railroad. Janie cried during the night because we had been told the new job was in St. Louis. It had not been good changing the schools so often for our two boys; nevertheless the promotion was good for the family in some respects. We found at St Louis a good, conservative group which stood solid in the truth; it was the Spring and Blaine congregation with minister Truman T. Carney, We had seven years of good doctrinal teaching and preaching at this location under the oversight of elders Eugene Paxson and Eugene Sewell. This is where we adopted the young people of the congregation and had them in our home almost every Sunday night after the evening service. At one time we had a total of thirty-three for snacks, sodas and jovial games. Our boys were at home part of the time and enjoyed the company.

After seven years in St. Louis, the railroad consolidated some departments and moved us to Pine Bluff, Arkansas in July 1958. We worshipped for three years at the West Sixth congregation, with Leonard Tyler as the minister and with elders Jackson and Grace. While here we married off our two sons to girls that had been reared in the church. By example, we think we taught them how a family should exist in the eyes of the Lord. They did well, worked in the church wherever they lived, and gave us four grand-children who have all been baptized into Christ. Janie’s relation with her new daughters-in-law was perfect – a reciprocation of love and trust. She taught them in many respects their responsibility to the family and to their husbands (Eph. 5:33; 1 Pet. 3:6) She taught them to love their husbands (Tit. 2:4-5). She explained to them that their loyalty, time, affections and body belong to their husbands (1 Cor. 7:34). By example Janie taught the younger women that home responsibilities to their husband and children come first. She was a shining example in the preparing of good meals and keeping a clean house which was always a home.

Again the railroad made a consolidation, so Janie and I left Pine Bluff, Arkansas for Houston, Texas. There we found some old St. Louis friends worshipping with the Norhill congregation off North Main. We asked to have our names added to the list of those who worshipped at Norhill in a sound manner without interference from those that would dilute the worship of a true and living God. The treasury of the congregation would be used to preach the gospel and maintain the place of worship. We worked diligently with the minister Oscar Smith, Jr., and the elders Richey, Kelly, Painter, Green and Morris. We performed whatever task we were asked to perform for nineteen years, serving as deacon, working in vacation Bible school, teaching adult classes, leading the singing, calling on the sick and doing benevolent work for our members and widows, plus maintenance work on the plant.

During this time Janie was the perfect host to visiting preachers and elders. We had much fellowship at our house in Houston with fellow Christians. This period of time was July 1961 to July 1980.

After retiring from the railroad, Janie and I decided that we should move to a smaller town and make preparations for a quiet place in the country where we could enjoy each other and grow old gracefully. We moved to Mount Ida, Arkansas after building a small home on four acres. We were twenty-six miles west of Hot Springs. A short time after moving there we lost our preacher, A.T. Wright, in death. The church there was unable to go forward as it should have. Our health problems increased as we grew older. Since there was only one doctor and no hospital nearer than Hot Springs we decided to move to Pine Bluff, Arkansas where our youngest son lived.

We moved in December 1988. Janie’s health continued to decline. The doctors at Pine Bluff were unable to correct any of the health conditions and she died at home one evening in my arms. Her sudden death prevented her from speaking a last good-bye.

After a farewell service by brother Edgar Dye and brother Eddie Randolph at the church building, burial took place in Texarkana, Texas.

The wise man asked, “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies?” (Prov. 31:10) Janie was that virtuous woman. I found her and God gave me a helpmeet far superior to me who served her family faithfully for 58 years, 3 months and 12 days. My life on earth was happy with Janie and is almost complete. When she and I meet beyond the river, we pray that he will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servants.”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 270-271
May 2, 1991

By Lewis Willis

I recently subscribed to a religious journal published by the Getwell Church of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee entitled The Spiritual Sword. The issue for January 1991 was a special having to do with the Role of Women in the Church. The editor, Alan E. Highers, set the stage for the special issue in an editorial he entitled “The Winds of Change.” In that article Highers identified the changes being made among those liberal churches that left us years ago. He opposes some of these changes as much as we would oppose them. However, he has apparently failed to learn that you cannot have a little liberalism in the church. Here are some of the things that are happening in liberal churches according to Highers.

The Bering Drive Church in Houston, Texas issues a “Report on Women’s Participation in Public Worship,” dated March 5, 1989. It said, “On July 31, 1988, the elders presented a statement to the Bering family concerning the use of spiritual gifts by both men and women, expressing our conviction that it is scriptural and appropriate for sisters as well as brothers to serve in Sunday morning worship roles of ushering, greeting visitors, receiving the offering, reading Scripture, leading prayers, leading singing, and serving communion.”

Highers also quoted from a January 1990 letter which the Cahaba Valley Church in Birmingham sent to their members. “We further assert that women in the Lord may minister not only to women but also to men, as God calls them, as long as they are submitting to God’s authority, the leaders of the church, and their commitments to their families.” They also announced that they were appointing deacons, both male and female, on Pentecost Sunday, 1990. By 1994 they said woman will also be “speaking to the assembly in sermon.”

Highers printed an exchange that occurred at the 1990 Preachers and Church Workers forum at Freed-Hardeman University. The exchange was the response to a question by Robert Randolph, preacher for the church at Brookline, Massachusetts, and Lynn Mitchell, an elder at Bering Drive in Houston. Here is the exchange:

Question: I would like to ask brother Randolph, can women serve as elders today? If not, why not? Our culture today would allow it even though the culture of the Bible in general might not permit it.

Randolph: I have no problem with women serving as elders today. . .

Mitchell: I wouldn’t take any exception to what brother Randolph said.

The Gospel Advocate, a well-known journal among the liberals, wrote in their March 1989 issue on this subject: “Some have assumed that as long as women do not act contrary to the specific command to ‘keep silence,’ they can assume a leadership role in the service, such as serving communion. . . Some are saying that serving communion is not a leadership role . . . in at least one instance, women are not content with serving communion but now also lead singing and prayer, make announcements, read the Scriptures, and even preach on occasion! . . . A recent decision in a second congregation affirms, ‘after much prayer and thought and discussion, the conclusion was reached that there was nothing in Scripture denying women the freedom to serve in the following capacities: ushering, serving communion, Scripture reading, song leading, leading prayer and making announcements.”‘

It is evident that our liberal brethren have a problem on their hands. They abandoned the authority of the Scripture many years ago, and they do not appreciate the liberties that some of their churches are now exercising. They demand the right to exercise their liberties without Scripture, but they do not want others to do the same if they go farther into denominationalism than they choose to go.

For a long time the denominational world has had women preachers and church leaders. Now we know that liberal churches of Christ have followed that same path. The evidence of history is that faithful churches will have difficulty with the same questions if we fail to teach the truth in a forthright way concerning these questions. This one is easy to deal with.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak,- but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). It also should be noted that Paul is discussing conduct when “the whole church be come together into one place” (v. 23). Paul also said, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). As it regards women elders, we need to note simply that the Scriptures teach: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:1-2).

We must make a decision to live by the Scriptures. If we do so, we will know that God has limited a woman’s activity in the church and we must not go beyond what he has authorized. If we are going to abandon the Scriptures regarding some of these things, it really does not matter what we do after that. To go beyond the Scripture – any Scripture – means that we have abandoned God (2 Jn. 9). We will not take that first step away from God’s Word.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 264, 269
May 2, 1991