Truth Magazine

I’ve heard the following quote, or similar words, several times in recent years — “The church of Christ is the only army I know of that shoots its wounded.” Such a statement is neither accurate nor helpful. It attempts to lay guilt at the feet of the church which should be born by sinners who have deserted the church and left the Lord’s way.

Literally speaking, no church could shoot its own members without the event being thoroughly reported by the news media and soundly condemned by the public (remember Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple?). But the quote surely is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it means to imply that the church is guilty of actively seeking to do spiritual harm to those whose souls have already been damaged by the working of Satan. This is nonsense. What church is going to purposely pursue a course which destroys the souls of those who have fought courageously (and would be willing to fight again) in the battle against Satan? The worst any church should be charged with is botching a surgery intended to heal the wounded.

While the Bible teaches that those who are overtaken in sin should be “restored in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1), the reality is that there are those who do not respond either to gentle encouragement or fervent pleas. When, despite efforts to exhort, reprove, and correct, an individual continues in sin, the church must withdraw from that individual. 1 Corinthians 5:13 plainly charges the church to “put away from yourselves the evil person.” And in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, the inspired apostle Paul wrote, “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” He is not a wounded soldier; he is a deserter. He is “walking disorderly” — out of step with the rest of the troops — and needs to be dishonorably discharged in the hope that such severe action will motivate him to “turn himself in” and take his place in the ranks once again.

Prologue

C.R. Scroggins and Keith W. Shack- leford

In the fall of 1997, Lauri Ritchie, then a junior in high school as well as a member of the Mt. View church of Christ in Foster, Oklahoma had arranged a Bible study with some of her classmates during the lunch period. Just prior to the first study Lauri had gone to the local grocery store where she would buy her lunch and read her Bible. While reading her Bible, Jimmy Short (an employee at the time), asked Lauri what she was studying. This encounter led to future studies with Jimmy and others. However, it was during the very first Bible study with him that the subject of a debate arose. Jimmy said he knew Hoyt Chastain, a Missionary Baptist preacher and debater who would be interested in debating. Lauri knew David D. Bonner, a gospel preacher who also would be interested in a debate. This set the course for the two debates that were held in Pernell, Oklahoma in June of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in October 1998. Hoyt Chastain offered the fol- lowing propositions to be affirmed by each disputant: “Resolved that the church of which I am a member is Scriptural in origin, name, doctrine and practice.”

In the December 3rd issue, brother Jesse G. Jenkins’ review of these debates. In the article that follows, appears an article from Jimmy Short who was converted from listening to the debate in Pernell, Oklahoma.

Through the years, most of us who preach have undoubtedly presented many lessons, which a lot of brethren have surely heard, on the threat of secular humanism or at least on worldliness and immorality in general. We certainly need to understand how these godless influences have been eating away at the very foundations of our society, especially as they seek to leave their mark on our children through their control of the educational system. One would assume that the purpose of such lessons is not to scare people, per se, but to make them aware of the dangers that we face, warn them of problems ahead, and encourage them to fight the good fight of the faith.

However, some people may react to hearing this kind of information with an attitude of discouragement and despair, throwing up their hands and saying, “Well, if the world is as evil as you say it is, then there is nothing that we can do about it and, therefore, there is no hope for us.” It is almost as if they have fatalistically resigned themselves to a failure in trying to bring up their children with faith in God and a desire to please God. And that which people believe is impossible to do they will probably make little or no effort to accomplish.

Yet, as evil as our world is today, and there is no argument from this corner that it is pretty bad, the first century was surely no better than our time and perhaps may even have been somewhat worse in many respects. But despite the dregs of Roman and Greek culture prevalent in that day, a woman, with the assistance of her mother, but apparently without the help of her husband, was able to raise a son whose praise was spoken of among all the brethren of his time. That young man was Timothy, and he grew up in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation to be a faithful Christian and proclaimer of God’s word.

Paul wrote to him, “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, that without ceasing, I remember you in my prayers night and day, greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (2 Tim. 1:3-5). This wonderful example shows us that raising moral children in an immoral world is possible. However, that does not mean that it will be easy. It is going to take some effort.

It Is Going To Take Teaching

God understood this fact and so gave commandments to the children of Israel regarding his words to them. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6.7). Have you ever wondered why so few Jews are ever converted? While Judaism today is not the same as Old Testament Judaism, most faithful Jews still follow some of the Old Testament principles, and one that they do follow is to teach, teach, teach their children what it means to be Jews in such a way that they lose a very small percentage, especially compared to the number of children growing up in homes of Christians who never obey the gospel or soon fall away. There are undoubtedly many reasons why we are seeing such a “drop-out rate,” but in a lot of cases (not all), it is most likely because the children were not taught sufficiently. The aim of parents should be to teach a child in such a way that he truly remembers his Creator in the days of his youth (Eccl. 12:1). Of course, this will not be accomplished solely by bringing children to two hours of Bible class and two hours of worship a week, and then attending two or three gospel meetings and perhaps a vacation Bible school each year. That is good, but in ad- dition to it there needs to be daily, constant teaching in the home about God, Christ, the Bible, and other important spiritual matters.

To illustrate the importance of this, remember Timothy. The faith of Lois and Eunice dwelt in him. How? These things did not come by genetic inheritance or mere osmosis, but by teaching he “learned them” so that Paul said, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:14-15). Parents cannot even hope to raise moral children in an immoral world without diligently teaching them God’s will.

It Is Going To Take Example

To illustrate this principle, consider Abraham. God knew that Abraham would command his children and his household after him to keep the ways of the Lord (Gen. 18:10). How did Abraham do this? Well, he certainly must have taught them. But how did God know that Abraham would continue to do this in the future? You see, Abraham had already established a pattern of reverence for, complete trust in, and obedience to God. When God told him to leave for a new homeland, he did (Gen. 12: 1-8). When God told him in his old age that he would have a child, he believed God (Gen. 15:1-6). And all of this occurred even before Abraham had any children. Then, when he did have children, he continued in the same way.

God told him to take his only son Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham did (Gen. 22:1-12). What kind of an impression must this have made on Isaac when he saw that his father obeyed God implicitly regardless of any personal feelings that he may have had in the matter? Not much is said of Isaac in the Scripture, but what is said seems to indicate that he followed his father’s example of faithfulness. And it is for this reason that Abraham is used throughout the New Testament as an example for us (cf. Rom. 4:16-24; Heb. 11:8-19; Jas. 2:21-23). Abraham was a worthy example for his own family and so is a good ex- ample for us. It is not enough just to tell our children what to do. They will be the very first to detect any hypocrisy between what we say and what we do. Raising moral children in an immoral world also requires that we show them the difference between right and wrong by our example.

It Is Going To Take Discipline

The word “discipline” in our English language literally refers to that which is necessary to make one a disciple. If a parent is faithfully serving Christ, then his goal should be to make disciples of his children (cf. Matt. 28:19). In the New Testament, the word “discipline” is translated from a term that means “the whole training and education of children.” It is the word that is rendered “admonition” in Ephesians 6:4, where Paul said, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” Thayer’s Lexicon notes that this term relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment. Thus, everything that parents do in raising their children, including teaching and example, falls under this general category of discipline.

However, since the term does include reproof and punishment, there are contexts where it seems to be used with the more specific meaning of chastisement, yet still with the positive goal of correcting mistakes, curbing the passions, and increasing virtue. According to Hebrews 12:5-11, God chastens us as his children. We may not always know exactly how he does it, but it is justified on the basis that human fathers chasten their children if they wish to develop in them the peaceable fruits of righteousness. And the Bible has a lot to say about the need for chastisement — correction and punishment — of children. For example, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).

Also, “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Prov. 29.15). These and other such passages are not saying that parents should be beating their children silly and senseless, or should they be used to justify genuine child abuse. But they do teach that children, being young and immature, will make foolish mistakes, and it is the job of parents to use chastening, punishment, and correction to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, when those children are quite young and most susceptible to this chastening, the thing that they understand best and is in the majority of instances the most effective is the pain of using the rod of correction. The outright rebellion of youth so characteristic in our society is proof positive that one cannot raise moral children in an immoral world without some form of loving, yet firm, discipline.

It Is Going To Take Love

Parents are going to make mistakes. We may miss a golden opportunity at some special point to teach an important lesson to our children and have to make up for it in some other way. We have our own faults and weaknesses, and may not always act before our children in the way that we expect them to act, even though we may try. We may fail sometimes at discipline, either being too harsh on one occasion or being a little too soft on another. But in spite of all our mistakes and failures, the glue that can still hold a home together and provide a place of joy and peace where children can find a sense of stability and security now and later on a good basis for establishing their own homes is love. “But above all these things, put on love, which is the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14).

This passage is not necessarily talking about the home but the church. Yet, whatever is true of the need for love in the family of God should be true in our own human families as well. In our homes, as we relate to each other, we need to “put on love, which is the bond of perfection.” How can we apply this practically? First, the husbands (and fathers) are told, “Love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). It has been said that one of the greatest things which a man can do for his children is to love their mother. When children see that their father truly loves their mother, that example alone will teach them untold lessons about commitment, dedication, and faithfulness.

Next, wives and mothers are to be taught “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers . . .” (Tit. 2:4-5). Brethren continue to argue about whether it is good, let alone right, for a woman to work outside the home under any circumstances, especially if she has small children. I do not wish here to go into all the pros and cons on that because each family must do what is best for it. But consider this. We assume that God wants men to love their children too, but there is no specific command to do so. Yet here, Paul tells older women to admonish younger women to love their children. Because of her nature, the mother is the emotional center of the home, and her being there for her children is necessary for their emotional development and well-being. How do mothers do that? It is by being “homemakers” or as the King James Version reads, “keepers at home.” It may well be that at least one of the reasons for all the problems in the past several generations has been the fact that mom has not been home! “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” If we expect to raise moral children in an immoral world, we are going to have to show true love in the home.

Conclusion

Everyone, except the most rabid humanists and feminists, agree that the home is important. God established it for the good of mankind (Gen. 1:28; 2:24). It is in the home that God intends for two loving parents to raise children who will be capable of taking their proper place in life when they grow up. Of course, children are free-will moral agents, so there are no absolute, iron-clad guarantees. There are other forces and influences in children’s lives which can counteract good teaching in the home or even make up for bad teaching in the home in certain circumstances. But God has a plan for the family, and when it is followed we can be assured that he will be pleased with our efforts. And the outcome will doubtlessly have a lot greater chance of being more favorable than rejecting or ignoring God’s plan and going our own way. “Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (Prov. 29:17).

By Robert F. Turner

By some strange travesty those who cry loudest for liberty are often the ones who mean liberty for their opinions only; and “non-sectarian” preachers have a way of becoming the most “creed-bound” of all. The absence of an official written “discipline” is no guarantee of an “open pulpit.”

What is a “creed”? The word comes from the Latin “credo” which means, “I believe.” Many creeds of today retain the form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed, each article beginning with “I believe        .” They are concise statements of belief, or doctrine, which identify the “position” of the maker.

Perhaps the first creeds were formulated in an effort to combat what was believed to be error — to state with clarity some matter that was being questioned — or simply an unashamed affirmation of principles upon which certain ones stood. Today our brethren write little creeds in tract form, to show what “we believe”; or as clauses in deeds to church property, to keep a church building in the hands of men who gave the same “I believe” as the original owners. (This seldom works, because of the failure to apply yesterday’s principles to tomorrow’s problems.)

Are such “creeds” wrong? Not necessarily! After all, “we do believe” certain things, whether we write them or not. But should we claim to state that which must be believed, anything less than God’s word is too little, any- thing more than God’s word is too much, and anything different from God’s word is condemned by this fact. A Christian’s “creed” may be stated as his confession that Jesus Christ is Lord — which recognizes the Son of God as having “all authority,” and accepts everything taught in his covenant. We believe, accept, and practice — recognizing as a basis of fellowship with Christ and Christians — only those things which may be proven to be “by his authority.”

The error of “man-written creeds” (as we call them) is (1) man’s presumption to shorten, lengthen, alter, or better arrange God’s revelation of truth; and (2) the setting up and acceptance of some man’s “I believe” as a standard of right and wrong.

“Creed-bound” minds are minds tied to one’s own or some other’s “I believe” — no longer free to approach God’s word objectively, to be changed by this unchanging divine standard.

Creeds and sectarianism have moved hand in hand through history. Certain “beliefs” are accepted as “orthodox,” and become the standards for determining “fellowship.” Tradition, majority rule, big churches, papers, preachers, and such like take the place of God’s word and all who object must be marked and ostracized. These seem to think Romans 16:17 reads, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of our party and traditions.” This is sectarianism, whether in or out of the church, and it will send souls to hell.

But someone asks, “Should we not ‘believe’ something; and should we not have firm convictions, wanting others to accept what we believe to be the truth?” We should indeed! And, we may state, even write, what we believe about a matter without being a creed maker, or “creed-bound.” The difference lies in one’s attitude toward his beliefs. Have they become his standard, or is he still willing to “prove” them by God’s word?

Do we become angry if someone questions our “beliefs”? Are we unwilling to discuss them in the light of God’s truth? Do we refuse to consider any conclusion other than our own? Are we fair with ourselves in answering the questions of this paragraph? There is One who knows my heart and yours!

 

Homer Hailey, a brother in Christ, full of years and an old man, has done some good writing during his years of service. All would profit from his books on the Minor Prophets, Isaiah, and Revelation. In fact, I have told others in the past that almost anything Homer Hailey has written is worth having in one’s library. I say “almost” regretfully, because of his stand against the orphan homes and, within recent years, his book, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God.

In the preface of the afore named book, the second edition, he wrote, “I have no intention of entering into or carrying on a discussion of the subject.” But this is like a kid who throws the first punch and then says that he does not want to fight He entered the fray at least seven years ago when his first edition appeared. He has fired two rounds but, like the sniper, flees from the scene.

Hailey wrote:

It is neither said nor intimated anywhere in the New Testament that aliens who have been married, divorced and remarried, and now want to obey the gospel, serve God and attain heaven through faith, must separate, break up, or live in separate rooms while under the same roof. This was never even intimated by Jesus. At no time did He deal with the subject of an alien’s marriage, divorce and remarriage.

He wrote, “Therefore all mankind are under Christ’s jurisdiction, but only those who submit to the terms of the gospel are under His law of the new covenant” (51-52).

The word “jurisdiction” means “2: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate 3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised: CONTROL” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary 461).

If Christ’s jurisdiction includes all the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16), then, all men must submit to his will. Brother Hailey admits our Lord’s jurisdiction extends beyond the church, having cited several verses as proof (Ps. 2:8; Rev. 12:5; 19:15). Along this same line, David said of Christ’s reign, “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies” (Ps. 110:2). In the kingdoms of this world a monarch who rules in the midst of his enemies would mean that his enemies were obligated to submit. If they did not submit, they might suffer terrible consequences. Jesus rules now and is far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion (Eph. 1:20-21). Yet, alien sinners are not obligated to all of Christ’s law, according to Hailey. The Bible teaches otherwise.

If all men are obligated to the law of Christ, which includes Matthew 19:3-9, then, all men are obligated to Matthew 19:3-9. Paul argued concerning the obligations that a man would have to all the law of Moses if he would be obligated to part of it by saying, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). Therefore, anyone who is obligated to part of the New Covenant, which includes the plan of salvation, is a debtor to all of it, which includes Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3-10).

We are told that the “universal moral law” was made known to a degree at the time of Adam’s sin, was revealed more fully in the Mosaic law, and then was revealed in its fullness in the New Covenant under Christ (33). But later Hailey tells us that “only those who submit to the terms of the gospel are under Christ’s law of the new covenant” (52-53). Following his reasoning, if the universal moral law is fully revealed in the New Covenant and alien sinners are not amenable to his New Covenant, then, alien sinners are not even amenable to the universal moral law, which is fully revealed in the New Covenant.

If one is not obligated to a part of the law of Christ, then, upon what basis would he be obligated to any of it? If alien sinners are not obligated to Christ’s law on marriage, then, they are not obligated to his teaching concerning the Great Commission, which is part of the New Covenant (Matt. 28:18-20). But all men are obligated to his teaching regarding the Great Commission, which is a part of the New Covenant; therefore all men are obligated to Christ’s law on marriage.

Hailey denies that one can “live in adultery.” But does he not know? Has he not heard of Paul’s statements in Colossians 3:5-7? The inspired writer commanded, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: . . . In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” Lived in what? The aforementioned sins, one of which was fornication. They had lived in it. Fornication is a broad term that includes adultery. So, if one can live in fornication, as Paul states that he can, then one can live in adultery.

F. Lagard Smith cannot make up his mind as to Hailey’s view regarding divorce and remarriage. Smith wrote:

But Homer did make one big mistake. He wrote one book too many. Or at least the wrong book. Or at least a book in which he might have been wrong. Or partially wrong. Or maybe not wrong at all, but definitely on the other side of the fence from some other folks (Is Smith with Hailey or “other folks”?). And for this one mistake, Homer was immediately castigated as a false prophet!” (Who Is My Brother? 207).

Because of Hailey’s influence through his life and books, many will be persuaded to believe and follow his pernicious doctrine. Ezekiel wrote, “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and commiteth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die” (Ezek. 18:24). Hailey’s position is wrong, and Smith is wrong for sympathizing with the false teacher.