Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

From ancient times, man has believed in life after death. When God created man, he placed him in the Garden of Eden with access to the tree of life (Gen. 2:9). Because of sin, Adam and Eve lost access to the tree of life which enabled them to live forever (Gen. 3:22). Ever since that time, man has lived in hope of regaining the paradise which he lost through sin.

Evidences of the hope of eternal life are seen in many cultures. The American Indians believed in a “happy hunting ground.” The ancient Egyptian pharaohs displayed their belief in life after death in the building of their pyramids which housed things they might need in life beyond death. The publishing of “after death” experiences of those who have “come back from the dead” shows that our modern world longs for information about life beyond death.

These subjective experiences can never replace what revelation has spoken about life after death. Jesus, who was raised from the dead, speaks authoritatively about life after death. He points us to the resurrection.

What Happens to Man at Death?

The Scriptures reveal that at death the body goes back to the dust from which it came and the spirit goes back to God who gave it (Eccl. 12:7). Jesus revealed the nature of the habitation of the immortal spirits of the dead in his discussion of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31). The dead go to a place called hades (translated “hell” in the AV in Lk. 16:23). Hades is separated into two compartments: (a) Torment, the place of the wicked dead, is a place of anguish and suffering (Lk. 16:23-24); (b) Abraham’s bosom, the place of the righteous dead, is a place of comfort (Lk. 16:25). The two places are separated by a great gulf which makes crossing from one place to another impossible. Hence, the righteous cannot “fall from grace” after death nor can the wicked be saved.

Paul expressed his yearning to go home to be with God at the hour of his death in passages such as Philippians 1:21-24 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10. He understood that death is the gateway to the presence of God. Properly viewed, death can be a blessing to man; it takes him from a world of suffering (Lk. 16:23-24); (b) Abraham’s bosom, the place of the righteous dead, is a place of comfort.

What Shall Be Raised From the dead?

The Scriptures direct our hope to the resurrection. What shall be raised from the dead? Not the spirit, for the spirit does not die. That which shall be raised from the dead is that which dies – the body.

Men asked, “How shall the dead be raised” (1 Cor. 15:35). Perhaps they were thinking of the various things which can happen to the body. A body may be eaten by animals, burned in a fire, blown to bits in an explosion (as in the Challenger disaster), drowned in a sea and eaten by fish, or decay in a tomb. Men asked, “How shall the dead be raised?” How shall the various parts of the body be reassembled when the body has gone back to dust and may have blown a thousands different directions?

Paul reminds the Corinthians that the resurrection from the dead is not without analogy in nature. Even a seed does not produce a living plant except that it first die (1 Cor. 15:34-37). And the plant which grows from the quickened seed does not resemble the seed which was planted. If God is able to produce this natural event, he also will be able to raise the dead body of man. He is the Almighty God.

What Kind of Body?

What kind of body will man have? The answer is this: one fitted for eternal habitation. God has prepared a body fitted to every kind of life: he has prepared a body fitted for those birds which fly in the heavens, a body fitted for the animals of the sea, a body fitted for the various animals which is adapted to their peculiar habitations (1 Cor. 15:38-42). The same Lord is able to prepare a body fitted for heavenly dwelling.

The simplest answer to “what kind of body will man have at resurrection?” is this: the same kind of body which the resurrected Jesus had. Paul said, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3:20-21). However, in teaching the nature of the resurrected body, Paul wrote, “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:42-43).

Just as surely as man has a natural body, he also will have a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44).

Man’s physical body cannot inherit heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). Consequently, those who are alive at the moment that Jesus returns to this earth will experience a change in their body. Paul wrote, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:51-54).

Who Shall Be Raised?

The resurrection shall not be confined to the righteous. Instead, both the wicked and the righteous shall be raised from the dead (Jn. 5:29; Acts 24:15). The wicked shall be raised to face eternal damnation; the righteous shall be raised to eternal life.

Jesus Christ: The Guarantor of the Resurrection

What assurance do I have that man shall be raised from the dead? Jesus Christ is the guarantee. He is the “first fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20). Thayer explains the image of Jesus as the first fruits: “Here the phrase seems also to signify that by his case the future resurrection of Christians is guaranteed; because the first-fruits forerun and are, as it were, a pledge and promise of the rest of the harvest” (p. 55). Even as God has given assurance that he will judge the world in righteousness by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, so also the resurrection is our proof that we too shall be raised from the dead (Acts 17:30-31). “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). When the dead are raised, Jesus will have destroyed his last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26).

Consequences of the Resurrection

Belief in the resurrection should effect how we live. Rejection of the resurrection surely effects how the wicked live. The wicked push out of their minds the idea that God will raise them from the dead and call them to account for their wickedness; they say, “God hath forgotten: he hideth his face” (Psa. 10:4-11). If there is no resurrection of the dead, men may as well live the hedonistic lifestyle. Even Paul exclaimed, “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us cat and drink for tomorrow we die'” (1 Cor. 15:32, RSV).

In contrast to the wicked, the righteous believe in the resurrection and judgment. This effects how they live. Paul exhorted, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). Peter exhorted that, since we look for a new heavens and new earth, “what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Pet. 3:11-14). Belief in the resurrection motivates one to godly living.

Belief in the resurrection provides comfort in the hour of death. Christians do not mourn in the face of death like those who have no hope. Paul expressed this faith as follows:

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thess. 4:1318).

The sting of death is removed by the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54-56).

Conclusion

Each person shall live forever in a resurrected body. That body will either be in an place of everlasting torment or everlasting bliss. Every individual has control of his own eternal destiny. Where shall you live eternally?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 34, 42
January 17, 1991

By Greg Gwin

On November 8th and 9th, 1990, David Padfield met Don Phillips in debate on the subject of Bible baptism. Brother Padfield preaches the gospel in Evansville, Indiana, and labors with the Eastside congregation in that city. Mr. Phillips is the “senior pastor” of the First Baptist Church in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Anticipation for a profitable debate ran very high for several reasons. First, the debate propositions were very plainly worded and struck to the very heart of the important issue of baptism’s role in God’s plan of salvation (see below). It looked as though there would be no attempt by either debater to quibble or side-step the points of controversy. Second, the debate was to be held in the building of the First Baptist Church in Terre Haute where Mr. Phillips is the “pastor.” This congregation boasts a membership in excess of 1,000 persons. It appeared that an incredible opportunity to teach a large number of denominationalists had developed. In fact, some expressed a certain amazement that the Baptists would so freely offer an audience for such a discussion. Finally, Mr. Phillips seemed to be a worthy opponent. He has a doctorate degree, has taught in Baptist seminaries, and has engaged in other debates. The outlook for a good debate could hardly have been better.

While everything appeared to be good in advance, disappointment set in as the debate began. Attendance was good for both nights, ranging from 150 to 200. Brethren from 10 states were in the audience, coming from as far away as Texas and Florida. Some from institutional churches of Christ in Terre Haute, Evansville, and Illinois were also present. But, the Baptists did not come. Only a handful from Mr. Phillips’ large congregation came out to hear this important discussion.

On the first night of the discussion, brother Padfield affirmed the proposition: “The Scriptures teach that water baptism is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” He affirmed that men are saved by faith, but not faith alone. In an interesting opening speech, Padfield used John 1:12, which is sometimes a Baptist “proof text,” and showed that believers have the “power (right) to become the sons of God,” The question for the rest of the debate was, “How do believers exercise their right to become the children of God?” In his other affirmative speeches, Padfield used the examples of the Ethiopian Eunuch and Saul of Tarsus to answer the question. He made reference to passages like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and others.

In his rebuttal of Padfield’s affirmative arguments, Mr. Phillips demonstrated his lack of respect for the inspired Scriptures. He claimed that our own personal “experience” is a fundamental part of interpreting God’s word. Phillips insisted that salvation was totally unconditional. He maintained that faith was not a condition, rather a response. He argued that most of the references to baptism in the New Testament had to do with Spirit baptism, and some that seem to discuss water baptism had actually been incorrectly interpreted. Finally, he stated that some of the passages that Padfield had used did not really belong in the inspired text, they had been added later by copyists and commentators. Padfield produced a large pair of scissors and urged Phillips to specify which passages should be cut out of the Bible. Mr. Phillips refused to make such a specification.

On the second night of the debate, Mr. Phillips affirmed the proposition: “The Scriptures teach that salvation comes at the point of faith, before and without water baptism.” It was very difficult to determine any definite line of argumentation that he used to try to prove this proposition. At one point he spent several minutes talking about the difference between the left and right side of the brain. He maintained that “legalists” like Padfield are using only the left side of their brain, while God had actually designed the Bible to speak to the right side – the artistic side – of the brain. He argued that the apostle Peter was himself a “legalist.”

Brother Padfield was obviously hampered in rebuttal because Phillips had not given any concise argument in his affirmative. Padfield continued to press some of the points that had been made on the first night. He rebuked Phillips for placing more reliance on psychology than the Bible. Padfield used his final speech to discuss in detail the conversion of Cornelius. He demonstrated that salvation was not attained by Cornelius’ morality, his “experience” of being visited by an angel, or by simple faith. Rather, Cornelius was saved by hearing and obeying the words of the gospel – including baptism.

While Mr. Phillips, credentials were impressive, he was a disappointment in the debate. There was good reason to wonder if he had spent any time in preparation for this discussion. Brother Padfield, on the other hand, did a masterful job of presenting the truth on this vital subject. His many hours of preparation were obvious to all. He had done a very professional job of preparing over 130 charts for the debate. It is unfortunate that he was able to use only about 40 of these because of the poor job that Phillips did.

We are confident that good resulted from this discussion. The truth was defended, brethren were strengthened, and several non-Christians heard the gospel for the first time. The discussion was conducted in a very orderly fashion. No points of order were called by either moderator. (John Welch from Indianapolis moderated for brother Padfield.) We learned later that a man who had traveled nearly 200 miles to hear the debate was baptized for the remission of sins a few days later. He credited the truth he had learned at the debate as a prime factor in his decision.

A debt of thanks is owed to Troy Bell and the brethren in Casey, Illinois, who were instrumental in arranging for this discussion. Troy is a member of the church in Casey and drives a UPS delivery truck in Terre Haute. He had engaged Mr. Phillips in private study and had then convinced him to enter into a public discussion. Troy’s zeal and enthusiasm for the truth is obvious to all. Special thanks is given to several other Christians in Casey who opened their homes to those who had traveled to attend the debate.

We commend David Padfield for his stand for the truth, and for the long hours of work which preceded this debate. For those who may be in a position to help, we note that brother Padfield has recently lost a sizable amount of his financial support. If you can help, please contact him at 2612 S. Villa Drive, Evansville, IN 47414 (phone: 812-477-9433).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 38-39
January 17, 1991

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Society is plagued by a soaring crime rate. Churches are hindered by an ever-rising number of open and flagrant sins among the members. Families are torn apart by ungodliness. Who is responsible? Who can we blame for all of these problems?

This may be a bit old-fashioned, but maybe the answer is found in the Bible: “The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). Is it too incredible to think that the responsibility for crime in society lies with the criminal or, that flagrant sin in the church ties with the sinner, or that the responsibility for homes broken by ungodliness lies with the ungodly person? Ezekiel deals with the matter of personal accountability in chapter 18.

When Ezekiel prophesied, Israel was in Babylonian captivity because of her sins. Yet, in spite of its plight, this generation of Israelites seemed to be having trouble accepting responsibility for its sins. They were using a proverb that shifted the responsibility away from themselves to their fathers (vv. 1-3). Rather than accepting responsibility and repenting the), were blaming their fathers (v. 19) and even God (vv. 25, 29).

Ezekiel tells them that each father and child would bear the responsibility for his own sin. Each must give an account of himself and could not shift the responsibility to the other. Furthermore, one could not excuse himself by appealing to what had happened in his past life – a bad childhood or otherwise. If a wicked man would now turn from his wickedness, his past wickedness would not be held against him by the Lord. If a righteous man turned from his righteousness, his past righteousness would do him no good now (vv. 21-29), So, the solution that Ezekiel gave to Israel was: “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin” (vv. 31-32).

Any doctrine or philosophy that allows one to shift the responsibility for his sins away from himself encourages two great hindrances to genuine repentance: self-pity and self-justification. As long as one engages in either of these he will not fully repent of his sins. If he is allowed to think that someone other than himself caused his sin, then he can look with pity upon himself as a victim rather than a transgressor. He can justify himself in his mind, because it was not really his fault. Somebody made him do it.

For generations Calvinism has shifted attention away from personal accountability for sin and righteousness. The Calvinistic doctrine of imputed sin relieves the sinner from personal responsibility for his sins. Classic Calvinism not only teaches that one inherits his father’s guilt, but also his father’s “sinful nature.” He must sin. He cannot help it. He inherited it from his parents. (There is vast difference in “all must sin” and “all have sinned” – one is in the Bib1c, the other is not.) The Calvinistic doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Jesus relieves the Christian from much of his personal responsibility to struggle against sin and keep himself pure. The idea is that the righteous life of Christ is imputed to the sinner, so when the sinner faces the Great Judge he will not be judged by his own life, but by the righteous life of Christ. The Bible says each will be judged by his own works: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10).

The modern liberal sociological philosophy of crime and anti-social behavior in society has not only affected our criminal justice system in society, it has affected the way brethren approach open sin in the church. The bottom line is to take the heat off the guilty and place it elsewhere. The result is that the crime rate continues to worsen and discipline in many churches has become non-existent. People are being allowed to march right on into hell, secure in the feeling that they should not be held accountable for their problems (sins). Let us notice four popular approaches to crime and sin.

The Decriminalization Approach

If an evil becomes too difficult to control and the penalty too hard to consistently administer, then decriminalize or legalize it. If the laws against drug abuse (including alcohol), prostitution, homosexuality, etc. are problems for society to enforce, then there must be something wrong with the law. So, the cry goes out to solve the problem by legalizing the sin.

If a sin becomes very prevalent among brethren and hard to weed out by discipline, then make it acceptable or at least put it in the “gray area.” It is amazing how uncertain brethren can become about a thing that only a few years ago would not be tolerated in churches – as the thing becomes commonplace among them. It is assumed that something must be wrong with the rule by which the thing was formerly condemned or with our methods of applying the Scriptures – anything but that more brethren are becoming guilty of sin.

This approach takes the heat off the sinner and places the blame upon the law or upon those who are faithfully trying to apply it. It is not the sinfulness of the individual, but the harshness of the law that must bear the responsibility. God’s law is neither sin, nor does it produce sin (Rom. 7:7-12). It is the rebellion of the individual against that law that is the problem.

The Distribution Approach

Another way to take the heart off the transgressor is to spread the guilt around. This tactic assumes that one’s crime or sin must be shared by others. A crime is committed, so what is done before the criminal can be punished? The victim, the police, the judicial system, and society must first be put on trial. After all, somebody must have failed or provoked this good follow into committing his crime.

A man takes up with his secretary. Before we criticize him we must first investigate his wife, children, parents, or just about anybody to see if they drove him to it. It would be absurd to think that a fellow’s own Just caused him to sin.

A youngster terrorizes his teachers and classmates. Before discipline is administered, we must look at his teachers, peers, and school administration, It is just impossible to think that he could be a little brat on his own.

A Christian rebels against the Lord’s way and walks disorderly. Rather than holding him responsible for his deeds, the church, its elders, preachers and others are often held accountable for his apostasy.

It is the age old “look-what-you (they)-made-me (him)do” approach. Adam blamed his sin on the woman God gave him. Eve blamed her sin on the serpent (Gen. 3:12,13). Aaron blamed his calf worship on the people (Exod. 32:22).

This approach places all imperfections and mistakes on the same level. Any mistake the police, victim or society makes is considered as bad as the action of the criminal, so these forfeit their right to prosecute. Any flaw that parents might have removes their right to firmly discipline. Any shortcomings that brethren might have cancel their right to discipline the flagrant offender.

It discourages all parties from accepting and facing up to their respective responsibilities. The transgressor feels little need to repent if others are as responsible for his actions as he is. Those responsible for discipline in society, the home, and the church are often convinced that they have no right to administer correction since they themselves are imperfect. The results: society and the church suffer from crime and sin out of control.

The Deprivation Approach

One is not depraved anymore, just deprived. If murderers, rapists, and drunkards had not been deprived of love by someone, parents or otherwise, surely they would not have turned to their evil ways. If society had not deprived the thief of the prosperity of his neighbors, then surely he would not have stolen. If an unfaithful Christian had not been neglected and deprived of attention by his brethren, then surely he would not have turned to walking disorderly. So the beat goes on.

So, what is the fashionable solution? Rather than punishment or discipline, simply shower the offender with those things that he allegedly has been denied and everything will be fine. Try to make him understand that his problem is not really his fault, but the selfishness of those who deprived him. If folks will run all over themselves to supply his every need or want, then the whole problem will be solved.

By understanding the supposed real underlying cause of his badness and knowing now who the real villains are those who deprived him – he can feel less ashamed, more comfortable and less need to repent of his actions. After all, it was not really his fault. He can take refuge in self-pity because he sees himself as more victimized than those he has sinned against. Rather than being brought to repentance, which involves mourning over one’s guilt, he is encouraged to down play personal accountability and shift the blame to his parents, society, church, or anyone who may have neglected him.

The Disease Approach

How long has it been since you heard of an old-fashioned sinner? You see, there are not any really bad folks anymore – just sick folks and people “with a problem. ” So, punishment and discipline are obsolete. After all, you don’t discipline a patient – you treat him with tender loving care. Rather than give him to understand that he must repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, you must show more understanding for his “problem.” Who can blame a sick person? He is a victim. So, one can no more be blamed for murder than he can for malaria; no more for licentiousness than for leprosy; no more for drunkenness than for diphtheria; no more for homosexuality than for hypertension; no more for fornication than for flu; no more for adultery than for allergy. So, no longer do we need to call for his repentance and reformation, just call for a physician and a prescription.

We are not denying that sin can become a sickness with some people. But, it is a sickness that is self-inflicted, for which the individual must accept personal responsibility and repent before he can be right with God. We are also convinced that the disease approach to sin is far over played by brethren to avoid accepting the responsibilities to mark, rebuke sharply, warn or withdraw from sinful brethren (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6).

Sin is a disease – a spiritual sickness. The prescription of the “Great Physician” is calling sinners to repentance as the only cure (Mark 2:17). Sinners do have a problem – sin – a problem that can only be solved by accepting responsibility for their actions, repenting, obeying the conditions of forgiveness and changing their lives to reflect their repentance.

Conclusion

Brethren, we must face up to our responsibility to deal with internal sin by reproving and rebuking as well as exhorting (2 Tim. 4:2) – even stronger discipline when words fail (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). We will not do this until we stop thinking that we have to be completely mistake free before we can correct those who are openly defying God’s will. We will not have effective church discipline until we stop looking around to find another cause of scandalous behavior other than the sinner’s own sinfulness. Nor will we get the job done until we quit allowing rebellious brethren to send us on a “guilt trip” concerning their sins. We need the courage of Paul who, even though conscious of his own sins (I Tim. 1: 15), would not let those whom he was rebuking blame him for their sins. To the Corinthians, whom he had rebuked sharply in the first letter to them; he wrote, apparently in response to a charge against him: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one” (2 Cor. 7:2). To the Ephesian elders he said, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26,27). To one Jew who rejected his correction, he said, “Your blood be upon your own head, I am clean” (Acts 18:6).

Of course, we need to examine ourselves often to avoid sinning against the Lord and our brethren. We must try to avoid being stumbling blocks to others – thus, to a measure, contributing to their sins (Rom. 14:13). Yet, when dealing with brethren who are subject to correction, they must be brought to understand that they cannot blame their sins upon us or anyone else. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 18-20
January 3, 1991

By Wayne Goforth

Each year, Freed-Hardeman hosts a forum for the discussion of “a topic on which there is tension in the brotherhood” (from 1990 flyer). This year, due in part to the impetus of the “new hermeneutics,” the hottest topic among the institutionals is that of the woman’s work in the church. The question under consideration at this year’s forum was: “Are the biblical prohibitions (for the public use of women in the church, AWG) only cultural ones?” Two men were on either side of the question, each giving his apologies. The two affirming the prohibitions to have been cultural were Bob Randolph and Lynn Mitchell, both of whom are at the more liberal end of the institutional spectrum. The two denying the cultural question were from the more conservative end of the same spectrum, being Ralph Gilmore and Don McWhorter. Randolph preaches in Brookline, Massachusetts as well as working with the Institute of Technology there. Mitchell serves as an elder with the Bering Drive church in Houston, Texas (where Ed Fudge has also served as an elder in a rotation system) and works as Scholar of Religion at the University of Houston. McWhorter preaches in Fayette, Alabama, while Gilmore is a teacher at Freed-Hardeman and preaches for the Campbell Street church in Jackson, Tennessee. Ira Rice, Garland Elkins and Paul Kidwell were among those in the audience, which seemed to have an overall more conservative view of this question.

Randolph’s position was that Scripture can mean practically anything that culture determines, saying that the “church has always listened to culture.” He cited as examples the eating of meats and the practice of wearing an artificial covering. His view was that women in every age have been allowed to do in the church as much as culture would permit them to do everywhere else. His unprovable example was that the Corinthian women were allowed to preach before a public assembly of men and women as long as they recognized their submission and showed it by the wearing of the veil, and that 1 Corinthians 14:34 only prevented women from learning and teaching in a “shameful way.” Randolph, in the question and answer period, even went as far as to say there were female apostles in the New Testament, giving Romans 16:7 as his “proof-text” along with, of course, Phebe as a deaconess in Romans 16:1. He likewise stated he had no problems with female elders, since it was obvious he believed that elders were simply older Christians we look to for guidance. He rather met himself coming and going on various occasions during his speeches. On the one hand he stated that Jesus was radical in his day and went against the culture of his society by eating with publicans and talking to a Samaritan woman, and therefore the church should also break out of the prejudiced image of women we have learned from the world by allowing them to preach and serve publicly. On the other hand, he stated that Paul was very concerned with not offending social customs and culture at Corinth, adapting his message to it. Which is it to be? Adapt culture or defy it? He thus had Paul and Jesus preaching different gospels. He said there are many questions we have never considered, such as: If women can read in Bible classes, why not from the pulpit? And, if women are to serve, why not let them serve the Lord’s supper?

Mitchell, on the other hand, was not willing to go as far as Randolph. His position was that of hermeneutical agnosticism, saying we cannot know for certain either way, and we must trust the grace of God more. As Gilmore pointed out, “No wonder Mitchell agreed to come since he presupposes such.” Mitchell stated that the Bible does not supply us with enough information on this, and no one is infallible enough to supply it for us, thus we cannot know for sure. Both Mitchell and Randolph continually appealed to the new hermeneutics claim that “we can know what it meant then, but it is different to ask what it means now,” and argued that Bible questions are not just a matter of “splitting Greek participles.” They denied knowing what was meant by the “new hermeneutics,” but used new hermeneutic arguments and quoted new hermeneutic writers. Hence, if one walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and hangs around with ducks, excuse me for saying he must be a duck! Likewise did they equate the veil of 1 Corinthians 11 with the “silence” of 1 Corinthians 14, observing that if one gives up the symbol of submission, they may in the same way give up submission itself. Neither was willing to make this a test of fellowship saying that “God has specified what is a matter of salvation” and that unless you are “willing to posthumously disfellowship everyone who has believed differently on this, you better not bring a rift with those who are alive on it.” Mitchell concluded with an ominous prophecy that “this will split churches of Christ wide open,” and that perhaps “no family will be spared from the pain.” With men like this forcing it in, it may well be true. But, who will be causing the split? Those who oppose it or those who bring it in? He who drives the wedge splits the log!

To hear brethren Gilmore and McWhorter, one would almost have thought they were hearing men who would surely be opposed to the church support of human institutions and church sponsored recreation, for the arguments they used on Randolph and Mitchell would certainly apply to these unscriptural practices as well. But, as is always the case, the “legs of the lame are not equal.” McWhorter stated correctly that Paul uses the word “pattern,” and that if we recognized there was a pattern for these things, “we would settle this in about five minutes.” He observed that the passages of 1 Corinthians 14, and of 1 Timothy 2 were both against the culture of his day, for the Romans and those in Asia Minor made no distinction between the sexes, according to Ramsey. It was also against the culture of the day, for Paul said “women are to learn in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11), yet, women were not permitted by the rabbis to study Scripture. The Talmud stated “better that the Torah should be burned than given to a woman.” The fact is, the passages are not cultural, but instead are tied to God’s “normative law of -creation.” Each time Paul mentions submission, it is the order of creation he states as the reason (1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:12-14).

Agreeing with McWhorter, Gilmore pointed out that the reason for submission was creation and there was little or no culture yet developed when Adam and Eve first lived in the Garden. He used a transparency chart labeled with the words “Tied to Creation” in each speech and in answering each question until either Randolph or Mitchell would acknowledge it. This seemed to have made a big impact on the audience. Gilmore also pointed out that submission is not tied to worth or quality, and therefore we are not trying to make women “Secondclass-Christians” as Randolph charged. A good example of this point is the submission of Jesus to the Father. Even though the Father and the Son have different roles, this does not mean Jesus is in any way inferior (Jn. 14:6-9). In the same say, when Christians are to be submissive to their elders, it does not indicate worth or value, but only different roles and responsibilities.

Gilmore agreed that Jesus was indeed radical, but he also selected twelve men as apostles, and seventy men as disciples. McWhorter drew upon this illustration further, stating that if Jesus had wanted to make it clear that both men and women could serve in leadership roles, he could have selected six men and six women apostles, or thirtyfive men and thirty-five women disciples. Gilmore was not willing to say this was a matter of salvation, only that it was a serious matter and God would judge. McWhorter, however, stated that sin is the transgression of the law, and this is the law of God pertaining to the place of woman. Any sin unrepented can cause one to be lost.

Observations

It was through the Bering Drive church (where Mitchell serves as an elder) that I first became aware of the 4~greater use of women” in the church. In 1984, the Bering Drive church sent a notice to Abilene Christian College which read, “Wanted: Youth Minister. May be male, female or couple. Please send your resume to chairperson, Mrs. ______.” Then, to this writer’s surprise, a female co-student from Freed-Hardeman became a “campus minister” for a church in east Tennessee. The justification for this was that these women do not preach publicly, and there is nothing wrong with women teaching non-Christians. But, where is the authority for such “ministry specialization” as this? Thus, the institutionals have set themselves up for this problem over the years. Now that some have gone a step farther in saying that we do not have to have authority for anything Oust another logical progressive step of the institutionals saying we have to have authority for some things but not for others) they are bemoaning what even they would call ” liberalism. ” But, it is impossible to use one hand to open the floodgates of liberalism, and then try to hold back the tide with the other. They thus love the kittens but hate the cats!

Given the fact that many Freed-Hardeman graduates have now left institutionalism, including several of us who were students of brother Gilmore, it would seem that one of the forums would be directed toward a discussion of Bible authority as it applies to joint church cooperation and church sponsored recreation. Why is it “anti-ism” to demand a pattern and authority for these practices, but not “anti-ism” for Gilmore and McWhorter to demand the same for other practices? “If we respected Bible authority, this could be settled in about five minutes,” brother Gilmore! Where is the pattern for the Campbell Street church of Christ softball team? Did Jesus die to establish a softball team? Where is the pattern for the Campbell Street church to have a softball field built on the church property (which is now under construction)? Is this the purpose of the church of our Lord, brother Gilmore?

Why should all of this concern conservative brethren? After all, we demand a pattern for all things, and we do not practice “ministry specialization” nor do we advocate the new hermeneutics. This should concern us for two reasons. Number one, this shows that there is no stopping place once we advocate the idea that we do not have to have authority for all things, and should therefore serve as a warning to us lest we forget. Too often today we hear conservative preachers not using book, chapter and verse, and quote only from the book of second opinions. Number two, there will no doubt be some trickle effect felt in some conservative congregations. Several among us are already advocating and some congregations are already practicing, allowing women in the business meeting of the church. I know of numerous congregations in different parts of the country who have had problems with women seeking to “run the congregation” behind the scenes or by telling their husbands how to vote in such meetings. McWhorter correctly pointed out that Paul uses the Greek word oude in 1 Timothy 2:12 which indicates she is not to usurp authority over a man by public teaching or in any other way either!

Will Freed-Hardeman open a forum for the topics of joint cooperation, church sponsored recreation, and the church support of human institutions such as Freed-Hardeman itself? Or, are they too afraid that some church might cease to contribute to the school, since Freed-Hardeman depends on such? This will remain to be seen.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 10-11
January 3, 1991