Truth Magazine

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to conclude our celebration of Dad’s life with these words . . .

There is no human experience so traumatic, so unforgiving, so immutable, so universal, so burdensome, so bathed in finality as DEATH!

Of those things which apprehend us in life, we have a God-given nature and strength to withstand them and to overcome. If it be a mighty storm that utterly destroys all our accumulated earthly possessions, a maiming accident that leaves us broken and bruised, a merciless disease that leaves us weak and unable; an awful humiliation that leaves us shamed and stripped of our pride and dignity . . . there is a human resiliency within which empowers and sustains us; a facet of our nature, inherent from him who created us, which enables us to endure and to rebound.

All of these too-frequently-evident calamities which engulf us are not new, unique, or unexpected. The Patriarch Job said, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble” (Job. 14:1).

Against these human tragedies, we lash back, sometimes in desperation; sometimes in frustration; yea, sometimes in abject futility, yet, we lash back if perchance we might salvage that which is salvageable of our shattered lot in life. Instinctively, we collect ourselves sufficiently to rebuild the life which has been so quickly uprooted.

Yet, there is an enemy before which we are power- less. No human thought, plan, or device can restrain that enemy so that its invasion into our lives is halted. That enemy, of course, is DEATH! None of those traumas al- ready mentioned leaves us so undone, so helpless. There is no void so empty; no loneliness so debilitating; no fear and apprehension so frightening as that which death thrusts upon us.

Some are caught by surprise when death invades the sanctity of their homes and lives. Others, especially Christians, live in expectation of this event. Today we have once again experienced the chilly hand of death. How we regret and resent, perhaps even hate, the intrusion.

Job, who spoke of our ever-present trouble, spoke also of death. His words identify the fact of death as the culmination of life. He said man “cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not” (Job 14:2). The Apostle Peter wrote similarly saying, “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

Life is indeed a long and arduous journey. The obstacles along the way are innumerable. On almost every corner there are those who beckon us to “Come go with us.” In contrast, and in quiet solitude, there is yet another who calls unto us. He is Jesus Christ, Son of God, Redeemer, and Friend. While men offer the excitement of that which is pleasurable and popular; while men would give that which will bring present acclaim and satisfaction; nothing they can offer will afford the lasting peace and security which Christ alone can give. He offers neither popularity nor worldly pleasure. He said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28-30).

There is a time in life when nothing is more important than rest. Nothing in this world can rival that rest and peace of mind that comes through Jesus Christ. It is a rest, not only in this present realm, but for that which is to come, for all eternity in Heaven, with God, with Christ, with all the redeemed of the ages. It is a realized peace which passeth understanding; a joy unspeakable and full of glory. Christ leads those who are his to that blessed rest.

Nevertheless, to claim that rest we must walk through the “valley of death.” Almost six years ago I wrote an article about this journey which I wish to share with you, even with all of its inadequacies.

“I Will Fear No Evil”

Of all the words written by David, none reflects the spirit of calmness, assurance, trust in God, peace, and serenity as does Psalm 23. No Psalm he wrote is as absent of anxieties, misgivings, doubts, or fears as this. J.J. Stewart Perowne said, “. . . certainly no image could have been devised more beautifully descriptive of rest and safety and trustful happiness” (The Book of Psalms 248). David introduces a remarkable transition — from peaceful recline in green pastures, beside still waters, to a walk through the valley of the shadow of death. With the Lord as his shepherd he had no want; his soul was restored. Wherever his path should lead, he feared no evil. Why? The shepherd was with him! Hear these inspiring words again: “The Lord is my shep- herd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.”

In his commentary on Psalms, Franz Delitzsch said, “This rod and staff in the hand of God comfort him, i.e. preserve to him the feeling of security, and therefore a cheerful spirit. Even when he passes through a valley dark and gloomy as the shadow of death, where surprises and calamities of every kind threaten him, he fears no misfortune . . . his enemies must look quietly on . . . , without being able to do anything, and see how (God) provides bountifully for His guest, anoints him with sweet perfumes as at a joyous and magnificent banquet . . . , and fills his cup to excess” (I:330-331).

Pulpit Commentary, on verse 4, says, “The quiet paths of righteousness and peace remind the poet of the exact opposite — the dark and dismal way through the valley of the shadow of death. Even when so situated, he does not, he will not, fear . . . The same Protector, the same gracious and merciful God, will be still with him — leading him, guiding his steps, shepherding him, keeping him from evil . . . however long and however dreary the way through the dark veil, I shall still have thy guidance and thy protection” (163).   Few of us have trouble handling times of joy and gladness. It is when our path leads to sadness, solitude, and sorrow, even toward death, that we fear and despair. The successful life prepares to deal with these opposite and extreme experiences. With eyes of wisdom we can possibly see times of joy or sorrow approaching. There is time to prepare our response and action. More often than not, the change occurs suddenly — without warning. This is more difficult to manage, especially if the event is sorrowful. God instructs Christians, with the Word, on how to survive these changes.

When trouble and death overtake one who is not a Christian, he is without hope (1 Thess. 4:13; Eph. 2:12). It is a real test, even for faithful Christians, when it is time to pass through the valley of death. What will be the nature of our death? Will it be sudden? Or, will it be long and painful in coming? Will we retain our dignity, or be stripped of it? Will we be safe in that realm to come? Will we gain the ultimate victory, or suffer the ultimate defeat? Will our soul be saved eternally, or lost? If death comes slowly or suddenly, can we face it with calmness, assurance and peace? These are the questions. We wonder about the answers. In facing death, we seem so alone. Not so for the faithful Christian! Albert Barnes wrote, “The dying man seems to go into the dark valley alone. His friends accompany him as far as they can, and then they must give him the parting hand. They cheer him with their voice until he becomes deaf to all sounds; they cheer him with their looks until his eye becomes dim, and he can see no more; they cheer him with the fond embrace until he becomes insensible to every expression of earthly affection, and then he seems to be alone. But the dying believer is not alone. His Saviour God is with him in that valley, and will never leave him. On his arm he can lean, and by his presence he will be comforted, until he emerges from the gloom into the bright world beyond. All that is needful to dissipate the terrors of the valley of death is to be able to say, ‘Thou art with me’” (Psalms I:212).

I cannot imagine walking the valley of death without this confidence and hope. Why would anyone knowingly approach the valley unprepared? Why would any thinking person inflict upon his loved ones the despair of knowing he was not ready to meet God? When God has offered us his hand, assuring safe passage, why would we try to walk that way alone? I do not know when or how I shall die, but one thing is sure, I want my Savior to lead me to the safe harbor of the soul — into the presence of God. Let us join together in preparing for this inevitable journey, for “. . . it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

For the child of God, eternal rest is a desired reward, but getting to it, walking across “the chilly Jordan of death,” seems so lonesome and fearful, in spite of the assurances found in David’s poetic message. The words of a beautiful old song, written by Charles E. Durham and Thomas Ramsey, are especially poignant, appropriate, helpful and meaningful to us today.

When I come to the river at ending of day, When the last winds of sorrow have blown; There’ll be somebody waiting to show me the way, I won’t have to cross Jordan alone.

Oftentimes I’m forsaken, and weary and sad, When it seems that my friends have all gone;

There is one tho’t that cheers me and makes my heart glad, I won’t have to cross Jordan alone.

Tho’ the billows of sorrow and trouble may sweep, Christ the Savior will care for His own;

Till the end of the journey, my soul He will keep, I won’t have to cross Jordan alone.

I won’t have to cross Jordan alone, Jesus died all my sins to atone;

When the darkness I see, He’ll be waiting for me, I won’t have to cross Jordan alone.

Our sins, which bring us under condemnation by God, are forgiven when we believe in Christ and the gospel message, repent of our sins, and when we are baptized into Christ for the remission of those sins (Acts 2:38). Only then is salvation realized. When one knows that his sins have been cleansed by the blood of Christ; that his is a new life in Christ; that the splendor of Heaven is his ultimate destination; his is a contentment, satisfaction, and peace of mind that few men ever come to realize.

His entire life soon bespeaks the essence of that for which responsible men long. He knows that the torturous darkness of sin has been dispelled with the glorious light of God’s Holy Word and in forgiveness. No longer must he grope painfully and hopelessly in confusion, for that which will supply the deeper needs of his immortal soul. The Word of Jehovah, as a beacon in the darkest night, has illuminated his path and it is the light of his life. He does not search in futility for that upon which he might lean. Christ is the anchor of the ship of his life and he finds refuge and safety in the Master’s protective, loving hand. His is something that no man can give; a blessed reward that no man can steal from him. The God of Heaven awaits to bestow that eternal blessing in which the redeemed of earth shall forevermore bathe themselves. And, let men praise his Holy Name!

Yes, the journey of life is fraught with frustrations. But, make no mistake, it is not an impossible venture. Scores have launched upon it and have found satisfaction for the deep-seated longings of their souls. Not all of these are faceless, nameless people in distant places and times. Some are our relatives, neighbors, and friends with whom we have trodden this time-worn earth; fellow travelers with us unto the grave; yea, even unto eternity. Today we honor the memory of one triumphant soul who has safely made his journey home.

Obituary

Onan J. (O.J.) Willis, of Woodlake, Texas, was born on June 20, 1908 at the Kinley Ranch on Highway 94 just outside of Groveton, Texas, and he died while a resident at Villa Hermosa Care Center in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 2, 1999, at the age of 91 years, one month, and thirteen days. He was preceeded in death by his oldest son, Homer Cecil, who died in 1997. He is survived by his beloved wife of 68 years, Wilhelmina, and by his children: Donald and Marilyn Willis of San Antonio, Texas; Lewis and Joyce Willis of Akron, Ohio; Ouida and Billy Stover of LaPorte, Texas; Sue and Forrest Morris of Alvin, Texas; Mike and Sandy Willis of Danville, Indiana; and Barbara and Johnny Coleman of Decatur, Texas. He is survived by 81 blood-descendants: including 26 grandchildren and 48 great-grandchildren. He is also survived by one sister, Irene Mochman, of Bryan, Texas.

Many years ago, Dad surrendered himself in obedience to the Lord, becoming a Christian. Before long, he lost his way spiritually and wondered back into sin. I do remember that Cecil preached his first gospel meeting in Groveton in 1950, when Ouida and I obeyed the Gospel ourselves. At that meeting, Dad was also restored to faithfulness in the Lord, and he never looked back again toward sin. I remember his prayers through the years, in all of which he confessed his and our sinfulness, and asked for God’s forgiveness. And, friends, Dad prayed often! In this way he kept himself in a forgiven, saved relationship with God.

Today myriad thoughts about Dad flood our hearts and souls. Those special thoughts are as individual as we our- selves are. Allow me some personal reflections.

He was always “Dad” or “Daddy” to me. He never tried to be anything else toward me than “Dad.” I never doubted his love for me, nor his essential dedication to my success and well-being. He was always one of my most ardent supporters. He felt the same toward all of his children; he was without partiality. I remember the times when I deeply hurt and disappointed him. He would come home in the evening from a hard day’s work, we would have dinner, and then there was “business” that had to be handled. All through the day Mom would discipline us until she could do nothing more. She would then pronounce, “When Daddy gets home . . . ,” and we all knew what that meant! We were so good the rest of the day; even angelic at the table, anxious to help get the dishes cleaned after dinner. “Per- chance, perhaps Mom will forget to tell Dad . . .” But, No, she hadn’t forgotten. Soon Dad would call the threatened offender to the back porch, pull off that l- o- n-g belt (he was a big man!), get hold of the arm and swing the belt. It wrapped around us about twice, it was so big. Candidly, I cannot recall that it hurt all that much, but we cried as though our lives were ending.

The punishment was even greater if you were the second or third child that had to go out on the porch. The “torture” out there would still be resonating throughout the otherwise quiet little community of Woodlake (We Willises always had big mouths, especially as children. I’m certain we could be heard screaming for miles). No, in case you are wondering, none of us suffered any lasting physical or psychological damage from those experiences, unless it was Dad! We all made it through those days intact as a family, with love abounding. God’s way worked in our home!

There was never any doubt about Dad’s devotion to Mom; they loved each other dearly! The interest of each was always for the other; they were not selfish, staking out their own territory. They were a unit — one flesh, as the Bible defines marriage — and their children and friends all recognized that fact. They shared more than 68 years of marriage. I cannot begin to imagine Mom’s life without Dad.

Dad was an alarmist about the health of Mom and his children. If one of his kids was sick, something was done about it now! Those of us who are older (that’s all of us now, isn’t it?) remember Dr. Curry. He had a little Ford coupe which he drove for “house calls” in those days. If you weren’t the one who was sick, you still hated to see Dr. Curry’s car drive up out front. The medical solution to every childhood malady in those days was the newly discovered medicine, penicillin. Dr. Curry would pronounce, “O.J., I’ll need to give this one a shot of penicillin. And, since the rest of the kids will likely get the same thing, I think we ought to just go ahead and give them a shot too!” Yep, all of us were lined up and given a shot you know where, with the same needle! But, Dad got us well as soon as possible. I don’t know how many of those shots I got during my childhood. I do know that I am seriously allergic to penicillin today!

I also remember Dad as a worker. He worked hard in the trucking and timber business, beginning when he was but a young man. In those days, there were no big machines to do the job. Logging was back-breaking, hard work. Crosscut saws, teams of horses bunching and loading logs, double-bit axes, those were the tools in those days. Dad could swing an ax so effectively that he could almost cut a small log in half as fast as one might cut it today with a chain saw. I always marveled at this because I could never hit the same spot with an axe twice. I remember thinking that Dad could put that axe in the same groove for as long as he wished; he was that good with his tools.

I also remember those early hours when he left for work. In the heat of an East Texas summer, Dad made an attempt to get a full day of work in before “it got hot” in the afternoon. That meant he got up about 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning and went off to work. He wore khaki clothes, those tan colored shirts and pants. By 9:00 o’clock in the morning, Dad’s clothes would be totally saturated with perspiration; they’d be “brown” then instead of tan. He would cool off while driving to the mill with his load of logs. That was extremely dangerous work in those days and Dad limited severely what he would let his boys do. I also remember something else that we “city dwellers” can scarcely imagine. Dad would be driving a loaded truck to the mill when he would meet a funeral procession en route to the cemetery. He likely did not know who had died, but he would pull his truck to the side of the road, get out of the cab, remove his hat, and stand in respect as the family made their way to bury their dead. I personally think we have lost something valuable because we no longer show that kind of respect.

Dad’s career extended through this nation’s arousal of awareness concerning racial issues. I must confess that he used the highly-charged and insulting language used to refer to black people back then. Almost everybody, including blacks, used that terminology here in East Texas in those days. I would have thought Dad had a special prejudice toward blacks except for one recurring thought. He worked many black men in his logging business. If a black man was willing to work, Dad had respect for him. But if black man or white would not work, he had no use for them.

In rainy, winter weather when no logging could be done, hard times fell on the people working in the logging business. Unable to work, there was no income; no wages. I often remember Dad taking whatever money he could get, sometimes going to the bank to borrow it, and distributing it to his crew (both black and white) because “they have families to feed.” I treasure that remembrance about his fundamental thoughtfulness and fairness in dealing with his people.

I think I would like to have had Dad for a neighbor, except for the noise and confusion of a family with seven children in it. In stature, Dad was a giant of a man in his prime, yet he was the most kind, considerate, happy, and gentle man you could ever know. He was always helpful to his neighbors; respectful toward them and taught his children to be respectful as well; and he was never a threat in any way to the folks next door. That was the way of country, community life, young people, when we were children at home.

Dad was never much of a public person. I suspect the nearest he ever came to public action was his involvement in the worship of the church. Though all four of his sons would preach the gospel, and though his daughters would marry men who themselves would be very active in the church, Dad preferred to let someone else “take the lead.” Because he had such a limited education, completing only six years of schooling, he always thought that someone else could do the leading in worship better than he. However, because he attended small congregations without many men, he was thrust into a public role. He led prayers, the singing, made announcements, and officiated at the Lord’s table.

His practice of religion was different than is witnessed in too many Christians today. We used to ask him to take us someplace (perhaps to visit relatives in Lufkin, only 25 miles away. Dad would say perhaps “we can go three Saturdays from now.” Later we would even venture so far away as Houston; about 100 miles away.) But, not on Sundays. If we left, it meant a big decline in attendance and it took away those men needed to conduct the worship. He would say, “If we leave, who’s going to open and close the building?” So, we were in our place on the Lord’s Day. As a preacher, I long for families with that depth of commitment to the Lord and the Church.

I could continue with my reminiscences, but I’ve spoken long enough. I do not wish to over-burden you.

Cecil once defined sympathy as “entering into the feelings of another.” Until and unless one has encountered a circumstance exactly like that of another, I am persuaded that it is impossible to fully grasp how that person actually feels. It has not been long since we in this family had the stench of death all over us (Cecil died just two years ago), nor have we forgotten what it is like. All of us here are struggling to comfort and console one another through sympathy; to share our pain and grief. We have been praying for one another for months; we must not stop praying now.

For the family, let me express to you, our friends, relatives, and brethren, our gratitude for your deeds of kindness and thoughtfulness on this sad occasion. Thank you for caring! Thank you for sharing our time of grief. Your presence here will mean pleasant memories in the quiet, lonesome days ahead.

To the family, let me say something. We now have lost three of us, first Frankie, then Cecil, and now Dad. We are “going the way of all flesh,” and with age, we will be gathering for more and more of these sad vigils, with ever greater frequency. I do not know the condition of your soul, but I implore you, get right and stay right with God, if you need to do that. Do not inflict your death on us while you are unfaithful to the Lord! As you surely know now, death is almost too difficult to bear when the one who has died was faithful; it is almost unbearable if the dead loved one is lost eternally. Don’t do that to yourself or the family.

This family has rendered a great service to the Lord through the years; through the grace of God, we will continue to do all we can to save ourselves and those around us. We are yet needed in the Kingdom. I appeal to us all to “be faithful unto death.” If we do so, a crown of righteous- ness awaits us. Our prayer is that Dad now has his crown. Now, let’s work God’s works of righteousness and claim our crown as well. Dad, Cecil, and Frankie are waiting for us over there.

After David had taken Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, for his own, and had arranged for the death of Uriah, God sent Nathan the prophet to David. Upon his arrival, Nathan spoke the following parable to David:

There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him (2 Sam 12:1-4).

David had no problem in seeing that a man who would take this little “ewe lamb” was worthy of death (v. 5) and so stated. However, suppose Nathan had been like many preachers today. What would have happened to David? Nathan, up to this point, has taught the truth and has succeeded in getting the audience (David) to see how wrong it would be to act in the manner described, however it was not until Nathan declared to David, “Thou art the man” (v. 7), that David made the application to himself.

There are preachers today who will boldly declare that we must follow the Bible, and the Bible only, in all we teach and practice and will receive a hearty “Amen” from their audience, but they will never point out to that same audience that the name they are wearing in religion is not found in the Bible, or the church they are members of is unknown to the word of God, or that some specific act they are practicing is not found in the Bible. As one man stated to me, “I preach principles, I don’t make applications.” These men soothe their conscience by saying, “I preached the truth.” What they don’t recognize, in many cases, is that the truth has been presented in such general terms that the audience can only see the application to someone else. They stop with telling the story of the “ewe lamb.” For their teach- ing to be effective they need to do as Nathan did and say, “Thou art the man.” They need to show their audience the need for application in their own lives. Brethren, we need to realize that we are not doing anyone a favor if we teach in such a way that the student is unable to see the need to apply that which is taught to his or her own life.

Why is it that some may be called “ewe lamb” preachers (i.e., fail to make application of the truth taught)? I am convinced that some simply do not want to risk upset- ting those to whom they are speaking. If they can teach the “truth” and still not disturb or upset anyone they fool themselves into thinking they are “strong” teachers and are pleasing unto God.

It is OK to say that we must respect the teaching of God’s word regarding marriage, but the time comes when you have to tell that one who has divorced his wife for some cause other than fornication and has married again that he is guilty of adultery. It is fine to teach that we must put the Lord first in our lives but it may be necessary to point out to the one who allows anything and everything to hinder them from assembling with the saints that they are guilty of sin.

Yes, I think we have too many “ewe lamb” preachers. The need is for men who will teach the truth and are not afraid to make the application to those listening. I am sure David was thankful to God that Nathan was such a preacher and did not stop with just telling the story of the little “ewe lamb.”

R.L Kilpatrick, the editor of Ensign responded in his July 1999 issue to my article in Truth Magazine of May 20, 1999 in which I reviewed his editorial from the March issue of Ensign on “Baptism For the Remission of Sins.” He thinks I missed the point of his article.

On the contrary, I understand very well where brother Kilpatrick is coming from. He holds the same view regarding salvation that many denominational people have held for many years. It is his conviction that salvation by grace through faith means that baptism is not essential for the sinner to become a child of God. As I pointed out in my first article, I am fully aware that salvation is by the grace of God and that it is predicated on faith. I raised the question “What kind of faith saves? Is it inactive or active? Is it obedient or disobedient?” He did not favor us with an answer.

He explained to us that what Peter “meant” in Acts 2:38 is “Repent and submit to the ordinance of baptism in view of the forgiveness of your sins, and when you repent you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Then he said, “Baptism is the attestation that repentance has taken place in the heart of the sinner and he is now inducted into the Lord’s army of saved people.” What have we here?

The word “for” (eis) has been variously translated “for,” “unto,” “in order to.” Eis looks forward to an objective (remission of sins) not backward to an accomplishment (remission already achieved). The only authority he cited for his conclusion on Acts 2:38 is the fact that he said it. The standard translations give him no aid. “In view” of the forgiveness of sins suggests that the sins are already forgiven and that baptism becomes “the attestation” that one has been forgiven and is now inducted into the Lord’s army of saved people. In other words, we do not baptize a sinner but a person already saved and in the Lord’s army of saved people. This is the old argument that baptism is an outward sign (attestation) of an inward grace (saved already). The Bible teaches nothing of the kind.

Editor Kilpatrick complains that I make the sinner’s salvation depend on another human being since he cannot baptize himself. No, I do not believe that the administrator of baptism can save anyone. Only God can forgive sin. Forgiveness takes place in the mind of God. But that raises a question. Since our friend believes that salvation is by grace through faith, just who is it that must have the faith, and by what means does he become aware of the grace of God extended toward him? Is it not the sinner who must develop faith? But how does he come to the point of faith? Paul said, “So then, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom.

10:14). Is faith miraculously bestowed or does it follow the process of teaching, learning, and accepting? If God uses other people in this process, then would our friend agree that the sinner’s salvation is dependent on another human being to teach so he can hear and learn? Would the presence of a teacher of the word deprive God of his divine right to save? Or would that be a part of his plan to do it?

The editor objects to saying that one is not scripturally baptized unless he understands the purpose for his action. But apply that to faith. Is faith in Christ misdirected if one professes to believe in him but is actually under the impression that Jesus was a good man and noble teacher but does not understand that he is the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus said, “Except you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Does correct understanding matter about faith? The Bible teaches the purpose of baptism. It is “for,” “in order to,” “unto” the remission of sins.

Then our friend charges that “our minds do not dictate the terms of forgiveness. This is God’s domain.” It certainly is! He says further, “Brethren it is time to stop dictating to God.” Amen, and amen! The question is how does finite man come to know the mind of God? Is it not by divine revelation? Paul wrote, “Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, combining spiritual things with spiritual words.” Then “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:13, 16). The Holy Spirit guided these men into all truth. And the Spirit directed the words of Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3:26-27 and 1 Peter 3:21. Neither R.L. Kilpatrick nor Connie W. Adams had anything to do with writing those words. They came from the mind of God. Neither of us can set them aside, nor anything else the Lord inspired them to write. When my friend says “God will save him anyway” when he has not done what the mind of God revealed in his word, then who is it that is guilty of dictating to God?

The truth of the matter is that R.L. Kilpatrick believes that a sinner is saved before and without water baptism. He occupies the same ground in this that denominational preachers have long held and have debated numerous times with gospel preachers. The word of God plainly teaches that God’s grace is offered to those who respond to it with an active, obedient faith which leads them to do what God commands of the sinner including submitting to the act of baptism in water for the remission of sins. Gospel preachers are as ready to affirm that in honorable controversy as they have ever been. At least this one is. Baptism has long been a bone of contention with denominationlists of every kind because it draws a line between those whose sins are forgiven and those whose sins are not. Indeed Jesus said to the apostles: “Whose sins you remit, they are remitted and whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23). “You mean I am not a Christian unless I am baptized for the remission of sins?” Read the passages which address this subject and you will see the answer. Is that offensive to many? To be sure. Are there brethren who squirm and writhe over this offense? Absolutely! What shall be done to remove this stigma of what editor Kilpatrick calls “our exclusiveness”? Why, ridicule those who teach exactly what the word of God says. Call them “legalists.”Accuse them of dictating to God. Belittle them. Insinuate that if they had a suitable amount of learning and mental acuity they would understand. Charge them with denying the grace of God. That ought to do it! Charge them with just looking for something about which to disagree. Yes, that’s it!

Now when all the dust settles, Acts 2:38 still says, “Re- pent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” R.L. Kilpatrick said it is “not necessary for us to quote since the verse is stamped on our foreheads.” It would help to get it deeply stamped in the hearts of those whose teaching denies what the passage says. R.L. Kilpatrick, thou art the man.

By Mike Willis

Recently I sat in a meeting with several gospel preachers, represent- ing rather conservatively 300-400 years of experience. As we discussed divisions that occur over liberal/conservative splits, the observation was made that the liberals attract those who are moving away from the doctrine of Christ, leading to further digression and apostasy, looser teaching, a more “grace oriented” approach, less distinctive preaching that distinguishes the Lord’s church from the denominations of men, sermons that are filled with anecdotes and few Scriptures, etc. On the other hand, those who preach a conservative message tend to attract those who are overly negative people (they are against whatever anyone else proposes), a legalistic mindset (salvation through perfect knowledge and obedience), divisive over every disagreement in understanding about a Bible verse or doctrine, and extremists. Because our message is more conservative, there is a tendency to attract such people and perhaps we have not written enough to address the problem of factionalism among us as a people.

In 1983, the Guardian of Truth Foundation published a book which I edited entitled Factionalism: A Threat to the Church which was designed to address this issue. Almost everything that I will write in this discussion of factionalism has already been published in that book. I say that lest someone think, “Mike Willis is going liberal.” This material has been available for public consumption for sixteen years without anyone challenging it. I believe today what I believed in 1983 about the loose views about marriage, divorce and remarriage, the grace/unity (unity-in- diversity) approach to unity (whether with reference to the divorce and remarriage issue or institutionalism, the sponsoring church, instrumental music, etc.), the sponsoring church, the church building and maintaining fellowship halls, institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, and church support of missionary societies. Having stated that, I also emphasize that I believe the same thing today about factionalism as I believed in 1983 and believe that we have a significant problem among us with churches being ripped apart by factional brethren. Likewise, the early church was racked by both liberal and factional movements, and God’s word addresses both dangers.

What Is Factionalism?

The English word group from which “factionalism” is derived is the derivative of “faction.” A “faction” is “1. a number of persons in an organization, having a common end in view; especially, a party within a party, seeking to further its own ends, usually in opposition to the ends and aims of the main body or leadership of the party; a clique. . .  2. partisan conflict within an organization or a country; discord; dissension” (Webster).  The word “factious” means “1. producing or tending to produce faction; causing dissension. 2. produced or characterized by faction.” “Factionalism” is “factional quarreling; a spirit of faction.” The Bible addresses these attitudes and actions of men in no uncertain terms and labels them as sinful. Let us consider some of the Scriptures where such sinful conduct is addressed.

1. 1 Corinthians 1-4. The church at Corinth was torn apart by factionalism. The division had not progressed to the point that brethren were meeting in different locations, but there were certain identifiable factions within the local church, identified as “I am of Apollos,” “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Paul,” and “I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul condemned the factionalism or division in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10-17).  He called the divisions schismata, from schisma which means “a. prop. a rent:. . . b. metaph. a division, dissension” (Thayer 610). George Campbell wrote, “whatever alienates the affections of Christians for one another, is manifestly subversive of both, and may consequently, with the greatest truth and energy, be denominated schism” (The Four Gospels I:321). Paul charged that the existence of these factions within the church was proof of carnality (1 Cor. 3:1, 3), envy, strife and division (1 Cor. 3:3). Let’s look at these words from 1 Corinthians 3:3.

“Carnal” is translated from sarkinos, a derivative of the word sarx (“flesh”), which means “wholly given up to the flesh, rooted in the flesh as it were” (Thayer 569). In 1 Corinthians 3:3, the word sarkikos which is twice translated “carnal” is defined as “having the nature of flesh, i.e. under the control of the animal appetites. . . governed by mere human nature. . . not by the Spirit of God” (Thayer 569). Evidence that the Corinthians were governed by their fleshly nature rather than by the Holy Spirit was shown by the existence of “envy, strife, and division.”

The word “envy” is from zelos, a word that can describe a very positive zeal that sees the good in others and tries to make that a part of his own life, but is used in this context with an obviously negative connotation to describe “an envious and contentious rivalry” (Thayer 271). In conflicts that happen in local churches, disagreements occur that may have originated innocently. However, a person begins to view the conflict as a struggle in which his “side” must predominate. With all of the zeal of two athletes in compete tion with each other, the parties to the rivalry begin to see which side can gather the most adherents to its position. The same kind of “win at all costs” disposition that has had such a deleterious impact on sports at every age level can become the attitude of brethren who disagree. When this happens, the Bible’s teaching becomes subordinated to this spirit of rivalry that has one group against another group. “I am of Paul!” “I am of Cephas!”

The word “strife” is translated from eris. It is defined as “contention, strife, wrangling” (Thayer 249). The word describes that condition that develops in a church when various parties turn against each other and vie for control of the congregation. The word “division” is from dichostasia which is defined as “dissension, division.” This is the product that such dissension creates.

The tragedy of the divisions that occur among so many congregations among us is that they occur with virtually no doctrinal disagreement among the brethren. Just because one person cannot conscientiously say something the way that another believes it should be said, division (which everyone admits is sinful) is justified under the pretense that one is “standing for the truth.” Standing for the truth never justifies slandering a brother by misrepresenting what he believes to make one’s own cause look more righteous, working to create support for one’s party by political campaigning and maneuvering (every past disagreement that one had with someone on the other side is a legitimate tool to use to persuade another to join as a political ally against the other side), overthrowing elderships, driving away conscientious brethren because they happen to disagree, refusing to speak to one another, and a host of such like offences. What I have just described has been repeated in too many congregations for us to ignore the fact that such conduct is a problem among us at times.

The Lord condemned such division in no uncertain terms. Writing in the context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, the context of the divisions created by the various parties at Corinth, Paul said, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). This passage is not to be confused with 1 Corinthians 6:19 where the “temple” figure is used to describe the physical body; this passage is using the word “temple” to describe the local church. The “defiling” of the temple is that which occurs by sinful division. God’s judgment against those who destroy God’s temple by sinful division is clear: “him shall God destroy” (1 Cor. 3:17).

2. 2 Corinthians 12:20. In Paul’s exhortation to the church to turn away from ungodliness, he said, “For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed” (2 Cor. 12:20-21). I think one can see from the superficial reading of this text that Paul is still concerned about the factionalism in the church at Corinth. Let’s look more specifically at some of the evidences of this factionalism that he mentioned:

“Debates” is translated from eris, the same word as appeared in 1 Corinthians 3:3 which was there translated “strife.” The word does not describe that orderly polemical discussion of different points of view. The English word “quarreling” (NIV, NRSV) better captures the meaning of eris. The word “envying,” from zelos, also appeared in 1 Corinthians 3:3 and has previously been discussed. “Wraths” is from thumos, which describes “passion, angry heat. . . anger forthwith boiling up and soon subsiding again” (Thayer 292). There is another kind of sinful anger translated from the word orge that describes a settled anger that shows itself in revenge, bitterness, malice, and hatefulness. But this word emphasizes what so frequently happens when brethren become embroiled in controversy and one loses his temper. Sometimes business meetings are disrupted by this kind of behavior, and conversations on the parking lot or in the vestibule become so heated that someone is guilty of this kind of sinful wrath.

Paul adds that “strifes” also come from sinful factionalism. The word is translated from eritheia which has an interesting history. It was “used of those who electioneer for office, courting popular applause by trickery and low arts.” (Have you noticed any such political campaigning to solicit adherents to one’s party in church divisions? The spirit of Absalom did not die when he died. He campaigned to create dissatisfaction with the administration, feigning sympathy for the cause of every man dissatisfied with anything happening in the kingdom [2 Sam. 15:1-5].) Thayer continues to explain that the verb form of the word was derived from erithos which means “working for hire, a hireling” and then adds, “in the N.T. a courting distinction, a desire to put one’s self forward, a partisan and factious spirit which does not disdain low arts; partisanship, factiousness” (Thayer 249). If you think that brethren will not stoop to what Thayer describes as “low arts” to create their own following, you are naive.

Another expression of sinful conduct in the midst of factionalism is “backbiting.” The word is translated from katalalia, which Thayer defines as “to speak against one, to criminate, traduce” (Thayer 332). The English word “traduce” in case you are not familiar with it, means “to defame; to slander; to malign; to caluminate; to vilify” (Webster). Brethren who disagree sometimes latch on to the slenderest thread of “evidence” in order to make un- believable charges against men whose moral character is above reproach, simply because they thought they could win people to their side by painting those on the other side as ungodly. This is factionalism in full bloom.

Another expression of sinful conduct by factional people is “whisperings.” The word is translated from psithurismos, an onomatopoeic word, which means “a whispering, i.e. secret slander” (Thayer 676). The difference between katalalia and psithurismos is that one works out in the open and the other works behind the back and under cover, but both accomplish the same thing. Men who would not come to talk to a brother about their differences will work like a bunch of maggots behind his back to destroy his influence and alienate him from those who love him.

Another expression of sinful conduct by factional people is described as “swellings.” The word is translated from phusiosis, “a puffing up of soul, loftiness, pride.” Arrogance is typical of factional brethren who think that their own judgment is superior to that of all others and are willing to divide churches to press their opinion on others (it is so much superior to any other person’s opinion). In circumstances in which men disagree over some matter, wisdom dictates that one should seek  a multitude of counselors, in obedience to the divine counsel (Prov. 11:14; 15:22). However, when the advice that is given is not what one wants to hear, factional men tend to have such an arrogant disposition about their own opinions that they evaluate their own judgment as superior to that of older, wiser, and more experienced brethren. Of course, anyone who agrees with him after having only heard his one-sided presentation, which usually gives a very slanted assessment of those who disagree with him, is judged to be a very wise man.

Another expression of sinful conduct by factional people is “tumults.” The word is translated from akatastasia which means “instability, a state of disorder, disturbance, confusion: 1 Cor. xiv.33; Jas. iii.16; . . . plur. disturbances, disorders: of dissensions, 2 Cor. xii.20” (Thayer 21). Factional brethren create chaos in churches. The disorder and confusion that come is the natural result of their mindset.

3. Galatians 5:19-21. There are three words in Paul’s list of the works of the flesh that pertain to factionalism. They are “strife, sedition, heresies.” The words describe a progressive breakdown of the unity that should exist in the local church. Consider the definitions of these words:

“Strife” is from eritheia, which we previously considered on 2 Corinthians 12:20. It was used historically to refer to the politician and then to the hireling disposition that works for what one gets out of working for himself (without regard to service to others). Then the word is used to refer to “a courting distinction, a desire to put one’s self forward, a partisan and factious spirit which does not disdain low arts; partisanship, factiousness” (Thayer 249). The first steps of factionalism are taken by a person with this kind of partisan and factious spirit who is working in the congregation.

The word “sedition” is from dichostasia, which means “dissension, division” (Thayer 153). This describes the condition of a church when there are identifiable parties meeting together (“I am of Paul,” “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Apollos”). The progression of the division has increased to the point that the partisan and factious person has been able to gather a nucleus of men in support of his position. He presses others to accept his position to such a degree that he creates a reaction in opposition to himself. Now there is party “A” and party “Not-A.” When a church reaches this condition, dissension and division have occurred. All of the congregation is still under the same roof, but the presence of distinctive parties is evident.

The third word is “heresies.” The word hairesis is used in this context without reference to the doctrinal correctness of the opinion that is held. Though error certainly may be involved, the emphasis here is on the divisive spirit rather than the content of the teaching. The heresy is heresy not because what is consolidating the party is unorthodox, but because of the party spirit that loves its doctrinal position more than it loves its brethren. They would rather cling to their position, even if that means that they must drive away from themselves everyone who disagrees with them. Thayer defines the word hairesis as a derivative of haireomai, “choosing, choice. . . 3. that which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence one’s chosen opinion, tenet; acc. to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy): 2 Pet. ii.1. . . .4. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets [a sect or party]: as the Sadducees, Acts v. 17; the Pharisees, Acts xv.5. . . . 5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims: Gal. v.20; 1 Cor. xi.19” (Thayer 16). Notice that the “heresies” of Galatians 5:20 have nothing to do with unorthodox belief. Rather, it has to do with that holding of an opinion to the point of separating oneself from his brethren. At this point, brethren cannot meet together under the same roof.

Until brethren come to grips with Paul’s statement that “strife, seditions, heresies” are works of the flesh that cause one to lose his soul, we will continue to have churches torn asunder by factional conduct of brethren. The weak defense, “We had to divide to maintain the doctrinal purity of the church,” is betrayed by the fact that the two groups created by the factional conduct continue to invite men standing for the same doctrine to hold their meetings and continue to believe, teach and practice the same things. Brethren this scenario has repeated itself in congregations all across America from time to time. Our factionalism is shameful. How often our announcement of “new congregation established” is another way of saying, “A faction that could not get along with their brethren decided to start meeting two.