Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Evidences of Drifting

Not all of these evidences are seen in every individual who is drifting, but one or more of these symptoms generally appears when someone begins to drift. The more he drifts, the more these symptoms, increase. What are some signs and evidences of drifting?

Seek Secret of Growth In Wrong Places

1. Brethren are drifting when they must go to the books, seminars, and materials of sectarians and liberals who utilize social-gospel or even cultic methods, in a effort to find the “secret” of their growth so that “we can use it. Error grows because of its appeal to the carnal man in some form or fashion – the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the vain glory of men. It may be in the form of recreation, counseling services, secular education, material prosperity, or other so-called “felt needs” (Phil. 3:18-19). Or, it may be in the direction of strict self-denial, punishing the body, and submitting to human masters and master plans (Col. 2:20-23). Such carnal weapons as high pressure tactics and psychological manipulation may be involved (2 Cor. 4:2).

The people of God must learn that the growth which God purposed results from one thing alone.- teaching, disseminating, and defending the word of the truth of the gospel (Col. 1:5-6). Brethren who use the false appeals mentioned will claim they are using them to teach the truth, but the word of God equips us to recognize the difference (Phil. 1:9-10). All these false appeals existed in the first century, but they were repudiated rather than used by the inspired men.

Speech Foreign to Scripture

2. Using and defending sectarian terms and phrases in an effort to sound “fresh,” or to appear scholarly, or to generate zeal and enthusiasm, are danger signs. Some such terms and phrases are faintly related to Bible concepts and some not at all. Watch out for fascination with “felt needs,” “the whole man,” “interpersonal relationships,” “true discipleship” (as distinct from being a Christian), the “power of fasting” as something which needs to be restored to the church, “prayer partners,” “testifying” and “witnessing” today as a phase of what some call “praising the Lord,” the “touching” ministry, “friendship evangelism,” and the like. One Florida preacher who speaks on “Disciple Making” explains the “evangelism” of Acts 14:21 as baptizing people and the “disciple making” as a separate step. This error contradicts Matthew 28:19 (baptism itself constitutes a person as a true disciple) and opens the door to other efforts. Several preachers among us have taught and have distributed material teaching that we are to be “witnesses” and that “we should be willing to testify to others.”

Too Sweet to Call Sin and Error by Their True Names

3. Another sign of drifting is the sweet and syrupy spirit characteristic of the softer segments of sectarianism. During the apostasy of 1866-1900, this paralyzing spirit became very pronounced. One excuse for starting the digressive Christian Standard in 1866 was to have a more “sophisticated” and sweet-spirited journal than David Lipscomb’s Gospel Advocate and Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review. A reader of the Advocate sent in a quotation from a young preacher who wanted to preach Christ and avoid controversy over “organs, societies, . . . etc.,” and commented, “The above, from a young preacher, is a specimen of the sentiment of many of our churches. The cry is, ‘cease this unholy warfare and let us have peace'” (1 May 1889, p. 279).

We must remember what Jesus said in Matthew 10:34: “Think not that I came to send peace onn the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In the 1930s the Gospel Advocate warned of a creeping spirit which eschewed calling the names of false teachers and doctrines, and the Bible Banner warned that such trends were increasing in the 1940s. The trend reached flood stage during the apostasy of the 50s-60s.

Even among brethren who resisted the digression of the 50s-60s, every so often someone repeats the worn out cliche, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Young sages occasionally rise to advise us to replace the word “sin” with “question” when preaching on “The Sin of Denominationalism” (and “The Question of Adultery”?). The latest fancy is the “positive mental attitude” philosophy of preaching. These are all variations on the flawed theme that there is a painless way to convert people.

The Holy Spirit gave the truth to convict the human conscience of sin and guilt (Jn. 16:7-13). People were cut to the heart and trembled at such preaching (Acts 2:37; 24:25). We are headed for danger when preachers avoid calling sin sin, error error, and false teachers false teachers. A Florida preacher has distributed material arguing that to refer to brethren in institutional apostasy as “liberal” is to engage in “nothing but slurs.” The term is “graffiti,” says a north Alabama preacher who blames “both factions” with “legalism” for not “fellowshipping one another in common efforts.” If not “liberal,” how about terms like transgression, iniquity, lawless, apostasy, departing from the faith, etc.? The Holy Spirit inspired these “slurs” (?) – “graffiti” (?)!

Meeting New Needs?

4. The claim of meeting the needs of a “new” generation is used to justify departures and to put critics on the defensive. The problem with critics, we are told, is that they are “behind the times” and “out of touch.” The critics are “answering questions which no one is asking” while the brethren being criticized are answering new questions and meeting new needs. It is not new for Satan to claim that his message represents new knowledge, new realities, and new progress. The critics are portrayed as hidebound traditionalists while the men who speak with an uncertain sound are innocently exploring new ideas and methods. The fact is that no one can be wiser than God or his Word. The true needs of every generation are met by plain preaching of God’s Word, and not one new spiritual need or truth has been discovered since the revelation of the last “amen” in the book of Revelation (Jn. 6:63; Eph. 13; Rev. 22:18-19).

Super Piety

5. Brethren are certainly drifting when they deceive themselves into believing that theatrics and sensationalism indicate deep piety and spirituality. Roy Cogdill told me of staying in the home of a woman who said that R.H. Boll, a preacher who promoted premillennialism among churches of Christ, was a truly spiritual man. She often passed his room when his door was open and saw him on his knees praying. Brother Cogdill’s observation was that if he was truly spiritual, he would not have made a display of himself by leaving the door open. Was brother Cogdill right or unfairly harsh? Read Matthew 6:6 carefully! The human heart is so easily deceived by such theatrics – especially when related to a matter like prayer which seems to suggest piety and devotion.

It is a danger sign when preachers stay in a side room or stand in the vestibule having their own prayers, separate from the assembly of the saints who are singing and praying “with one mind and one mouth” to the glory of God (Rom. 15:6). Is it a sign of deeper piety and of greater spiritual preparation on the preacher’s part for him to separate himself from the public assembly for semi-private prayers? If so, every Christian should join the preacher in the side room or vestibule! No, the practice betrays a false concept of the meaning ofpublic worship and ofprayer in general. It smacks of emotionalism, and implies that a special aura of spirituality surrounds the preacher as he finally emerges into the assembly, an aura not attained by the common people gathered for worship. In this direction lies the clergylaity distinction, the elevation of the preacher, and the grand entrance of the robed priest all in the name of humility and spirituality.

Our emotions may well be touched by the truths of the gospel, by participation in worship, or by private reflection on the blessings and mercies of God. But, theatrics and sensationalism unleash an improper spirit of emotionalism – manifested for instance, in clapping by the audience. The elevation of the preacher on Ehe basis of his vestibule praying or his eloquence leads to selfconsciousness on his part, so that his preaching becomes more and more a dramatic performance. The audience’s admiration of this performance will burst out in applause (as has occurred in isolated cases among us) – and then standing applause (as is common among denominationalism). This creates an atmosphere where people begin “to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). When that stage comes, we are ripe for apostasy.

It is time for gospel preachers to remember that it is our business to preach the gospel of Christ and not ourselves, to hide behind the gospel rather than hiding it behind ourselves, and to leave upon the hearts of our hearers the great truths of the gospel rather than the greatness of ourselves (2 Cor. 4:5). We have not done our job until people learn from us to follow the truth whether we ourselves do so or not – rather than learning to admire and follow us whether we adhere to the truth or not (1 Cor. 4:6).

Do Not Mention “the Church of Christ”

6. Another sign of drifting is the idea that brethren should not mention “the church” or especially “the church of Christ” in preaching and advertising. The erroneous concept behind this maneuver is that “the church” and “the church of Christ” are offensive to people. Brethren, shall we be ashamed of the terms and expressions given by the Holy Spirit to represent the work and the cause of our Lord? Some are bending over backward to avoid anything “controversial” or “confrontational. “

When the disciples tried to give Jesus similar advice on how to win friends and influence people, the Master Teacher responded, “Let them alone” (Matt. 15:12-14). Jesus did not mean by that for his disciples to make no effort to answer false teaching or to rescue people in sin. The meaning is this: “Do not trouble yourselves when men are offended by our speaking the truth in an open and plain way. If some are so blinded as to suffer offense on this basis, they will not be helped by our trimming the message to accommodate their false conceptions. Do not change one thing in an effort to make the gospel more appealing to such people. Go right on preaching the truth in its fulness just as you see me doing. The inspired message is the wisdom and power of God; it is the only true hope of reaching men lost in sin and error of all kinds.” Paul had learned that lesson – he was striving to please Christ and not men in his preaching (Gal. 1:10).

Some who are drifting will answer, “We are not really changing the message but just our methods. We will tell them about ‘the church’ and that it is ‘of Christ’ later. ” Paul made no attempt to catch people “with guile” or “craftiness,” but in both word and deed offered to the world a full “manifestation of the truth” (2 Cor. 4:2; 12:16). He never once attempted to hide who he was or the cause he represented. True conversions do not require slight of hand tactics and shell games.

If we are not to mention “the church” or “the church of Christ” until later lest someone misunderstand or be offended, should we also wait until later to tell Jews we represent Jesus Christ – and wait until later to tell atheists we represent the living God? If the name of Christ or anything about his cause be reproached by men, let us speak with even greater boldness and plainness of speech in order that our Lord may be glorified (1 Pet. 4:14).

Please Give a Fair Hearing

Brethren, please give a fair hearing to our discussion of these danger signs and uncertain sounds. We are not suggesting that everyone goes into apostasy when he reads a book by a sectarian, uses a new expression to represent an old truth, addresses a topic rarely mentioned fifty years ago, appeals for a balance of positive and negative themes in our teaching, or preaches a sermon without mentioning the church. These things we all have done -properly so! It may be an indication of apostasy when someone finds it necessary to caricature our point in such a false light. He may be diverting attention away from himself in view of the fact that so many of the warning signs listed point to him.

We are not even saying that everyone who has ever taken one of the steps listed as danger signals is forever gone into apostasy. He may not have gone into apostasy at all. We are pleading for anyone who has taken even one such step to consider the perils of his course before he goes any further. In some cases, several such steps have been taken. The more steps taken on this road, the graver is the danger to oneself and to the cause of Christ. The sooner a person sees his mistake, the more likely he is to make correction. The longer and the further he drifts, the less likely he will ever be reached. If he cannot be reached, the sooner we recognize his digression and begin to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine,” the better it will be for the sake of others and the cause of our Lord.

May God help us all to heed the admonition of 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith.” As we resolve to abide in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, let us also resolve to sound forth the gospel of Christ with a clarion call.

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine . . . . These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee (Tit. 2:1,15).

As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3).

Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13).

Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching (2 Tim. 4:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 230-232
April 20, 1989

By Mike Willis

Another Drive For Church Support of Bible Colleges

Having witnessed the success of those who were able to put orphan homes in the budgets of churches, the college brethren, as represented by Batsell Barrett Baxter, argued that the orphan home and Bible college “stood or fell” together.(1) Churches across the nation began receiving bold appeals from the Bible colleges to support their program of Bible teaching. This time the brethren were better prepared to accept church support of these human institutions and the colleges have been quite successful in persuading churches to send donations to colleges. Some who have opposed church support of colleges have salved their consciences by saying that they were donating to the Bible department, not the college.

Proliferation of Church Supported Human Institutions

In the early discussions regarding church support of human institutions, those opposing church support of orphan homes argued from consistency:(2)

If James 1:27 authorizes churches of Christ to build and maintain institutions, then such a conclusion would also authorize the following:

Jas. 1:27 – visit the widows – CHURCH WIDOWAGES

Heb. 13:2 – entertain strangers – CHURCH MOTELS

Matt. 25:36 – clothe naked – CHURCH HABERDASHERIES

Matt. 25:36 – visit sick – CHURCH HOSPITALS

Matt. 25:36 – feed hungry – CHURCH CAFETERIAS

Matt. 25:36 – visit prisoners – CHURCH PRISONS

If James 1:27 authorizes churches to build and maintain benevolent institutions to care for orphans, then Hebrews 13:2 authorizes churches to build motels to entertain strangers; Matthew 25:36 authorizes churches to build church haberdasheries to clothe the naked, build church hospitals or clinics to visit the sick, build cafeterias to feed the hungry, and jails to visit the prisoners.

As the years have passed, we have witnessed a proliferation of church supported human institutions by those we refer to as “liberals.

Here is a partial listing of them:

1. Medical clinics.(3)

2. Missionary societies such as World Bible School and Western Christian Foundation Incorporated.

3. Church camps.(4)

4. Retirement units.(5)

5. Triangle Boys Ranch, a home to care for juvenile delinquents.(6)

6. Tennessee Valley A Capella Singing, This non-profit organization is appealing for church donations to provide annual singings.(7)

The church support of orphan homes was incipient institutionalism; this is decadent institutionalism! Through the proliferation of these human institutions, the church has become a fund raising agency for the various human institutions planned and developed by man. The involvement of the church in the support of human institutions, the changing of the mission of the church to build kitchens (limited in size of course), gymnasiums, and other recreational activities, the search for a new hermeneutic by discarding book, chapter and verse authority is driving the institutional churches into the mainstream of protestant denominationalism. The insitutional church of Christ is just another denomination among denominations.

What Stance Should the Church Take Toward Human Institutions?

There are a multitude of human institutions with reference to which the brethren see clearly what our stance should be, such as:

General Motors

Baptist Hospital

American Cancer Society

Vanderbilt University

Proctor & Gamble

Baptist Orphan Homes

Utility Companies

Krogers

Sears

General Foods

The church has had no trouble understanding its relationship to any of these human institutions, whether operated for profit or as non-profit institutions. The church may need to buy a service from one or more of these human institutions (e.g., to pay to have a car repaired for a needy member, to pay for hospital care, to purchase utilities, to purchase clothing, etc.).(8)No congregation has trouble seeing that there is no Bible authority for a church to send a monthly donation to General Motors, Sears, Baptist Orphan Homes, etc.

However, when these institutions begin to be operated by brethren, our understanding of human institutions becomes cloudy. They are named “quasi” institutions and placed in a different category. That should not be the case. Brethren operate each of these human institutions:

Tompkinsville Motor Co.

Wright-Patterson Realty

Florida College

Transmission Shop

Guardian of Truth

Sears Heating & Cooling

Churches have a right to purchase a service from any of these companies (e.g., to buy a car from Tompkinsville Motor Company, to buy or sell a house through Wright-Patterson Realty, to purchase or repair a heating system through Sears Heating & Cooling, to purchase class material from Guardian of Truth Bookstore, etc.). Churches do not have a right to make a monthly contribution to Tompkinsville Motor Company, Sears Heating & Cooling, Florida College or Guardian of Truth.

For a man to contend that a church has authority to make a contribution to any human institution, he has an obligation to provide Bible authority for that contention. He must cite book, chapter, and verse that provides general or specific authority by command, example or necessary inference.

Secondly, he must provide some biblical criteria which designate and limit to which kinds of human institutions the church may contribute. In the absence of such criteria, the church would sustain the same obligation to make financial contributions to every human institution – just as much a donation to send a check to General Motors, utility companies, etc. as to David Lipscomb College, Potter Orphan Home & School, etc. Hence, he needs to provide the biblical criteria for determining which human institutions should receive church support and which should not.

In the absence of Bible authority, the church which sends donations to any human institution has been guilty of these sins:

1. Transgression. In 1 John 3:4, the Bible says, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for is the transgression of the law.”

2. Digression. Hebrews 8:5 requires us to “make all things according to the pattern.” In the absence of divine authority to support human institutions, their support is a digression from the pattern.

3. An unholy practice. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is scaled by his blood (Heb. 9:18-21; 10:9-10). It was made holy by his blood. These human institutions are not a part of these holy practices.

4. Presumption. Romans 10:17 states that “faith comes by hearing” the word of God. If you cannot read in God’s word about it, you have no assurance at all that God approves of it, and thus you are presumptuous to involve the church in supporting these institutions.

5. Irreverence. They indict the provision of God; they imply that God’s provisions (Eph. 3:10-11) are inadequate to do the work he commanded the church to do.

6. Sectarian in nature. The creation of these human institutions builds a denominational loyalty to the “Church of Christ denomination.” These institutions are “our” orphan homes, colleges, hospitals, youth camps, unwed mothers homes, etc.

7. Pharisaical. Those who are associated with these human institutions must do their good works to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1-10), bragging to the churches about the good which they are accomplishing (sometimes exaggerating the amount of good), in order to keep funds coming in.

8. Divisive. The human institutions have divided the church in violation of 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

Conclusion

Our stance toward human institutions, including David Lipscomb College, Harding College, Abilene Christian University, Potter Orphan Home and School, Boles Home, Southeastern Children’s Home, hospitals, singing societies, church camps, old folks homes, etc. must be to keep the church from becoming involved with them. We must not allow the funds collected upon the first day of the week to be used to support these human institutions. We must not make contributions to some human institution a badge of loyalty to the Lord. Let the church be the church.

I am not come to this meeting with my opposition to church support of human institutions to be used as a bargaining chip to accomplish some compromise for union. My conscience demands that I stand opposed to church support of all human institutions. The issue of church support of human institutions is just like the issue of using mechanical instruments of music in worship. Just as that issue can be reduced to these terms – they either quit using the instrument or we quit objecting to its use – so also is the issue of church support of human institutions. For unity to be attained, either you must cease your practice of supporting human institutions from the church treasury or we must cease our objection to that practice. There is no middle ground.

I appeal to you who believe the doctrine of the all-sufficiency of the church to bring your practice into harmony with your teaching. I appeal to you who are disgruntled with decadent institutionalism to renounce institutionalism in all of its forms. Staying on the institutional ship will demand that you accept:

church support of colleges

church gymnasiums

church support of missionary societies

fellowship with the Christian Church

interdenominational services

tongue-speaking

choirs and quartets

church ball teams

church hospitals

modernism

evolution

open membership

Boston Church schemes

women preachers/deacons

Many of you cannot swallow these bitter pills today. Will you bury your heads in the sand, closing your eyes to what those whom you fellowship are doing? Will you further divide by renouncing decadent liberalism, creating a new middle of the road conservative liberalism known as the “new anti’s”? History has shown the middle of the road position did not stop liberalism’ spread. (See chart).

The Independent Christian Church experiment failed to stop liberalism; the second generation is now practicing the liberalism which caused their forefathers to organize the ICC. The same will occur with you. You will not stop liberalism. Your descendants will move your middle of the road churches to the left more slowly than the ultra liberals are moving, but they will move them to the left. What will be accomplished is this: the devil will use this middle of the road position to salve the consciences of those who are doctrinally opposed to the objectionable practices.

The institutions which you brethren defended in debate are under the control of those you refer to as “liberals.” They will not endorse you; you will not endorse them. The churches which were on the vanguard of liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s are under the control of those who are ready to extend the hands of fellowship to the ICC. These brethren already conceive of the Lord’s church as a denomination.

For the sake of the salvation of your souls, I plead with you brethren to repent of your sins, forsaking church support of all human institutions and restore the unity which the church support of these human institutions destroyed.

Endnotes

1. Batsell Barrett Baxter, Questions and Issues of the Day in the Light of the Scriptures.

2. See Willis-Inman Debate, p. 145.

3. Christian Chronicle (24 May 1963), p. 3; (September 1988), p. 5; Bering Today, bulletin of the Bering Drive church in Houston, TX (21 November 1982), p. 1; Hillsboro Herald (22 February 1981), p. 1.

4. The Memphis, TN churches provided 167 acres for such purposes, providing a lodge, swimming pool, lake, etc. Reported in 6 September 1968 issue of The Expounder, bulletin of the South End Church of Christ in Lousiville, KY, which quoted the Memphis Press Scimitar (23 March 1963).

5. Atlanta Journal (4 October 1968) reported the building of the 14 story high-rise apartment building known as Christian Towers by the Decatur Church of Christ.

6. Christian Chronicle (22 February 1971).

7. The Reflector, bulletin of the Fultondale, AL church (March 1983), pp. 1-3.

8. We have no trouble distinguishing between buying a service and making a donation with reference to these institutions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 226, 245-247
April 20, 1989

By Lewis Willis

Last weekend “the Rev.” Barbara Harris was made the first female bishop in the Anglican Communion. Actually, she was made a “suffragan” or assistant bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. I didn’t realize this but Anglicans regard their bishops as sacramentally appointed successors of the twelve apostles. This event prompted a special four-page article in Newsweek (213-89). The article basically was about the current state of the feminist-movement in modern religion. Early in the article there was a statement attributed to Margaret McMannus of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. She observes that for women, “the issue is no longer equality, . . . the issue is transformation of our religious institutions.”

Feminists argue that Jesus taught mutual authority and involvement but that “his male successors subverted” his plan and created a males-only power structure in the church. In the Bible, God dealt with the heads of the family originally – men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and this was called “patriarchy.” The article I am reviewing says feminist theologians regard patriarchy as “. . . the Original Sin and root of all other social evils: sexism, racism, clericalism, ageism, classism . . . parental subjugation of children and mankind’s technological rape of Mother Earth.” I didn’t realize it was now wrong for parents to have children who were subject to them or who obeyed them (Eph. 6:1-3). However, the feminists don’t seem to have any problem with what the Bible says. They either change it or ignore it.

In the seminaries of the denominations where from 1/3 to 1/2 of the students are women, some radical language changes have occurred. Generic nouns like “mankind” have become “humankind.” God “the Father” is acceptable only if twinned with God “the Mother.” The article says, “As a fallback, God ‘the Parent’ will do.” No longer is their purpose to put more women in the pulpit. “Rather, their aim is a thorough and comprehensive transformation of the language, symbols and sacred texts of the Christian faith – and therefore, of the faith itself.” As an example, “. . . many feminists feel free to adorn their women-church liturgies with replicas of ‘Christa, ‘ a crucifix with a nude female body sculpted in 1975 by Edwina Sandys.” The article had a side by side picture of the two crucifixion scenes. One had Jesus with a male body and the other had Jesus with a female body. Sandra Schneiders of Graduate Theological Union, and a Catholic nun says, “the Gospel portrays Jesus as non-aggressive, noncompetitive, meek and humble of heart, a nurturer of the weak and a friend of the outcast – all-feminine traits. ” Therefore, they would call Jesus a feminist today and they have no problem portraying him with a crucifix with a female body. One has to wonder, when they speak of Jesus as non-aggressive and meek, if they have ever read Matthew 23 and the scathing rebukes Jesus issued to the Jews of his day. Perhaps they were scathing “feminist” rebukes!

Some of the re-interpretations suggested by the feminist movement come as a result of their use of a “hermeneutics of suspicion” – they assume that the Bible’s male authors deliberately covered up the role of women in early Christianity. Here are some of the changes and language they are suggesting Rosemary Ruether of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois suggests using “God/ess” in referring to God. This would replace the “God the Father” references. Her term underscores her belief that divine reality is best understood as an empowering “Primal Matrix,” the great womb “in whom we live and move, and have our being.” Of course this will really help!

For “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” some feminists substitute “Creator, Redeemer and Comforter.” However, in her work, “Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age,” theologian Sally McFague of Vanderbilt Divinity School urges a Trinity of “Mother, Lover and Friend.” This is profound, isn’t it folks? Jesus has to be portrayed as a feminist according to hospital chaplain Christian Reimers who recently graduated from The School of Theology at Claremont in California because she asks: “Can a woman be saved by a male Savior?” I somehow doubt that a woman with this kind of attitude could be saved by a male or a female Savior. According to Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza of Harvard Divinity School, the Women’s Movement is now a movement of “self-identified women and women-identified men” from all denominations whose common goal is to re-interpret the Gospel from the perspective of women’s liberation. Somehow I doubt that I need apply for membership.

Paul would not fit the mold of the modern women’s movement very well either. I suspect he would make them rather uncomfortable, if they still have the ability to be uncomfortable, as he teaches: “Let your women keep silence in the churches. for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church ” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). It is evident that this movement has no regard for the teaching of God’s Word. It is precisely because a violation of this injunction produces the mess I have described from the Newsweek article that we must insist that unholy men and women keep their hands off the Divine Revelation. Leave it as it is as insist that it be followed as a pattern for modem church life. Otherwise, we introduce every evil work imaginable into religion. Modernism says let us make religion relevant to modem circumstances. Faithful people say, if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). I shall cast my lot with those who speak what God has taught.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 229
April 20, 1989

Losing a dear loved one is a very difficult and emotional trauma. Especially it is overwhelming when that loved one is a congregation of Christ. This is not a physical death that we are speaking about, but a spiritual death that totally destroys a congregation to such an extent that it does not exist anymore.

I believe that it might even be less difficult to survive the death of a spouse or close loved one. It is hard to define my feelings and perhaps I had better explain. Certainly, I look upon the death of a Christian spouse or loved one as a loss, but only for a short time because that loved one will be with us in the presence of our God and Creator, and that gives us comfort. I look upon the death of a congregation of Christ quite differently. I have memories of our fellowship together. I can remember the closeness and concern when each had a need. I remember the tears of sorrow when we share our griefs and the joys of happiness when someone might be blessed. Why do I grieve? Because I won’t even know when you are ill or in grief. I know that you are not physically dead, but out there in the world somewhere dying day by day spiritually.

What caused this? Perhaps I was too naive in assuming you knew more than you really did. Perhaps I assumed you were spiritually stronger than you really were. Or perhaps, I was too naive and assuming in our first attempt at hiring an evangelist.

How I yearn for a return to a year ago! There were forty-five of us then, now only nine. Last Lord’s Day was our last assembly for the remnant that remained. It was demoralizing, much like a funeral. Now that small remnant will go our separate ways. How I wish we had never hired that man!

Brethren, how is one to know what a man believes when he so cleverly conceals his life and beliefs until he has the job? How is a congregation to know when a man and his wife have multiple marriages when references fail to tell the truth? How does one know when a man doesn’t pay his obligations? How, how, how?!!

These things have happened to us. It has destroyed us! It has forced some back into the world and others into unscriptural churches. Charisma takes it toll and the devil reaps the rewards! This is like a “living” death realizing that these loved ones have become so discouraged that they leave the Lord.

Eight years of sweat and tears have gone into the work in this area only to see it put to death in less than six months. Brethren, pray for us, that perhaps with the help of God we might be able in the future to re-establish the work in this area.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 228
April 20, 1989