Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The following question came in the mail, “Why are there so many denominations?” Diverse religions, churches, and doctrines did not come from Jesus Christ. He promised, “I will build my church,” referring to God’s plan to save sinners. This salvation comes through Jesus of Nazareth, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16-18), When Jesus died in order that men might have “the remission of sins,” he “purchased with his own blood” the church (Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28). Those who are saved in the church are like a body with Jesus the Savior as the head. “There is one body,” and Christ is “head over all things to the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4).

The Apostles of Christ preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as the only hope of mankind for salvation. Sinners were told, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” and, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:38; 22:16). “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved,” and the body of the saved “continued steadfastly” in the teaching of the Apostles and in the pattern God gave for the true church of Christ (Acts 2:42,47).

Christ prayed that his people would continue to be united upon the basis of the teaching he gave through the Apostles. He severely rebuked some who were drifting toward division and commanded them to “all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you” (Jn. 17:17-21; 1 Cor. 1:10-13). Paul warned that the problem of division would grow. False teachers would bring new doctrines and start different churches. Some elders, preachers, and other Christians would want to revise the original teaching of the Lord and would change the church to suit themselves (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

A series of revisions and changes resulted in Boniface III assuming the title “universal bishop” in 606 A.D. in the gradual formation of the Roman Catholic Church with its many new doctrines and practices. In 1054 a formal division occurred between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. Dissatisfaction with the monolithic power, political corruption, and superstitious doctrines of medieval Catholicism led to the creation of several new churches with different creeds and separate organizations. These bodies included the Lutheran Church, which began in Germany (1520); the Anglican Church in Great Britain (1534); and the Reformed and Presbyterian movements in Switzerland (1536). The Congregational Church began in England (1550), the Baptist in Holland (1607), and the Methodist also in England (1739).

All the above churches were to be planted in America and many new groups have appeared here throughout American history, including the Mormons (1830), the Adventists (1830), Christian Scientists (1866), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (1872). In addition a wide range of holiness, pentecostal, and charismatic sects and denominations have appeared.

In short, there are so many denominations because people have left the original teaching of Jesus Christ and formed so many new, different, and diverse doctrines. In the early 1800s many people who were identified with various denominations began to realize that they needed to get back to the Bible pattern of teaching on the plan of salvation, on the church, and on all things. In one community after another, such people met together with a willingness to give up denominational names and doctrines in order to wear only the name of Christ and to follow only the original teaching of Christ. The result has been the restoration of true churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16).

Jesus established his church for the salvation of the world, but he did not build the many diverse denominations which exist today. Are you a member of the church that Jesus built and about which you can read in the Bible, or are you a member of a church which some man built and about which you cannot read in the Bible? Some people have never thought about such a question as that, but multitudes have thought about it. If you are disappointed and disgusted with modern denominational bodies, you might be interested in knowing that you are not alone. If you are thinking about “dropping out,” you are not alone.

Why So Many Leave Denominationalism

Many people continue to leave man-made churches, doctrines, and religions. Some of those people have despaired of ever finding the truth of God and have become agnostics or atheists. Others have floated from one denomination to another in a vain search for truth, or else have given up on all churches and stayed at home reading the Bible in search of God’s will. Some who have left denominationalism have left because they have found the truth of the Son of God, of his gospel, and of his church. Most of these souls never look back to the darkness, confusion, uncertainty, and error they left behind. The precepts and practices of various denominations which have driven people out in search of the truth include the following:

1. Physical and emotional displays not found in the Bible. Gospel preaching and worship assemblies in the New Testament never involved jumping, running, shouting, jibber-jabber, spinning around, and fainting. In the days of Christ and the Apostles, intelligent words of truth were spoken in love (Rom. 10:17; Eph. 4:15). Christians assembled to sing, pray, and study God’s Word. All things were “done unto edifying,” “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:26,40). Honest souls are seeking orderly and scriptural worship today.

2. Constant appeals for money. Early Christians were taught to give as they prospered each “first day of the week” for the work of the church (1 Cor. 16:1-2). They met on other days to study and pray at times but did not take up a collection on such occasions. The tithing of the Old Testament was not required in the New, but the rule was this, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give” (2 Cor. 9:7). A tithe means ten percent. Some gave more, some less, according to their ability, but all gave on the Lord’s day. There were no special “clubs” for big givers, no “purpose cards,” and no extra appeals by mail. These carnal devices along with sales and raffles drive many an humble soul out of false religions in search of the truth.

3. Lack of Bible preaching. The content of New Testament preaching was the inspired Word of God. Paul stayed at Corinth “a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” and then Apollos preached there with great power, “showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:11,28). Faithful preachers urged people to search “the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Most modern preaching is theatrical and entertaining, with little food for the soul. A brief text of Scripture may be used as a pretext to ramble in all directions, to offer social and political commentary, and to offer all sorts of human philosophies and human doctrines. Men and women starved for Bible preaching have left denominationalism.

4. Sprinkling and pouring. Many people who had water sprinkled or poured on them have learned that Bible baptism was immersion. Bible baptism required “much water” because the baptizer and the one to be baptized walked “down both into the water” for the purpose of immersion (Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:38). Baptism was a burial in water and a rising from water (Rom. 6:34; Col. 2:12). Many people have renounced denominationalism in order to be scripturally baptized.

5. Lord’s supper not served every Sunday. The Apostles of Christ taught his people to gather “upon the first day of the week” to commemorate his death by sharing the Lord’s Supper, and also to give financially for the work of his church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Most denominations take the collection every Sunday without fail but omit the Lord’s Supper except on a few special occasions. Anyone who sees blatant inconsistencies in churches started by men may begin searching for the church started by Christ.

6. Faith only. Denominationalism generally teaches that our sins are washed away the moment we believe in Jesus. Many people are surprised to read, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only . . . so faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:24,26). We are not saved by faith only or by obedience only, but Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Hundreds and thousands leave man-made religions in order to obey God’s plan of salvation in its fulness.

7. Human creeds, doctrines, catechisms, manuals, disciplines, and pretended new revelations. Denominationalism is plagued, cursed, and confused by numerous and conflicting standards of authority for their preaching and practice. The Bible, and the Bible only, is “the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” The Bible alone contains “all things that pertain unto life and godliness,” and thoroughly equips “the man of God . . . unto all good works” (Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The words of our Lord are truly spiritual and lead to eternal life, but the doctrines and commandments of men are carnal, divisive, empty, and destructive to the soul (Jn. 6:63; Matt. 15:8-9). No wonder so many honest hearts despair of finding salvation in human systems and begin to seek for the true teaching of Christ.

8. Denominational names. People who once were proud to wear denominational names – Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Holiness, Pentecostal, Mormon, Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. – are learning that Christ never taught his followers to wear such names. Rather, he taught them to wear his own name as their only mark of identity. “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). They were not ashamed of this name and were strictly forbidden to wear names created by men (1 Pet. 4:14,16; 1 Cor. 1:10-13). Multitudes have repudiated man-made names in order to be Christians only, nothing more and nothing less.

9. Church social and recreational activities. Christ gave his church the work of spreading the gospel to the lost, edifying saints as they assemble to worship God, and meeting the needs of destitute saints (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 5:16). From ancient times, false religions appealed to man’s carnal appetites by enticing people with meals, parties, sports, dancing, and all sorts of festivities (Exod. 32:6,18; 1 Cor. 10:7). The denominations of our day try to outdo each other in offering suppers, banquets, parties, celebrations, carnivals, contests, awards, prizes, sports activities, gymnasiums, and social services. After all the food, fun, and frolic, souls are still starving for the truth of the gospel of Christ. God blesses people who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” by delivering them from the spiritual famine which plagues denominationalism (Matt. 5:6; Col. 1:13).

10. Human organizations tied to the church. Denominationalism is staggering and sinking into a quagmire under the weight of human headquarters, societies, bureaus, conventions, boards, colleges, summer camps, publishing houses, child care agencies, retirement centers, convalescence homes, hospitals, and other human institutions tied to the church. God made the local church with its elders and deacons allsufficient to do its own work without building and maintaining man-made organizations (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-5). Many precious souls have learned to serve Christ in his church without entangling alliances with sectarian institutions

The decay of denominationalism is helping more and more people to see that the church of Christ is not just another denomination. It is no denomination at all but is an alternative to denominationalism. It is the original church revealed in the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV 9, pp. 272-273, 280
May 3, 1990

By Hal Snyder

Over the years people have identified three kinds of teachers, each of which are remembered (or forgotten) for different reasons.

– There are teachers who are never remembered because they influence their students so very little.

– There are teachers who are never forgiven (unless it’s after they’ve passed away) due to their harshness and failure to communicate concern.

– There are teachers who are never forgotten because of their care and effectiveness in helping their students grow.

The story is told of James Michner, the author, who once declined an invitation from President Eisenhower for dinner at the White House because it was scheduled for the same evening that Michner’s high school teacher was being honored. It seems that the author would not be missed at the White House, but he would be dearly missed by his teacher, to whom he owed such a debt.

There are several qualities we must possess if we are to be effective teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. Effective teachers must know God and his Son, Jesus. “This is eternal life, that they might know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (Jn. 17:3). Many of us have not had a new thought about God since we were children. An effective teacher evaluates his concepts of and about God constantly (to be sure they are both complete and accurate).

2. Effective teachers must know the message they desire to communicate. A farmer once remarked, “You can’t no more teach whatcha don’t know than you can come back from where yah ain’t been! ” Unfortunately some people have developed the concept that one must be suspicious of an “educated” preacher, as if he is not “called by God” and cannot be trusted. This presumes the claim of continued guidance and revelation, neither of which arrangement is Bible taught (Gal. 1:8; 2 Jn. 9-10). It is imperative that the teacher of the gospel be properly prepared (Eph. 6:15), which preparation is gained through diligent study (2 Tim. 2:15).

3. Effective teachers must know the mission and the true nature of the church. The church is the “body of Christ” (Col. 1:18). Its mission is the same as was Christ’s when he walked this earth. Notice that Christ evangelized saint and sinner alike (Lk. 19:10); and stressed edification (strengthening the saved, Luke 22:32), individual responsibility in benevolence matters (Matt. 25:34-46), and worship and devotion to God (Lk. 4:16-21; Jn. 4:23-24). Our mission is to do the same and to give the world the opportunity to be Christians only. We do not need to restore the Restoration, so much as we need to restore the church of the New Testament. Understand that most religious groups teach and practice some truth. The primary difference between the denominations and the churches of Christ is that we seek to practice all of the truth at the same time. Knowing this difference and communicating this difference well is what makes a teacher effective.

4. Effective teachers must know human nature. The parable of the sower describes four different kinds of soil: wayside, rocky, thorny, and good (Matt. 13:3-8). Even the good soil was varied, some bringing forth 100, 60, and 30 fold (Matt. 13:23). People have varying temperaments and God recognizes this (Rom. 12:18). We are asked to give some thought as to how to answer everyone (Col. 4:6) and to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). The content of our message will be more readily received if it is accompanied by love, tact, respect, and sincerity, especially if we arc recognized as having integrity. The Roman poet Cicero once remarked that an orator was “a good man speaking well.”

Conscientious Christians often excuse themselves from teaching because they feel unworthy and inadequate to attempt such a serious task (presumably because the consequences of eternity, are so far reaching). It should be stressed, however, that ones who have the talent and opportunity (Matt. 25:15-30) will be held responsible for the failure to teach (Jas. 4:17; 2 Cor. 5: 10), even as one must answer for a defective effort at teaching (Rom. 14:12).

Our Lord depends upon the preaching and teaching of his word for the furtherance his kingdom (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 20:20). If we fail, he has made no other provisions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV; 9, p. 271
May 3, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote” Stephen D. Eckstein, History of the Churches of Christ in Texas (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963), pp. 92-93.

In History of Churches of Christ in Texas, S.D. Eckstein, Jr. gives a brief account of affairs in Longview. We regard this as a tribute to brother John T. Poe, pioneer preacher.

“On June 7, 1875, twenty members dedicated the new edifice. During the next decade, the church grew rapidly until the organ question arose.

“Although the congregation did not use instrumental music in its services in 1884, some members indicated their sentiment for an organ by circulating the following advertisement: ‘A magic lantern entertainment for the benefit of the Episcopal Church will be given in the Christian Church – Admission 250, children half price – proceeds to be applied toward purchasing a new organ for the Episcopal Church.’

“Immediately, minister Poe denounced the advertisement as an endeavor to ‘court favor with all the Babylonish sects,’ and cried for an Elijah who might give ‘thus saith the Lord.’ In spite of the resulting controversy, the church increased to about seventy by 1899. However, when L.A. Dale introduced the organ into the church in January, 1895, the inevitable division occurred. The twenty-five anti-organ members, who withdrew under Poe’s leadership, termed the majority ‘heretics and schismatics.’

“Even though the minority group reorganized within a week, the discouraged Poe soon moved away. When he returned in February, 1900, he found only a few still opposed to the organ. Evidencing great tenacity, he gathered seven anti-organ disciples who worshiped together for a year without receiving any additions.

“When the first convert was added in March 1901, Poe exclaimed, ‘Praise the Lord!’ Within six months, the church numbered nineteen staunch members” (pp. 92-93).

It is not difficult to “read between the lines” here, for a human-interest story, oft-repeated today.

(1) A church divided (though they still meet together) with liberal fun-and-popularity-loving members, and staunch conservatives.

(2) The preacher’s denunciation of the “magic lantern” trick; with his appeal for scriptural authority.

(3) Appeal ignored, organ introduced with majority backing.

(4) Minority thus forced out of the building, for conscience’s sake.

(5) Charges and counter-charges, and – no doubt many hard feelings.

(6) The “anti’s” reorganizing, but experiencing early discouragement and losing members. (Personal feelings do not make for loyal Christians.)

(7) After long, hard struggle, the “faithful few” begin to move forward once more.”

It may be interesting to ask yourself: “If I had been there would I have stayed with that small group of so-called ‘anti’s’ and contended for a ‘thus saith he Lord’?”

Don’t kid yourself. Take a look at how you stand today.

– Robert F. Turner (from Plain Talk, September 1965)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, p. 245
April 19, 1990

By Harry R. Osborne

In the last article, we saw that Romans 14 instructed brethren who differed on eating meat to “receive” one another. Our study of the context revealed the difference under consideration was one in which both practices (eating and abstaining from meat) were right in and of themselves -they were matters of indifference. Since no sin was involved, God accepted the practice of each person. They were to receive one another based on the fact that God has first received both of them in their practice (v. 3). If one applies this exhortation to matters of doctrine, he misuses the text.

Statements From Commentators

In writing commentaries on Romans, our brethren have emphasized the nature of the differences under discussion in chapter 14. Though they have used various expressions to convey the idea, they are clearly saying the same thing. R.L. Whiteside says it speaks of “a matter of opinion or indifference” (A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, Denton, TX: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945, pp. 268-269). Moses Lard noted the following:

These thoughts are his own private opinions respecting things about which there is no command. He, therefore, has the right to hold them without interference from others. The things which his thoughts respect are in themselves indifferent; and therefore the thoughts which relate to them are indifferent (Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1875, p. 413).

Commenting on Paul’s instruction to receive the weaker brother with his scruple against eating meat, Bryan Vinson, Sr. said, “Now, if it was a matter of faith and authorized duty, instead of opinion and therefore a matter of indifference, such a qualification would not be proper” (Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, Longview, TX: Author, 1974, p. 261). In overviewing the nature of this chapter, A.W. Discus observed, “In this chapter he (Paul) deals with things or matters that are indifferent within themselves” (A Brief Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome, Tampa: Author, n.d., p. 99).

Of course, the fact that our brethren almost unanimously make this point does not make it correct. That which is correct is ultimately found in a study of the text as we have already done. The comments of knowledgeable brethren should, however, cause us to look with caution at any attempt to make a broader application of the passage.

False Applications of Romans 14

Unity in Diversity. Earl F. Palmer, a Presbyterian, wrote a commentary on Romans called Salvation by Surprise. His comments on Romans 14 represent the thinking of many modern denominationalists on this passage. He says that all differences “other than the central question of the Lordship of Christ” come within the scope of this passage (Salvation by Surprise, Waco: Word Books, 1975, p. 168). Therefore, as long as one says he believes Jesus is Lord, he must be received even though his actions violate the will of the Lord he professes to believe. When our brethren begin to seek a basis for a “broader fellowship,” they begin to edge closer and closer to this denominational position regarding Romans 14.

In the January 1961 issue of Mission Messenger, Carl Ketcherside wrote an article entitled “Unity in Diversity” which outlined his rationale for a broader fellowship. In that article, he equates the differences mentioned in Romans 14 with every modern difference our brethren have had over the worship, work and organization of the church. Those embracing this reasoning have continued to enlarge their border in order to receive the errors of pentecostalism and even modernism. As each step away from God is taken and his word is ignored, they abuse Romans 14 in search of a justification.

One of the editors of Christianity magazine, a paper widely circulated among brethren, supported the notion of a “unity in diversity” plea. In justifying such he said, “The issue in Romans 14 is precisely the establishment of the right of brethren to differ in matters of faith. “‘ However, as we have seen, such a statement is in direct opposition to the text. The text shows the questions under consideration to be matters of opinion or indifference, not matters of revealed faith. The writer of this article dismissed the idea that Romans 14 speaks only of matters of indifference with this logic, “Common sense tells me that without the need of revelation” (Ed Harrell, Christianity, April 1989, p. 6). When our subjective conclusions of “common sense” which are not necessary from the text itself are elevated to the level of the text itself, we are on very dangerous ground.

Instrumental Music and the Missionary Society. J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton co-authored a commentary, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, as the third volume of The Standard Bible Commentary series. Before the commentary on Romans was finished, McGarvey died (19 i 1). Pendleton, who accepted the use of instrumental music in worship to God and the Missionary Society, attempted to justify such on the grounds of Romans 14:

In modern times controversy over meat sacrificed to idols is unknown, but the principle still applies as to instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Such matters of indifference are not to be injected into the terms of salvation, or set up as tests of fellowship (Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1916, pp. 525-526).

Of course, Pendleton understood the distinction in principle between matters of faith and indifference, but he incorrectly regarded the instruments and societies as matters of indifference.

It is not a matter of indifference to add instrumental music in worship to God because it transgresses or goes beyond the pattern of singing which God authorized (2 Jn. 9). Nor is it a matter of indifference to add the missionary society because it transgresses the pattern of the allsufficiency of the local church (2 Jn. 9). Any attempt to justify such unlawful actions is a misuse of Romans 14 in justifying sin and error!

Homosexuality. Norman Pittenger in his book, Timefor Consent, contends that the Bible does not clearly condemn “monogamous, loving homosexual unions” as most religious people think. He argues from Romans 14 that those who reject homosexual people from fellowship in the church “have utterly failed to understand the Christian gospel” (Quoted from John R. W. Stott, Christianity Today [22 Nov. 85], pp. 26-27). However, homosexuality is condemned repeatedly in God’s Word (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). It is a violation of the pattern laid down by God in the beginning to provide for the sexual fulfillment of both sexes in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage (Gen. 2:24; Heb. 13:4). The practice of homosexuality is sinful, not a matter of indifference. Therefore, we may not receive the one practicing the sin or justifying the practice of such on the basis of Romans 14.

Brethren who say that Romans 14 applies to matters of sin rarely want to include the homosexual in their “broader fellowship.” Why is that? If it applies to some sins, why not all sins? The brethren who say Romans 14 applies to individual action (even where sin is involved) as opposed to church action are not consistent in this area either. The homosexual does not involve the church with him in his sin – it is individual. Why not receive him? The reason is simple when we properly understand Romans 14 – it is a matter of sin, not a matter of indifference!

Errors on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. It is a sad fact that many brethren have differences over the Bible teaching on this subject. An article in Christianity magazine concluded that “doctrinal unanimity” on this subject “probably cannot exist” (Ed Harrell, Christianity [Nov. 88], p. 8). From that point, he went on to suggest that Romans 14 be applied to those teaching error on the subject as long as the teacher of error is honest, sincere and not factious (Harrell, p. 9). Following this line of reasoning, the one practicing the error taught by the teacher must also be received as long as he is “fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). In essence, this is exactly the same approach taken by Pittenger to receive homosexuality.

As we have already seen, however, Romans 14 deals with differences over matters of indifference. Jesus says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except forfornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Is adultery a matter of indifference? Whether one teaches that the alien sinner is not amenable to his law or that the guilty fornicator may lawfully remarry, the end product is to condone adultery! As we noted before, John says no harbor is to be given to the one condoning sin (2 Jn. 9-11). The practice or preaching of error on this subject finds no safe quarters in Romans 14!

Conclusion

We cannot provide for the toleration of differences by merely asserting that they fit into Romans 14. The chapter provides no shortcut to fellowship which bypasses the need to seek God’s instruction on any issue. Romans 14 regulates our fellowship only in matters of indifference where differing practices are both right in and of themselves. True, one may not initially recognize the practice to be a matter of indifference just as the weak brother in Romans 14 initially failed to see eating meat in that light. Thus, we must be able to show that God allows a practice as Paul showed regarding the eating of meat before we can rightfully apply the solution of Romans 14. A practice comes under the regulation of Romans 14 not because we think it does, but because the facts of God’s word prove such. Let us be careful not to open the door to doctrinal error, sinful practices, and apostasy through an abuse of Romans 14.

(Note: This material was offered to Christianity, divided into three short articles so as to fit their format. The first issue of Christianity stated the policy of allowing no room for “the language of contemporary controversy” orfor open “debate. ” They are unwilling to move beyond thisfiawed policy. Ed Harrell said in refusing to print this material, . . . we have no intention of allowing Christianity magazi . ne to become a medium of doctrinal debate. ” Dee Bowman’s response (which I quote in its entirety) said, “Your observation that each editor of ourpaper has the independent right to choose what is published in his issue is correct. Since I have chosen not to publish your material, I am returning it to you in accordance with your request. ” None of the other editors was willing to print this material.

As of the time this material was submitted, Christianity has printed a total of 13 articles in an attempt to justify the continued fellowship of those espousing admittedly false doctrines on divorce and remarriage. Romans 14 has been given as the Scripture condoning such. No alternate view of the passage has been published to give brethren an opportunity to evaluate boths ideas of the question. The magazine’s “positive” policy of no open discussion and debate commits these brethren to the conduct of one-sided debate, monologue, andfilibuster in their discussion of controversial matters. The policy would have us believe that closing the doors to open discussion is the “positive” path. However, such apolicy actually leads to misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and alienation between brethren. The very thing the policy intended to avoid is produced. This all-positive, no-debate policy was not the apprach of Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (1 Kgs. 18; Matt. 21-23; Acts 15:1-7; 17:17; Jude 3). Truth has nothing to fear from investigation, but shines more brightly in the crucible of controversy. To shun the process of open investigation and controversy is an error and can only make us more vulnerable to others errors sooner or later. It is my fervant prayer that we will open our hearts and minds to one another as we endeavor to discuss matters wherein we differ with love towards one another as brethren. – Harry R. Osborne)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 9, pp. 262-264
May 3, 1990