Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Printed elsewhere in this issue is Arnold Hardin’s reply to my December 1, 1977 editorial, “Has Arnold Hardin Left Us?” In order to better understand this editorial, I would encourage you to re-read my December 1, 1977 editorial and then read Brother Hardin’s reply before advancing any further in reading this editorial. In the December 1st editorial, I charged that Brother Hardin was a false teacher among us who need to be exposed. I made my charges on the basis of lengthy quotations taken from Brother Hardin’s writings. Here are the charges which I made against Brother Hardin as evidence that he is a false teacher:

1. He accepts the doctrine of the imputation of Jesus’ perfect obedience to the believer’s account.

2. He makes the same gospel doctrine distinction as does Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett and Edward Fudge. He also draws the same conclusion as to the bearing of the gospel doctrine distinction on the fellowship of the saints as do these men.

3. He is guilty of aiding and abetting a false teacher through his public commendation of the editor of Ensign Fair.

4. He denies the binding force of examples and necessary inference.

Regarding these charges, Brother Hardin said, in his reply published in this issue, “The excerpts he gives of what I have written, I stand behind the truth in each.” Notice that Brother Hardin did not state that I had misrepresented him. Indeed, he even wrote in his reply, “He charges me with denying the binding force of examples and inferences. I would be happy to discuss this with you as well.” Notice again that he did not charge that I had misrepresented him. My charges which I initially made are accurate representations of Brother Hardin’s convictions. Brethren, you must decide whether a man who holds these convictions is a false teacher or not based on your own personal study of God’s word. I have called attention to Brother Hardin’s beliefs in these areas.

Misrepresentation

Brother Hardin does charge me with misrepresentation in two points. I want to examine both of these points with you.

1. “He wrote, ‘As evidence of this (that Brother Hardin denied the binding force of examples and inferences-mw), I cite the following quotation from Arnold’s review of Foy Vinson.’ He then quoted from the Sept., 1977 issue of The Persuader. Well it so happens that it was in no manner a review of Foy Vinson, but rather, a review of another brother. In view of judgment, unfounded charges based on such `facts’ is serious.”

Let me, first of all, plead guilty of misrepresentation; the man reviewed was not Foy Vinson. Brother Hardin is, indeed, correct; the man whom he was reviewing was some unnamed brother who had commented on Brother Vinson’s article. However, I want you to see just how important this part of my misrepresentation was to the charges which I made against Brother Hardin. Here is the entire section as it originally appeared in Truth Magazine

“4. Arnold Hardin denies the binding force of examples and necessary inferences. As evidence of this, I cite the following quotation from Arnold’s review of Foy cite-the (appears in bold print to call attention to the fact that this is the controverted point-mw):

He then remarked, “These passages will not carry conviction to those who reject Implication and approved examples as having binding force or as ways by which the scriptures teach the will of God. But for those who are willing to accept necessary inference and approved apostolic examples as having binding force, the first day of the week collection for paying preachers, and certain elders and caring for needy saints It Is a matter of faith and is in no way a mere opinion: There it is! Necessary inferences and approved examples express the authority of Christ. The rest of the article is a prime example as to why some of us are unwilling to risk our eternal destiny upon some brother inferring that certain things are binding while others are not. Such brethren will not accept all approved apostolic examples as binding! They pick and choose. Thomas Campbell well said, “That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so, for their faith must not stand In the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God.’ That is why such inferences as these we examine are so dangerous when such is declared without equivocation to be the authority of Christ” (“Faith and Opinion,” The Persuader, Vol. XII, No. 3, September 11, 1977).

“There can be no doubt that Arnold Hardin has rejected apostolic examples and necessary inferences as a method used by God to give binding revelation to men. Anything that is given biblical authority on the basis of approved example or necessary inference cannot be a matter of faith, according to this brother.”

Now let me ask this question: what is so important about the fact that I mentioned the wrong man’s name so far as the point which I was seeking to prove is concerned? Does that fact negate Brother Hardin’s quotation? Not in the least! Rather, this is Brother Hardin’s attempt to focus the issue on something other than the fact that he denies that examples and inferences are binding. It is an attempt to discredit me as an accurate reporter of facts in order that you might think that what I quoted Brother Hardin to have said about examples and necessary inferences might be dismissed. Yet, Brother Hardin had already said, “He charges me with denying the binding force of examples and inferences. I would be happy to discuss this with you as well.” He did not charge that I misrepresented him; instead he stated that he was prepared to discuss this issue. Brother Hardin, the fact that I mentioned the wrong man’s name in this quotation does not negate the fact that you are a false teacher because you deny that things revealed to us through examples and necessary inferences are binding!

2. “He mentions others as believing that such things as instrumental music, premillennialism, etc. are of no consequence and we should not divide over them. He then remarked, ‘Arnold Hardin has accepted this position as well.’ This is pure slander! And everyone that knows me can testify to such slander! I challenge you to prove it or retract it!”

Brother Hardin, I prefer to prove it. As confirmation that what I have said about you is true, I offer the following evidences:

a. Your public endorsement of Ensign Fair. You endorsed a paper (a human institution) which receives support from churches by telling them to keep up the good work. If you truly believe that matters such as church support of human institutions can break the fellowship of brethren, I wish that you would explain how you can bid godspeed those who are violating these scriptures.

b. Your acceptance of unity-in-diversity. You wrote, “Willis can see no difference between gospel and doctrinal instructions. So he condemns unity-in-diversity. I challenge him to prove there to be any other kind among God’s people.” Brother Hardin has accepted the premises and, apparently, the logical conclusions derived from an acceptance of those premises. Read these quotations and see if you agree that Brother Hardin believes that instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions, church involvement in recreation, premillennialism, etc. are part of the “doctrine” rather than the “gospel” and that, being a part of the “doctrine,” they should not have divided us. Here are his quotations:

Those who are acquainted with affairs within God’s family well know of the divisions and heartaches brought about by these multiplied divisions. They don’t go away by closing our eyes–they only get worse. I in no way claim to be an authority on the ultimate cure, but, I do believe, with all my heart, that I recognize one of the most prolific reasons for this division–and that is–an almost universal failure to distinguish between the gospel and doctrinal instructions of the Bible …. We have stretched the gospel as a blanket to cover every bit of Instruction given In the New Testament. Therefore when disagreements arise as to points of that instruction someone is accused of perverting the gospel. And when brethren cannot reconcile the difference, due to differing understandings, they part company each calming, that the other is perverting the gospel. My brethren-in searching for the cause and cure of such divisions why have we not stated the root cause-our misunderstandings of the meaning and scope of gospel in contrast with doctrinal instructions? . . . .Disagreements, therefore over truth, may or may not be the result of some one having perverted the gospel. Having said that something else cries out to be clothed with words; and that is, we are not divided from one another over perversions of the gospel (“What Is The Gospel?”, The Persuader, Vol. XII, No. 4, September 25, 1977).

The Galatians were falling from grace In that they were Mowing themselves to be carried away from the sacrifice of Christ to that of bondage under the law. Following such a course they would be accursed of God. Now it is said dust such brethren as those that do not believe in but “one cup” are in the same accursed condition as the Galatians, in that, these brethren do not believe they cannot worship with those of us who believe that many cups may be used in the Supper. Do you feel you can make such a judgment upon such people? I believe such brethren are wrong in understanding but to make the judgment that they are accursed of God is a little much for me to swallow. I do not find they have rejected Christ as the Galatians were in the process of dong. Many among “us” do not believe that it Is a sin to use the “Lord’s money” in assisting non-saints. What if those believing such is true are really in fact the unenlightened ones? Does such constitute being “accursed of God”? It would seem that surely our Lord died for higher concepts than such as these that plague so many! The world Is lost in sin and few show any concern over these while fighting over such matters that will never be settled and yet should not keep us from our “assigned rounds” (“Accursed of God,” The Persuader, Vol. XI, No. 5, November, 1976).

The world is steeped in sin and ignorance. There are four billion Inhabitants of this earth and two billion (we are told) have never once even heard the name of Christ — while we fuss about cups and any number of “sacred issues” that have fragmented the Lord’s church. You just name it and we win fuss about it! (“A Sectarian Image Couched In A Nonsectarian Pit,” The Persuader, Vol. XI, No. 16, July 10, 1977).

I am personally persuaded that much of the talk about “the social gospel” is extremely silly. Out Lord says we are to be the salt of the earth, and yet, how on earth is that putrefying man to be purified while we put it into a theological salt shaker on an ecclesiastical shelf’? Is it not a sin to put the light under a bushel? Do we not compound the sin when the bushel is the church? (The Persuader, July 31, 1977).

If I have reached inaccurate conclusions, they come from these evidences. Brethren, read these materials for yourself and form your own conclusions. Frankly, I am still convinced that Brother Hardin is guilty of what I said he was, namely, that he does not believe that the fellowship of the church should be broken over such things as instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions (whether they be Ensign Fair or benevolent homes or colleges), church involvement in recreation, premillennialisn, etc. I do not withdraw my charge until these contradictory statements from the pen of Brother Hardin be clarified.

Truth Magazine’s Editorial Policy

Brother Hardin had a considerable amount to say shout the editorial policies of Truth Magazine, as if the editorial policy of the paper was the issue between us. Whether Truth Magazine manifests a fair or unfair editorial policy has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Arnold Hardin is teaching false doctrine! This is but another attempt to divert brethren’s attention from the real issue; namely, the doctrines which he is circulating. Frankly, in light of the different positions propagated by the two papers, I thought it rather significant that Brother Hardin desired the death of Truth Magazine but commended the good work which Ensign Fair was doing! This reveals a good bit more about Brother Hardin’s doctrinal convictions than he is willing to admit.

If Brother Hardin wants to discuss editorial policies, let us get down to discussing these policies. Let me begin by reminding Brother Hardin of this fact: I did allow him to reply to my editorial in Truth Magazine. That is something he refused to allow me to do in The Persuader! Earlier, I wrote to him,

You criticized the editorial policy of Truth Magazine. Therefore, I want to give you the opportunity to show me how to be a good editor. I want you to tell me what I must do to be permitted to write a reply to your false doctrines in the pages of The Persuader. I know that you will want to treat me fairly, so just tell me what I must do to be able to have a reply printed to some of your teachings through The Persuader. 1 am looking forward to hearing from you about this (personal letter, October 17, 1977).

Later, Brother Hardin replied,

I am sorry, genuinely, that you do not recognize the difference between the work of a church through the bulletin and that of a Business Publication as the voice of some Business or Foundation. You have in no way been involved in the teachings done through the bulletin (Hardln’s letter to me of October 1977).

Although Brother Hardin has already denied me an opportunity to reply to what he has published in The Persuader, he complains about our editorial policy! Indeed, the legs of the lame are not equal. Brother Hardin, if you are as anxious to have the issues publicly discussed as you say you are, why not open the pages of The Persuader to those who want to reply to you? The truth of the matter is this: a man who is willing to publicly reply to Brother Hardin has trouble even getting on his mailing list, much less having an opportunity to reply to him! According to reports which I have heard, Brother Hardin will purge your name from his mailing list when you begin to reply to him in a public manner.

Proposal for a Fair and Honorable Discussion

As to a willingness to discuss our differences, let we issue this public offer for a discussion: Brother Hardin, I am willing to agree to a public discussion of our differences through the pages of Truth Magasine when you find a publication among those propagating diversity (such as Ensign Fair, Restoration Review, or Integrity) which will also carry this discussion. When you find one which is willing to publish this exchange, contact me and we will prepare a list of areas of disagreement and begin the discussion. Or, we can make arrangements for public oral discussions of some of these issues if none of those papers who propagate the unity-in-diversity heresy is willing to carry the discussion. We will see who is willing to have these issues discussed!

Brother Hardin’s response to the December 1, 1977 editorial is typical of the harangue which was begun when Brother James Arms began to question some of the doctrinal beliefs of Edward Fudge. William Walls” and Edward Fudge began to write about “party spirit” and “brotherhood politics” through the pages of the Gospel Guardian in an effort to divert brethren’s attention away from the false doctrines being propd by Brother Fudge. Though brethren were disgusted with the exchange that took place, it appears to me that they were even more disgusted with Brother Fudge’s false doctrines! He does not seem to be used too much anymore by those who are taking a stand for truth against the innovations of our brethren. Now, Brother Hardin has begun to shout “party spirit,” and “brotherhood politics” for the same reason. One is guilty of “party spirit,” according to Brother Hardin, when he publicly exposes the false teachings of a man. These brethren want to spread their damning dogmas without anyone exposing them. If a man steps forward to expose them, he is called a “brotherhood watchdog” or the “CIA of the church.” Personally, I refuse to be intimidated by these labels; I refuse to sit back quietly and let these brethren continue unopposed. If opposing these men makes me guilty of party spirit, I plead guilty.

Conclusion

How will an exchange such as this end? As far as I am concerned, it is over unless Brother Hardin accepts our proposal for a fair and honorable discussion. (I have previously announced a series of articles on “Imputed Righteousness” in which Brother Hardin’s name will appear.) Brethren across this nation will have to decide for themselves whether or not the evidence which I have presented is convincing. If so, Brother Hardin is a false teacher who deserves to be exposed as such. You will just have to make your own decision based on the presented evidence.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 35-38
January 12, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Introduction

That there is a great need for a series of essays like this can hardly be denied by anyone, but that I should project myself into this subject so much so as to write upon it at length is subject to debate. Admittedly I have some misgivings, principally because I fear I may not be able to completely express the sentiments of my heart adequately and also because I realize the awesomeness of making proper application of the scriptures. So, to clarify my intentions, and to set the stage for the essays to follow, I suggest the following:

1. I shall write much about the husband-wife relationship, and about marriage in general. Yet I do not claim any excellence in this field. I am not a marriage counselor; I do not believe that is supposed to be a specialty of a gospel preacher. However, as a Christian, I have, through the years and with the help of my wife, been able to help some couples find peace and harmony, just as any child of God might do who would use common sense and good judgment. I had a happy, secure marriage for over forty-one years before the death in 1973 of my first wife, Alice. And now, since May, 1976, I have enjoyed the companionship of a second wife, Myrtle. Yet I am sure I do not even know all the questions, much less all the answers regarding marriage; no effort shall be made herein to explore every potential realm of husband-wife relationships. But in view of the grave need for help in this area of activity, surely we should try to say some things that might help some people provide a better, more satisfying family circumstance.

2. Several chapters will be included dealing with parenthood, yet from reading these things I am sure no one will assume that I am a specialist in parenthood either. In fact, no one except my own children know better than do I just how inadequate I am and have been as a parent. God has been good to me and, in His providence, I am privileged to be the father of three sons who preach the gospel, one daughter whose husband preaches also, and one daughter whose husband teaches in the Bible department of Florida College. But those statistics, along with the fact that I have eighteen grandchildren, are not given here to suggest expertness in the field of parent-child relationships nor in the field of journalism that deals with that complex matter.

To Help, Not To Hurt

It is not my purpose in this series to be merely critical. In fact, “There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it ill behooves any of us to criticize the rest of us.” Every marriage partner and every parent has made so many mistakes that none of us can claim any praise. Rather than boast, we must bend our knees before the throne of God’s grace and give sincere thanks for a little wisdom, some strength and a great deal of mercy that has come to us.

Constructive suggestions shall be offered and firm admonitions may be given in these essays. No effort will be made to make these lessons pleasing to all people, even to all Christians. We must be true to God and to His. Word and 1 must write with sincerity of purpose, willfully keeping back nothing that would be profitable to the readers. However, I shall always try to help, and not to harm. If any improper attitude is observed, be assured such was altogether unintentional on my part, and will only demonstrate my own weaknesses.

Because the series of essays will be long, consisting of fifteen chapters (though each chapter will be short), it may be well to try to stimulate your interest by listing the titles of each chapter, thus:

Chapter one: “Crisis At the Crossroads.”

Chapter two: “Broken Circles.”

Chapter three: “Together Forever:”

Chapter four: “The Weaker Vessel.”

Chapter five: “Home Wreckers.”

Chapter six: “Stop The Clock.”

Chapter seven: “Home Security:”

Chapter eight: “Fathers of Our Flesh.”

Chapter nine: “Mother: The Heart Of The Family.”

Chapter ten: “Children: An Heritage of the Lord.”

Chapter eleven: “To Spank or No To Spank.”

Chapter twelve: “Goals and Priorities.”

Chapter thirteen: “Parenthood and Patterns.”

Chapter fourteen: “Crisis Psychology.”

Chapter fifteen: “Home, The Vestibule To Heaven:”

God made the human race for the family circle, and He made the family circle for us! If it were not so, we would grow up like the animals of the field and the forest, without benefit of the love, the security and the mutual benefits that we not only gain but that we also share in the family arrangement. Let us study the succeeding chapters with the hope that they may help us to enjoy life more, live it more abundantly and utilize it more fruitfully, all for the glory of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, p. 34
January 12, 1978

By D.R. Ducan

When Should the Church Break the Bread?

The idea is now quite prevalent that there is the largest liberty in this respect; that a church can elect as well concerning this question as the time and place of the prayer meeting; that there was nothing indicated by the Savior when he says: “As often as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me till I come,” as to the time of frequency. Certainly we have no statement of the exact time of their meetings for that purpose, and yet we are not without a guide in the matter. In Acts 20:7 there is a statement that is indicative of the practice of the early church, which must have had not only the sanction but the instruction of the apostles.

Luke has some peculiarities as well as other writers, and in this verse is one of them: the use of the word when. He employs it to indicate an occurrence that was everywhere known, and therefore expected. The passage becomes significant with this explanation: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,” was supposed to be anticipated by every reader. He had just related the fact that they had been there for a whole week, and of course a first day would occur, and on that first day the disciples would be expected to meet together to break bread. He wishes to tell the reader about Paul’s discourse and the miracle that was wrought by him that night, but preceded the account by the announcement that every one would anticipate. Hence he says that this discourse was given “when we were gathered together to break bread.” You will see the use of the word in Acts 8:12; “when they believed.” See again Acts 16:15; “And when she was baptized.” He had just related that her heart was opened, that she attended to the things spoken by Paul, and every one would expect her baptism to follow, and he records it in that way, as a matter of course. But when the custom was not known he announced it as a matter that had not been understood beforehand. Acts 17:1, 2, 3; Luke 4:16, will show the difference in the style between writing things that were known to be the custom and recording something that had not been known before. In these last texts he notices customs that had not been announced and were not supposed to be matters of common knowledge. But in the other places the style is different.

It was not, then, an accident that they met together on a first day of the week at Troas for the purpose of attending to the communion, but a custom was announced, which announcement was anticipated by every one who knew the practices of the church. This is further seen in. the First Corinthian letter (11:17-34), which shows that when they met together it was for the purpose of breaking bread; and in 16:1, 2, we learn that it was their practice to meet together on every first day of the week. It was not simply the custom in the city of Corinth, but in Galatia. Now the recommendations that Paul would give to the churches in Galatia respecting their meetings would come from a knowledge of the time when they were held. Putting these two facts together, we have it that first they met together to break bread; this was the main purpose of their meetings; and second, that they met together on every first day of the week. From this it is the conviction of the most eminent men of the church to-day that it was the custom of the first church during the days of the apostles to be the same. Indeed, they claim such practice as the reason and authority for their custom.

In the Teaching of the Apostles, which is supposed to have been written about A.D. 120, in chapter 14 we find this: “But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with this fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.'”

In the First Apology of Justin, chapter 67, we have the custom described, that of assembling and having the Scriptures read, and remarks made on them, then engaging in prayer and breaking of bread. This they did on the day that was “called Sunday.” Of course, since Justin was writing to an emperor, he used the word Sunday for the first day of the week, instead of the Lord’s day that was nearly always used by the Fathers, he might be understood. In the writings of these men, two things are apparent: first, they are everywhere agreed as to the custom of meeting together on the first day, or Lord’s day, for the purpose of breaking bread; and second, they are agreed that this teaching was from the apostles.

An objection has just been raised against weekly communion on account of the frequency, which it is claimed will render it so common as to hinder the impression that it should make on those who attend upon it. This same objection is urged against prayer being offered daily, so it has been though that it should be only after such intervals as will render it more awe-inspiring. So the priests should have gone occasionally the incense. But, again, it is said that the time is not definitely fixed by a direct statement. As a command, this is true. We learn, however, what was regarded as proper in the days of the apostle’s, when the churches were under the direction of their inspiration, and follow the example, believing that they were right, and that what was right then is right now. If we do as the churches did when under the control of inspired men in the matters of public worship, we will be certainly be safe.

-The Old Faith Restated by J.W. Garrison, pp., 245-249.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 29-30
January 5, 1978

By Johnny Stringer

Elsewhere in this issue of Truth Magazine there appears an article by Brother K.E. Clayton, in which the author contends that Christians should not engage in even a non-religious celebration of Christmas or Easter. Having been requested by the editor to review Brother Clayton’s article, I am submitting for your consideration my thoughts regarding his arguments. Let it be understood that I respect Brother Clayton’s opinion in this matter and his right to abstain from any type of celebration on these holidays. I would not encourage anyone who feels as our brother does to celebrate Christmas in any fashion. In fact, as long as one holds this view, I would urge him not to celebrate and thereby violate his conscience (Rom. 14:23).

If I understand our brother’s view, he believes that it is possible to celebrate these holidays as national holidays, without attaching any religious significance to them. He places the matter in the realm of expediency, saying that “you must consider the expediency of participating in such activities, even though you are free to celebrate these days as holidays rather than holy days.” His contention is that by any kind of participation, we damage our influence. Let us now proceed to discuss, paragraph by paragraph, his efforts to support his view.

He begins his article with some comments regarding the necessity of modifying our behavior at times for the sake of our influence with the people among whom we live. This is absolutely true, and the passage cited by Brother Clayton (1 Cor. 9:19-23) supports the proposition. It should be noted that the question regarding a practice is not merely whether or not it is contrary to someone else’s convictions, but whether or not it would actually hinder our efforts to convert him. The salvation of souls is the ultimate aim, as is seen in such expressions as “that I might gain the more,” “that I might by all means save some,” and “for the gospel’s sake.” This is also clear from 1 Cor. 10:23-33, where Paul says that he would not eat meat when doing so would cause another to consider him an idolater and thus damage his reputation. He clearly shows that the reason for the forfeiting of such liberties as eating meat was that such action might be a stumbling block (offence) that would hinder the salvation of the other person (note especially verses 32-33). Having observed that there are times when we should conform to society’s customs, Brother Clayton correctly points out that there are times when conformity is wrong (Rom. 12:2).

In paragraph 2 Brother Clayton speaks of the paganistic beginnings of these holidays, but acknowledges that these paganistic connotations no longer remain, though the denominational world in general places religious significance on these days. I fully agree that it would be utterly sinful for the Christian to make such celebrations a matter of religion; I also agree that it is possible to observe these days as national holidays without attaching religious significance to them. This past December 25th, I did not consider myself to be engaging in a religious activity while I was gorging myself with turkey and dressing.

In paragraph 3 Brother Clayton expressed confusion over whether or not these are national holidays or national holy days. Of course, in current usage the word “holiday” does not refer merely to holy days, but to many days which are in no sense considered to be holy by anyone. Our government has no authority to declare any day to be a holy day, but it has declared Christmas to be a national holiday. One can observe Christmas because our government has declared it a holiday, or one can observe Christmas because his false religious beliefs declare it to be a holy day. It is true, as our brother points out, that many professed Christians consider it a holy day. But it is also true that many skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and infidels celebrate Christmas merely as a national holiday. Whether an individual celebrates it as a holy day or not is dependent upon that individual’s own thinking as he celebrates. Is he, in his own mind, visiting relatives, eating turkey, exchanging gifts, hunting deer, or doing whatever he does on December 25th, because he thinks it is Christ’s birthday and he considers these to be religious activities which honor the birth of Christ? As Brother Clayton admits, it is possible for an individual to observe Christmas as a holiday, and not a holy day.

In paragraph 4 Brother Clayton said, “In certain areas of the world, one’s influence can be seriously harmed by celebrating the holidays of Christmas and Easter.” I cannot deny this statement, for I have not lived in all areas of the world; hence, I cannot speak of the effect on one’s influence these practices would have in all areas. I can only say that if there are certain areas of the world where the celebration of Christmas would damage my influence, I have never been in those areas. If I ever am in such an area, I will not celebrate. Having lived in Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Arkansas, I am convinced that this is not true of those areas. I am convinced that my non-religious celebration of Christmas has never hindered the salvation of any soul. Otherwise, I would have quit. Brother Clayton proceeds in this paragraph to compare those of us who participate in non-religious celebration of Christmas, but oppose religious celebration of it, with a man who opposes $200 per plate fund-raising dinners, but attends one when given a free ticket. The man, it is pointed out, would be hypocritical and would be ineffective in his crusade against such dinners. There is a difference, however. The man attending the dinner is participating in something he opposes, hence is hypocritical. I am not opposed to putting up a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts, visiting relatives, or eating turkey, hence I am not hypocritical when I engage in these things. It is not necessary to refrain from things which we do not oppose in order to show people what we do oppose. They can be taught the distinction.

In paragraph 5 it is affirmed that when we celebrate Christmas in a non-religious way, we present a stumbling block to the new convert who is unable to do so. It is argued that the new convert may be unable to celebrate without thinking of it as religious activity in honor of Christ’s birth, so that when we influence him to celebrate Christmas, he may stumble back into idolatry. Surely we should not want to be a stumbling block to any new convert. However, this is no reason to make a blanket statement regarding the observance of Christmas. When one is in a specific situation where he fears his celebration would influence someone else to stumble, he should not celebrate. But I have never been in a situation where such was the case. I believe that new converts generally are able to see the distinction between religious and non-religious observance of Christmas, if such is carefully explained to them.

In paragraph 6, Romans 14 is discussed. Brother Clayton asserts that in a case when a brother celebrates Christmas, even though another brother has conscience problems with the practice, the one who celebrates is wrong to do so. It is affirmed that in such a case, one should refrain from celebrating, in deference to the weaker brother. This is not necessarily so. It would be so only if one’s celebrating would cause the other brother to stumble. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that we must refrain from every practice that would violate someone else’s conscience. I have known Christians who would violate their consciences by celebrating Christmas, but my celebrating in no way caused them to stumble. Continuing his discussion of Romans 14, our brother says that the celebration of Christmas is not parallel with the eating of meats which is dealt with in that passage, because of the fact that Christmas is considered by many to be a part of “Christian” doctrine, whereas the eating of meats was not. It should be noted, however, that circumcision was considered by some to be necessary for salvation in Christ; but the fact that some observed it as a religious act which was a part of Christianity, did not mean that Christians could not practice it for non-religious reasons. Moreover, some today consider resting on Saturday to be a part of Christianity. Does this mean that I should refrain from resting on Saturday? Certainly it is true that many rest on Saturday for non-religious reasons; but it is also true that many celebrate Christmas for nonreligious reasons (atheists, for instance).

In paragraphs 7 and 8 Brother Clayton argued that a refusal to celebrate Christmas will aid our efforts to teach others the gospel. He says that while he was in high school, if his friends who were Christians had not celebrated Christmas, he might have asked them why they did not, and thereby been converted earlier than he was. He says that his refusal to celebrate has led many to ask him his reasons, and that this has led to fruitful discussions. I can only say that his high school friends could have taught him the truth regardless of whether or not they celebrated Christmas. He says that they did not appear to be any different to him. This is a poor commentary on them. If refusing to celebrate Christmas was required before there was any discernible difference between them and others, then they were surely failing to let their lights shine! I agree that “non conformity (Rom. 12:2, 2 Cor. 6:14-18) brings forth its fruits;” but this does not mean we should abstain from things that are not sinful, just for the sake of being different. If we simply abstain from those things that are sinful, we will be plenty different; we do not have to abstain from things permissible. Refraining from a permissible practice in order to attract attention, arouse curiosity, and provoke questions, is hardly the only way to gain opportunities to teach the gospel. Actually, I fear that if I were to refrain from any celebration, I would give others the impression that I considered any kind of celebration to be sinful, hence would lead them to a false view of my convictions. We do not have to be more strict than truth in order to teach the truth.

In Brother Clayton’s concluding paragraph he quoted Paul’s warning to the Galatians about their observance of days. I do not understand why he quoted this passage, for he has already admitted the possibility of non-religious celebration . of the holidays under discussion in his article. Paul was obviously here speaking to the Galatians about their observance of days as a matter of service to God-a part of their religion. He was not speaking of non-religious observances.

In conclusion, let me say that I have never met Brother Clayton, but I believe he has written out of sincere conviction. I appreciate the spirit manifested in his article. Although I disagree with him, I respect him for his apparent dedication and the manner in which he stated his convictions. I hope the readers will not consider our articles to be a wrangle, but merely two brothers in Christ discussing their views on a controversial subject.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 27-29

January 5, 1978