Truth Magazine

By David A. Padfield

When Paul charged Timothy to “wage the good warfare,” he mentioned some who had rejected “faith and a good conscience” and made “shipwreck” of the faith (1 Tim. 1:18-20). J.B. Phillips translated the verse like this: “as far as their faith is concerned, have run their ships on the rocks.” Hymenaeus and Alexander were among this pitiful group, and were “delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Paul’s metaphor sprang from personal experience. He had physically suffered shipwreck on three different occasions (2 Cor. 11: 25). Ocean going vessels can fall upon the shoals for many reasons, i.e., equipment failure, bad maps, difficult weather, etc. Those who suffer “shipwreck of the faith” have no one to blame but themselves. Once they reject the faith their conscience will soon become seared.

Peter warns us that “there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Even elders, those entrusted with shepherding the flock, can become “savage wolves” who “will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29-30).

No man, regardless of his reputation or stature, is immune from the danger of digression. Even James and Peter who “seemed to be pillars” (Gal. 2:9) stumbled and played the part of a hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-13). Unlike Peter, those who make shipwreck of the faith will not admit their error nor turn from it. History is full of men who “were once enlightened” and had “tasted the heavenly gift,” who fell away and put the Son of God to an open shame (Heb. 6:4-6). In this article, I would like to look at a few of these men.

Barton W. Stone (1772-1844) started laboring with Presbyterian churches around Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in 1796. The Presbyterian Church put Stone and five other preachers (Richard McNemar, John Thompson, John Dunlavy and Robert Marshall) on trial because their preaching was not consistent with the Confession of Faith of that body. On January 1, 1804, Stone and his companions formed their own organization, The Springfield Presbytery. They went “forward preaching and constituting churches” in that area.

On June 28, 1804, these men signed the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Preshytery. This historic document signified their departure from denominationalism and their desire to “take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven.” With great zeal these men went out and preached the restoration of New Testament Christianity.

In 1805 three Shaker missionaries passed through that area and caused Dunlavy and McNemar (along with Matthew Houston) to defect and follow “that miserable delusion.” Shortly thereafter, Marshall and Thompson looked back with longing eyes to the creeds of men and joined the Presbyterians again. These men had all known, believed and preached the truth. Something happened to their faith: they made shipwreck of it.

Jesse B. Ferguson (1819-1870) began preaching the gospel in 1838, and within a few years was considered one of the best preachers in Kentucky. He was a brilliant man with a high degree of self-esteem. He moved to Nashville, Tennessee in 1846. While he worked with the brethren there, the congregation grew to over 500 members in a city of only 10,000. “During this time brother Ferguson was looked upon as the greatest pulpit orator in the South.”(1) This congregation became the place to be in Nashville. They soon built one of the most beautiful buildings in town, adorned with cushioned pews and chandeliers.

The brethren did not enjoy their exalted status for very long. “He (Ferguson) was a flatterer and was easily flattered. The church practiced open membership with many unbaptized believers taking a lead in the church. The trouble climaxed when Ferguson preached a form of spiritualism based on I Peter 3:19 concerning Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison. The church was torn apart – loyal brethren finally gained the building by going to court – only 15 to 25 members remained of the once large church in Nashville.”(2)

H. Leo Boles described Ferguson with these words: “Like a meteor which flashes across the horizon, making a trailing of glorious light behind it, and then suddenly disappearing and leaving nothing but darkness in its wake, so Jesse B. Ferguson came above the horizon and shone as a great pulpit orator in the church of Christ at Nashville, Tenn., and then as suddenly disappeared and dropped into obscurity. Perhaps no preacher of the gospel ever stood so high in the estimation of the people and received the plaudits of the populace and then dropped so low as this man.”(3)

Ferguson died on Sept. 4, 1870. David Lipscomb wrote of Ferguson’s passing: “He was the most popular preacher in the Southern country at one time. He was almost worshipped by his admirers in this city, where he ministered as preacher of the church of Christ. He had not that humility of soul and strength of character to stand flattery and adulation heaped upon him. He apostatized from the faith . . . He attempted to build up a congregation of adherents on his loose views. He failed, turned politician . . . He lost respect of all parties here.”(4)

Like Ferguson, Charles Holt, Jr., is a talented speaker and writer. For over forty years Holt has taught by means of the printed page. He started The Gospel Advertiser in May, 1950. After two and a half years it merged with The Gospel Guardian. Fanning Yater Tant named Holt as an Associate Editor, to serve with men like Roy Cogdill, W. Curtis Porter and James Adams.

When the two papers merged in December of 1950, Holt praised The Gospel Guardian as “the most needed gospel paper published.” In almost prophetic terms, he warned of the “grave danger of another great apostasy.” He said, “We live in perilous times. We need to be on guard as never before for dangerous trends and outright departures from the New Testament pattern. These trends and departures are all around us.”(5) Holt has not only departed from the “New Testament pattern,” but now even denies that such exists.

Holt is no stranger to the polemic platform either. He engaged in one of the first debates on institutionalism. In October, 1954, he participated in a discussion with W.L. Totty and Sterl Watson on the “church support of Christian colleges, institutional orphan homes, and ‘sponsoring church’ evangelism.” The debate took place in the meetinghouse of the Garfield Heights congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana.

When The Sentinel of Truth (financed by the late J.D. Hall, Jr.) was launched in 1965, Holt was its editor. The paper quickly became on avenue for Holt to express his new found views on the eldership and the church itself. In 1969 Holt agreed to debate brother J.T. Smith on “the local ecclesia (church) of Christ.” Six weeks before the debate, Holt backed out. In 1985 Holt finally met Smith in a debate in Lake Jackson, Texas and later in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

In his present publishing endeavor, The Examiner, Holt has surrounded himself with men of little or no conviction. Terry Gardner was a member of the congregation where I preached in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 1978. After moving to Chattanooga and associating with Holt, Gardner was “led away by the error of the wicked.” When Gardner wrote about Homer Hailey’s position on divorce and remarriage, he said, “If Homer is absolutely wrong on this issue, does it really make any difference?”(6)

For years faithful brethren have enjoyed reading the Theophilus cartoons drawn by Bob West. These cartoons were used in church bulletins all over this country. In September, 1988 West announced that he had “learned better” about the eldership.(7) Since then he has used his artistic ability to “destroy the faith he once preached.”

It is possible for any Christian to make shipwreck of the faith. Let us imitate Paul’s care for his soul. He was always on guard “lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27).

Endnotes

1. H. Leo Boles, Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers, p. 188.

2. Robert Hooper, A Call to Remember, pp. 3-4.

3. Boles, p. 186.

4. David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate, Sept. 22, 1870.

5. Charles Holt, Gospel Guardian, Dec. 4, 1952.

6. Terry Gardner, The Examiner, May, 1989.

7. Bob West, The Examiner, Sept. 1988.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 600-601
October 4, 1990

By Wayne Partain

Division, not unity, Right up front I feel that the point needs to be made that writers for The Examiner openly advocate division. They teach “Unity in Diversity” (for example, 9/89, Dusty Owens; also Cecil Hook, 7/89, p. 12, “All true unity is in Christ where we accept each other in spite of diversity”). But if some brother is considering their kind of “unity,” he better be wide awake because their results will not be unity, but division and starting another false religion. Owens (9/88, pp. 6, 7) commends those who “are no longer affiliated with one of those man-made inventions called a ‘local church’ . . . They have severed their relationship with those who insist on calling themselves exclusively by a group name, such as ‘Church of Christ,’ ‘Christian Church,’ ‘Baptist Church,’ etc. . . . What a beautiful thought that is: all Christians coming out from among those who are wed to their idol, the ‘local church’ denominated, and presenting themselves a united front against the evil one who would love to enslave the whole world.” My friend, that is not unity. That’s division!

Charles Holt, the editor, says (7/88, p. 31), “It is my opinion that ‘the remnant’ will have to start over for the most part and try to avoid following the ways of men and denominationalism.” To him, “the church institution stands between the individual and the Lord,” the “Church institution” being the local congregation. The word “remnant” refers to those who will leave local churches. Again (11/88) writing about “The Ultimate Division That Is Needed,” says that those who want to be Christians only “must leave their slave-membership in the local corporate church! You can’t remain in Egypt and ever reach Canaan!” This is the “Unity in Diversity” promoted by The Examiner. They very plainly, openly, and shamelessly beg members of the church to leave the congregations of which they are members. This is unity? If that isn’t promoting division, what would it take to do so?

However, before some brother decides to take Charles’ advice and leave the local church of which he is a member, he would do well to ask Charles if he himself is not currently attending a “corporate local church” in Chattanooga on Sunday morning and partaking of the Lord’s Supper there. Maybe he plans to make a clean break and come out of Egypt – later on!

Also it comes with very poor grace for Cecil Hook (7/89) to so disparage the local church after admittedly hanging on to and enduring membership in one in New Braunfels, Texas, until he and his wife could draw Social Security and even let their church janitor job go, after which they “felt a freedom which we had never experienced before.” Then he was really “Free to Change” and “Free to Speak” his “convictions” and lambast local churches. In advertising his book “Free to Speak,” Hook says, “Since I am now free from the restrictions of the pulpit, I am free to speak.” I’ve never read a more self-condemning statement than that. He doesn’t wait for others to call him a hypocrite; he goes ahead and blows the whistle on himself! And, of course, Charles features Hook’s writings in The Examiner and advertises his book. How in the world can sincere brethren have any confidence in such men?

Not A Fellowship

Charles protests stoutly (9/89, pp. 2,3) that “The people directly involved with The Examiner, the writers, those who financially support the paper, the readers, nor all of those considered together do not in anyway constitute a movement, an organization, a fellowship” (his emphasis). But he repeatedly says “we,” “The Truth and Freedom Forum,” “The Truth and Freedom Ministry,” and the “Examiner Meeting in Memphis” (11/88). In the 11/88 issue he says the purpose of The Examiner is “to spearhead a movement of freedom from all human voices of authority” (my emphasis). I thought it wasn’t a movement. It isn’t, but it is!

What do they think “a fellowship” is? They are a group, a collective, to carry on a very destructive and divisive work. Owens speaks of their “united front.” They are organized. Let no one be deceived: this is a cooperative movement! Birds of a feather flock together. Their readers are urged to support this movement every way possible. All who can (especially contributors?) are urged to come to their meetings (Truth and Freedom Forums) in Chattanooga, Memphis, Dallas, etc. Charles says they have fellowship but are not a fellowship. What kind of nonsense is that?

The reason I mention this point is to illustrate the kind of “Unity in Diversity” they are promoting: it’s a unity of those who have made shipwreck of their faith (some of them were never in the faith in the first place, but are coming out of denominations) and who have a very definitely stated creed. Even though they have given up Bible authority and Bible convictions, they have strong convictions for which they are contending. They are definitely a religious movement or fellowship (church?), and chey want this fellowship to grow: they advertise for “Contact Persons” (3/89, p. 32) to work to pull away members from the established churches and into this new fellowship.

Their Beliefs

What are their beliefs? As best I can gather, they still believe in the deity of Christ; Charles has a tract on baptism and still contends that it is immersion and for the remission of sins. However, Hook accepts the baptism of sectarians, saying they are like Granny who can take a prescription without understanding what it’s for (Free in Christ, chap. 13); they uphold Bible morality, but this is “doctrine” (which they say shouldn’t cause division among God’s people – so how important is it? More on this later); and factionalism, which is exactly what they are practicing, is strongly denounced.

But does The Examiner exist for the defense of the deity of Christ, the plan of salvation, morality and unity? Is that the purpose of its writers and supporters? Hardly. What are their real “beliefs”?

(1) The local church must be destroyed. First and foremost, the greatest sin of all, the one which is attacked repeatedly and most ferociously, is the sin of being a member of a local church (especially a “Church of Christ Church” or C of CC”). To The Examiner writers this is anathema, because a local church is a “Church Institution,” “A Functional Organization,” “an Organized Power Structure,” “a denomination,” “the corporate institution,” an “official worship station,” a “man-made invention called a ‘local church,”‘ etc. The poor members are “slaves of the institutional church.” Brother, you want unity with The Examiner? Let them know you are as disgusted with all local churches of Christ as they are and you’ll be a prime candidate for fellowship with them!

(2) Local church elders must he de-eldered! They are anathema no. 2. I wonder if Charles has had problems with elders somewhere? He certainly writes as if he doesn’t care for them. This paper just can’t say enough to denounce and villify these “authoritarian ‘elders,”‘ whose only desire is that the members “obey” and “pay” without “voice or vote.” Dusty Owens says (9/88, p. 5,6), “One characteristic they all have in common is that they have an organized power structure designed to control the behavior of its people. The ‘local church’ has its authoritarian ‘elders,’ who function as that ‘power structure.’ Sometimes it includes the professional preacher, hired to fill their job description and to do their binding. They lay down rules, even the command to be silent, and exercise complete control. Diotrephes of 3 John did not behave any differently!” Yes, preachers get clobbered right along with elders. Bob West devotes many of his cartoons to holding brother “Fairasee” up to scorn.

(3) Send $$ to the Examiner. This is the third cardinal tenet of their creed. They insist that their followers must come out of local churches and quit contributing there. One couple was convinced by the The Examiner to stop contributing to a local church and they used their contribution money to adopt a second child (5/88, p. 25). Over and over readers are urged to quit contributing to local churches. And at the same time they are urged to send money to The Examiner (I 1/88,,p. 6; 3/89, p. 29). In the July, ’89 issue (p. 4), Charles writes that “The role of the members can be summed up in three terms: (1) Be Taught . . . (2) Obey! . . . (3) Pay! . . . Money is what makes the local church institutional wheels turn. It takes money, sometimes lots of money, to operate the local C of C church . . . some of these preachers pound away at the members for more and more money. Yet some of these preachers have the monumental gall, audacity and nerve to scathe me for asking saints to help financially underwrite the cost of The Examiner. It does not go for my salary!” Did someone say it did? That’s not the point. Members of the church are urged to quit contributing where they are members and are urged to send to The Examiner, which is in serious competition with local churches, is a mortal enemy of local churches – and “it takes money, lots of money” for this movement!

These beliefs are indispensible to becoming full-fledged members of the new religous fellowship (church?) called “The Truth and Freedom Ministry.”

Other Beliefs

Just about anything you please. It’s all right to worship with the instrument (they make a big pitch to the Independent Christian Churches); Olan Hick’s teaching (not NT teaching) is featured on divorce and remarriage; women can preach (9/89, p. 3); Ed Fudge’s writings on Calvinism (imputed righteousness) fit well in this fellowship (3/87, p. 15); the Lord’s Supper can be eaten any day of the week (and, of course, it is taken out of the local church); worldliness is no problem at all; and there is just no telling what all a person could believe or not believe and still remain in the good graces of this group. This is just a sampling of the “diversity” they offer!

How to Determine Belief?

How do they determine what all they can believe or disbelieve and still be one? First of all, they reject Bible authority. Dusty Owens (9/87) says, “Human wisdom invented these so-called ‘laws of interpretation'” (referring to express statements, commands, examples, inferences). He denies that in Acts 15 the law of God is so revealed. In other words the arguments made by Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James had no impact in revealing God’s will. I never cease to be amazed at the ceaseless inferences of those who ridicule inferences.

When they reject Bible authority what is left? The answer is subjective religion. Everyone believes or disbelieves as he pleases. It’s all up to the individual, just whatever he thinks, feels or wishes. Whatever the Bible says is just a matter of each person’s subjective interpretation. The Examiner is deathly opposed to legalism, and their brand of grace covers just about everything.

Romans 14

In order to have a semblance of Scripture for their position they use (abuse) Romans 14 (9/89, pp. 7,8) which deals with the eating of certain foods and the observing of certain days, matters of individual liberty and indifference (things that neither save nor condemn). Like Ketcherside and Garrett these writers stretch this chapter to cover all the tenets of their creed. And, of course, they pay no attention to Romans 16:17,18.

Other denominational people extend the list to teach their errors regarding baptism (sprinkling, baptizing infants), the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth (William Barclay says his church lets its members believe or disbelieve it), etc. And what can The Examiner writers say to their denominational brethren who offer so much more “diversity” than they do?

Gospel-Doctrine

Another means of having “Unity in Diversity” is the Ketcherside gospel/doctrine distinction (Hook, 7/89, p. 12). “The entire New Testament writings are not gospel. They contain both gospel and doctrine teaching. There is a difference between gospel and doctrine.” He has taken it upon himself to decide that the “doctrines” that are so important to us “do not affect the essential nature of the church.” The “gospel” includes the deity of Christ, the plan of salvation, morality and unity (their brand), and everything else is “doctrine.” But by what strange reasoning is the Bible “teaching” on morality not “doctrine”?

Hook really crosses himself up on this in his book (Free in Christ, chap. 8) when he says, “Fellowship is established when that element of the word called ‘the gospel’ is,believed and obeyed. Fellowship is sustained with God and man by following the other “‘teachings’ of the word.” There you have it. He throws his whole case out the window! He should have gone ahead and quoted 2 John 9-11.

Conclusion

Do not be deceived: Bible unity is based on Bible teaching (Jn. 6:44,45; 17:8,14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Jn. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9-11, etc.). These and many other texts clearly teach that there is a body of doctrine that must be believed and practiced. The Examiner teaches that there is no such body of doctrine.

There should be unity inspite of diversity in matters of liberty, but this liberty is clearly explained and limited in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. Remember that the “Unity in Diversity” of The Examiner is less than meaningless. This paper is not in the business of promoting unity but only causing more division. It represents a fellowship of the disgruntled who have made shipwreck of the faith and are determined to take as many with them as possible.

Which is why this special issue is being prepared: if it prevents one person from being deceived and led off, it will be well worth all the effort.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 591-593
October 4, 1990

By Karl Diestelkamp

It is inevitable that those who take looser and looser positions on biblical authority and who adopt the “no pattern” concept regarding the body of Christ will also take loose positions, or no position, on moral issues and worldliness. Such looseness is evident in The Examiner.

Who Is “Morally” Responsible?

By his own admission, Holt’s paper is an instrument for teaching that which he sometimes believes to be “quite wrong.” Hear him: “I must admit that on occasion some views or positions are published with which I disagree; that I believe are quite wrong. Within limits I believe in allowing honest, capable brothers and sisters to freely express their views and I feel no obligation to specifically express my disagreement to try to refute such” (The Examiner, 3-89, p. 224). By his silence he “bids God speed” to “capable” teachers of that which is “quite wrong.” Who is responsible for this “wrong” that is published? Another writes, . . . Many of the things I say under the name of Epaphroditus are merely the musings of my mind, and not my settled conclusions” (The Examiner, 3-90, p. 15). But this writer writes like it is “settled.” Is he teaching his doubts? How can we know the “few” things he is certain about from his “many” unsettled conclusions? No wonder he writes anonymously! Whatever happened to not giving place to false teachers “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:4,5)?

Defending Worldliness

Under the heading “The Legislating-Morals Creed,” Steven Clark Goad wrote: “Included in this mind set are visceral matters including length of hair, length of skirts . . . dancing, smoking, drinking and the ever popular yet dreaded, ‘mixed bathing’ . . . In Indiana we called it ‘swimming’ . . . My first official ‘invited to’ church party was a pool party. Even open minded Goad and spouse were a little uncomfortable . . . I still remember a dearly beloved deacon whose wife, even while pregnant, wore super short mini skirts. That’s right. Goad decided to moralize. Sweet brother forgive me. The next Sunday this precious mate had her hem let out almost completely on her maternity dress. Point? 1, nor you, have the right to tell another Christian how long his wife’s dresses or his son’s hair should be . . . Nor do we have the mandate to prohibit beer and dancing in a man’s own house . . . And just for the record, I don’t drink and I don’t chew and I don’t swim wif’ ‘dem ‘dat do!” (The Examiner, 5-89, pp. 13,14)

Putting aside the sarcasm and attempt at humor, Goad treats us to an unhealthy dose of “The Bible doesn’t prohibit: super short mini skirts, mixed swimming, dancing, drinking, smoking and long hair on men.” The real question is, does the New Testament authorize them? Conveniently, Goad never got around to 1 Timothy 2:9 and the issue of modesty or Genesis 3:7-10,21 and God’s remedy for “nakedness.” Nor does he deal with the related issues of “adultery in the heart” (Matt. 5:28) and “stumbling blocks” (Rom. 14:13). On “long hair” on men he did not consider 1 Corinthians 11:14 and seemingly could find no passage to relate to “beer and dancing in a man’s own house.” What principle of truth allows these things inside the house and prohibits them outside? Shall we teach about “lasciviousness, drunkenness and such like” (Gal. 5:19-21) and the things that lead to these sins (1 Thess. 5:22) or not? Goad’s teaching will not turn anyone from worldliness it opens the door for further error and throws aside restraint.

Unfortunately, in a lot of places where brethren meet the battle for modesty has been lost because it was not fought. Many brethren have caved in on “masculine modesty” for the sake of “sports” and to be consistent no longer teach “feminine modesty.” Some defend swimsuits as being modest for mixed swimming, but immodest elsewhere in the same mixed company. Long hair on any man is a shame. Even the world recognizes “long hair” on a man when it sees it, but some brethren (including not a few mothers, wives and girl friends) seemingly cannot! An increasing number seem to be trying to get as close to “shame” as possible, and few say anything about it. “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15). “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4).

Endorsing Adultery

Holt recommends a book by Olan Hicks, saying, “There is an answer to the ‘law’ of men that if a man divorces his wife without adultery as the cause, and marries another, that both will be ‘living in adultery’ as long as they continue that marriage” (The Examiner, 5-88, p. 22). In The Examiner (9-89, p. 25), Cecil Hook writes, “Paul grants to all the unmarried women (which includes maidens, widows, and divorced persons) the privilege of marriage . . . he did not impose a cruel single life on anyone. So, divorce her instead of just separating, and let her remarry.”

Consider the plain teaching of Jesus before you swallow The Examiner’s advice: “. . . and whosoever married her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). “. . . Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32).

By their teaching/endorsement, Holt, Hicks and Hook are teaching the servants of the Lord “to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:20). There is Do scriptural authority for the “put away” spouse to remarry and no amount of human reasoning will explain away the words of the Lord.

Brethren who tolerate and condone more and more worldliness provide a fertile seed-bed for further doctrinal departures, which in turn, pave the way for more worldliness until identity as the sanctified people of God is lost. Be alert to the subtle defense of worldliness in the pages of The Examiner, and from where ever else it may come. Stand up and be counted! Speak out against sin of every kind! Wobbliness and weakness encourages worldliness. “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 598-599
October 20, 1990

By Steve Wallace

“Church of Christ Chaplains” are increasingly becoming a common part of Air Force chapel staffs. There are many such chaplains in Germany alone. It is our purpose in this article to look at some of the responsibilities of a chaplain, some pertinent passages from the Bible and some conclusions we may draw.

Having already had the opportunity to talk to chaplains on a number of occasions, I recently visited an Air Force Chapel with the expressed intention of learning more about a chaplain’s duty. As always, I found everyone to be very cordial and helpful. The chaplains and their staff take their work seriously and provide many helpful services to Air Force personnel and their families. However, I do not believe that these facts alone make them right before God.

A Chaplain’s Work

The Air Force generally recognizes three main religious groups within which all chaplains function: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant. The “Church of Christ Chaplain” falls into the category of a “Protestant.” While a chaplain’s primary responsibility is to meet the spiritual needs of those of his “faith,” he must also preach for denominations whose ministers are away. In addition to this, he must take his turn preaching for the “Protestant Service,” a general service for members of all Protestant denominations. Besides these things, we need to note some of the rules governing the work of a chaplain.

He must fulfill his responsibilities under certain constraints. For example, there are rules against “proselytizing. ” In other words, a “Church of Christ Chaplain” must be careful what he says while preaching for Protestant services. He could neither preach the truth on how one becomes a Christian, nor expose the sinfulness of the false practices so common among Protestant denominations. In addition to the above, if a chaplain begins to teach that which his faith does not believe and loses endorsement from the church he represents, he must separate from the Air Force within 24 hours. These are some serious restrictions.

Being a Chaplain is Not A Work for a Christian

(Note: By “Christian,” I mean someone who has been baptized “into” Christ, ‘for the remission of sins” [Rom. 6.-3; Acts 2:38]).

1. A New Testament Evangelist Must Reprove Error. Paul tells Timothy to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Paul exemplified this not only in his dealings with brethren but also with those in religious error. The record in Acts shows that he regularly went into synagogues and “so spake” (14:1) that people were moved to either be for Christ or against him (k:f. also 17:1-5; 18:1-6). When we add to this Jesus’ constant reproving of the error among the Jews (e.g. Matt. 12:1-13) and the example of the prophets of the Old Testament, it is difficult to imagine a child of God taking on a work which forbids him following their example. The “Church of Christ Chaplain” finds himself On the plains of Ono (Neh. 6:2), unable to do the work of the Lord.

2. Fellowships Error. The word “fellowship” simply means “sharing in common” (Vines). When a Christian actively takes part in a denominational service he is sharing in that which is wrong (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16-2 1). Because he cannot speak against that which is wrong he lends his influence to it. Those who see him in services will believe that he agrees with what goes on in Protestant services because he takes an active part. Because he takes an active part, he can never argue for the sinfulness of it. It would be like teaching against drunkenness with a bottle of whiskey in your hand. Fellowshipping error is a sin that must be repented of before one can ever teach against error.

Some Consequences

1. If one Christian can worship regularly with non-Christians all can. I am unable to see how this consequence can be denied. What is right for one Christian is right for all.

2. Christians should cease their opposition to denominational doctrines. Such teaching as salvation by faith only, worship with the church of your choice, baptism by sprinkling, etc., can be fellowshipped without opposition by our “Chaplain brethern.” The rest of us can therefore do the same. If we can be a part of something we ought not oppose it.

3. Churches of Christ will become full-fledged denominations. Since the “Church of Christ Chaplain” must have the endorsement of the church he represents, some churches of Christ must be sanctioning Christians becoming chaplians. It is hard for me to see how a church can sanction a member being part of denominationalism without admitting that is is a part of denominationalism itself. When we add to this the fact that many in Churches of Christ recognize saved people in all denominations, this consequence seems undeniable.

Conclusion

The practice of Christians becoming chaplains is simply a compromise with error. What is needed today is what has always been needed: Christians need to stand apart and opposed to error. The line between darkness and light must be made clear both by our teaching and by our example (1 Tim. 4:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, pp. 609, 630
October 18, 1990