Of Quarreling Brethren

By Norman E. Fultz

Truth Magazine is a religious journal now into its 42nd year of publication. It hardly seems possible that I have subscribed to it for all but the first of those years, and I have that year in a bound volume. From very early on when it began as Truth Magazine, I have also submitted a number of articles that have appeared in the paper. The paper has never sought to evade controversy when its editors thought a matter needed discussion. I have by no means agreed with all that has been printed, but it has afforded opportunity for many issues to be discussed in very forthright style. Brethren have often set forth opposing views on a number of topics. Several written debates have been carried in its pages, one as recently as the November 20 issue.

In the December 4, 1997 is- sue, a younger brother (been preaching about ten years) had an article entitled, “Quarreling Brethren: Discouragement to a Young Preacher.” I understand his perplexity as he has struggled to understand the many different articles and sermons that have been presented concerning the matter of fellowship, especially as it is affected by one’s comprehension of Romans 14. My thoughts here do not address an exposition nor an application of this passage. If all that has been written and said on the passage were compiled, it would surely be sufficient for several large volumes. My thoughts here are basically some reactions I had when I first read the article by the young brother.

To several of the thoughts he registered, I could borrow the modern, sometimes overworked phrase, “Been there; done that.” I can identify with the discouragement which controversy among brethren engenders in a young preacher.

 

When I first began preaching, I was absolutely amazed at the range of issues among brethren. Early on I became aware of a couple of issues. One questioned whether a school operated by brethren in which the Bible was taught as a part of its curriculum had a right to exist. Another was whether a congregation could have a “located preacher,” a man who worked with a single congregation on a regular, full-time basis in the teaching and preaching of the Word. While I was a college student, one of the chief proponents of the “no located preacher” and “no school operated by brethren in which the Bible is taught” position came to the campus. He stirred up no small controversy. Looking back on how the administration of the school handled the matter, I think they did not act wisely. When I then began preaching regularly, there was a congregation of that persuasion not far removed from us. For many years, I received and read journals published by brethren of that persuasion. I also read a published debate on those issues which was held right here in Kansas City. That debate book is still in my library.

Perhaps the issue with which I struggled hardest as a young preacher was one that was getting up a full head of steam about the time I began my first regular work in the boot heel of Missouri. Having only minimally become aware of it while in college, I soon found myself in a real struggle to try to understand what the arguments were all about. It had to do with principles of congregational cooperation, centralization of oversight, and the support of various human institutions to do the work of the church. My struggle with that issue lasted for a few years. I subscribed to and read journals published by brethren with differing views. I discussed it with fellow preachers. I went to hear “lectures” presented by various brethren. (Somewhere I still have a copy of some notes that I made on lessons presented by the late W. Curtis Porter in about 1955, I believe at Paragould, Ark.) I attended a public debate of the topics (several such debates in years following). In fact, it was during the debate that much of what I’d been reading “fell into place” and I began to see more clearly what the furor was all about.

There were other issues and questions which came up and were freely discussed, sometimes very heatedly and very pointedly. I can remember, as a young preacher, once thinking that if I was going to have to constantly be trying to wade through some issue over which brethren were disagreed that I just didn’t think I wanted to preach. However, I learned from the Bible that God’s people have always faced issues, some of them sharply contested and divisive. The prophets in the Old Testament periods had to stand again false prophets. In the New Testament era, there were questions about whether Gentile Christians had to keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised (Acts 15). Those who denied a resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12ff) and some who contended that the resurrection was already past had to be dealt with, for such teaching resulted in the overthrow of the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18). And this is to mention only a few of the issues about which one reads as facing the early disciples.

This young preacher came to realize that there is no central agency or earthly headquarters charged with determining some kind of a creedal body of truth to which all must pay allegiance. Each person is responsible before God for his own study of inspired truth. As to issues that arise among brethren, somewhere along the way I decided that I’d do the best I could to study the word of God on the various questions that arise. Doing so I would eventually (It might take me longer than it takes some, and longer than they think it should take me.) arrive at a position with which I felt comfortable in my handling of the Word. My position might not be “the majority opinion,” but my ultimate judgment is not going to be by my brethren, but by him whom I am attempting to serve (cf. Acts 27:23; Rom. 1:9). And so while the young preacher in the GOT article, and others like him, could wish, as I did (and still do), that brethren could just “sit down face to face, heart to heart” and with “open Bibles” and “open hearts” through “open, honest, meaningful, and forthright discussion” arrive at a common understanding, I know that is not likely. In the meanwhile, as we grapple with the various issues and questions that arise among us, let each of us study while remembering that we have a great work to do affecting “precious souls and the growth of the Lord’s church.” Let us love truth above persons and principles above personalities. Let us be desirous of marching under no banner but that of truth, and let us owe allegiance to none but to him whom we confessed as Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). When brethren become embroiled in controversy, as some seem bound to do, let’s try to observe it from a sufficient distance as to maintain objectivity while remembering the great need to sound forth the word of the gospel to souls that are lost and dying in sin. Let those quarrel who feel that they must, but let us not allow their quarrelling to become a discouragement.

One other thing, the honest and forthright discussion of differences need not degenerate into quarrelling.

Gambling Versus Love of God and Man

By Ron Halbrook

Though gambling has become socially acceptable and legal, it is not right according to what God teaches us in the Bible. God teaches us to love him with all the heart, mind, and soul, and to love our fellowman as we love ourselves (Matt. 22:37-40). Everything else God teaches us depends on these two principles (v. 40). “Love” in this sense comes from a Greek term, agape, refer- ring to the highest kind of love: a love based on principles of truth and right, and a love seeking the best interests of its object rather than mere self-gratification.

Since love of God and of fellowman must be the motives for all our conduct, how do these two principles relate to gambling? God teaches us that we may receive gain in ways which demonstrate love to all parties to any transaction. We may receive gain in the following ways: (1) the process of labor (Eph. 4:28), (2) exchange of goods and services (Matt. 13:45-46), (3) gifts (Matt. 6:1-4). Each of these methods of receiving gain is honest, showing respect for principles of truth and right and for the welfare of all parties involved.

Gambling is a wager on some chance event, with the result that the “winner” takes gain from others without respect for principles of truth and right and without seeking the welfare of all parties involved. Therefore, gambling is a means of taking dishonest gain. The fact that the other participants agreed to take part does not mitigate the dis- honesty involved, any more than “kickbacks” in a business deal are mitigated from dishonesty by the agreement of the parties involved. Gambling is an exercise in covetousness, seeking mere self-gratification without regard for truth and right or the best interests of everyone involved.

Gambling is sinful, an offense against God and a curse to our fellowman. Because all of us have sinned from time to time, whether through gambling or other deeds, God sent his Son into the world to die for our sins (Rom. 3:23; John 3:16). The death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Cal vary demonstrates both the justice and the mercy of God: Sin was punished (justice), but punished in a way which extends forgiveness to sinners (mercy). Thus, God proves himself to be “just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Since God does not force anyone to receive this gift of his grace, we may choose to receive it or to reject it. We receive it by faith in Christ when we repent of our sins (a change of heart resolving to turn away from sin), confess our faith in Christ as God’s Son, and submit to immersion in water (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 8:35-38; 22:16; Rom. 10:8-10; 6:3-4).

As a fellow traveler from time to eternity, I urge you to turn away from gambling and to do everything in your power to convince others to turn away from it. Such a course is based on our love for God and our fellowman because we recognize that gambling is a curse to the human heart, to the home, to the church, and to the nation. Our lawmakers act contrary to the love of God and fellowman by legalizing gambling. Churches debase God’s standard of morality by promoting it. All who participate in it act to the detriment of themselves and others.

There are no winners in gambling, whether it be in casinos, at the races, in bingo parlors, or in lotteries and raffles. No such activities meet the tests of true love for God and our fellowman.

(Note: The computer service I use allows unsolicited advertisements to be sent out in the e-mail boxes of its subscribers. I recently received such an ad offering information on “How to be a Winner” at gambling. The e-mail addresses of others in the group who received this ad were listed at the top of the message. I responded by sending the basic message in the above article to the sender of the ad and to the other addresses listed. I have received both positive and negative responses to my message, but this is another way to scatter the precious seed of God’s Word.)

Kenneth R. Hoyle: My Friend (1927 – 1998)

By Truman Smith

If my memory serves me right, it was in 1957, while I was preaching for the Lacey Lakeview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas that I first met Kenneth and Sammie Hoyle. While Kenneth had been preaching full time for some five years prior to that time, he and Sammie had moved to Waco where he had gone into secular work and was preaching part time. Though I do not recall the exact time or place of our first meeting, I am almost certain that it was at a gospel meeting somewhere in the Greater Waco area, for wherever there was a gospel meeting in progress, if it was at all within driving range, Kenneth and Sammie were in attendance. As a matter of fact, they would often drive many, many miles to hear the gospel proclaimed in such efforts. As many of you know, those were the years before institutionalism and related issues had brought about the major division among the churches of Christ. His first full- time work with a non-institutional congregation began in Borger, Texas in 1960. They always remembered with much fondness the pleasant years spent in their work at Borger. Kenneth was a Texas preacher. He also did local work with such churches as La Porte, Nacogdoches, Rosenberg, Texas City, and West Orange. However, in 1991 they left their native state of Texas and moved to Louisiana to help in the establishment of a faithful church in the city of Lake Charles. They started meeting in the Kinder Care Learning Center, where they met for nine months before finding the present meeting place, 3919 Auburn Street, a facility belonging to a denomination. They were able to purchase that place in May 1993. Sammie said that this work was Kenneth’s “joy and crown.” She said, “He was never, never happier, for unity and love abounded and it was all based on ‘a thus saith the Lord.’”

However, it was while engaged in the work in Lake Charles, Louisiana that he developed a very strange type of pneumonia, and though they were able to bring the pneumonia under control, it had weakened his body to the point that he became unable to recover from the damage it had done. He struggled for forty days in the Intensive Care Unit of St. Elizabeth Hospital in Beaumont, Texas. His faithful wife, Sammie, was ever by his side. Finally, when he had used up all of his strength to fight any longer, on February 25, 1998, his immortal spirit slipped away from his body and went back to God from whence it had come more than seventy years ago.

Kenneth was born on September 12, 1927 near Abbott, Texas. He and Sammie met in Hillsboro, Texas and were married there on June 1, 1947. They celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary last year. Two adopted children, Jan and Lynn, preceded Kenneth in death. After waiting many years from the time they were married, two lovely daughters, Karen and Mary, were born to them. Now they have six grandchildren and two very fine sons-in-law, David Kibodeaux and Norman Harrison.

Kenneth Hoyle was my friend. I cherish the memories of the many precious moments we spent together discussing Scripture, worshiping and working together for the cause of Christ. We both served on lectureships and gospel meetings in places where we were each located through the years. We spent many happy hours together, visiting and conversing socially along with our wives. He was a joy to be with and a true fellowlabourer in gospel work. I never knew a more dedicated soldier of the cross. His wife, Sammie, was a faithful companion. I do not remember ever seeing Kenneth at a gospel meeting without Sammie by his side. And they worked together in the Lord’s work. Upon learning of his passing, I had difficulty controlling my emotions, for I knew how we would miss him. And, I knew that the ravages of ill health had brought to an end the life of a good man and the work of a fine preacher of the gospel at a time when the likes of him are sorely needed.

There were six speakers at his funeral service which was conducted on February 27: Norman Harrison, Tim Paschall, Tony Noll, Carl Vernon, Hayes Reneau and Larry Ray Hafley. David Kibodeaux led congregational singing. A grave side service was held for him in Hillsboro, Texas on February 28 with Billy Dollar, a long-time friend, conducting the service. It was there that his frail body was laid to rest. Yes, we will miss our friend, but we “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13). And, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them” (Rev. 14:13).

Just here I wish to make a sincere plea to our vast brotherhood. Through all of those years, Kenneth and Sammie Hoyle gave their lives to the work of spreading the gospel. And, like so many, they just trusted the Lord for their future. The only income Sammie has is a Social Security check she is to receive each month, which is not very much. But with the help of her two wonderful sons-in-law, she will not go hungry. However, she hopes to raise enough money to build a small, modest home on a daughter’s place. If there is anyone reading this who happens to have a little money to spare, you may send it to Mrs. Kenneth R. Hoyle, 4310 Dean, Lake Charles, LA 70605. Sammie will very much appreciate just whatever amount you might be able to send. If you are unable to send any funds, but would just like to write her a cheerful note, please do so. And let us all remember her and her good family in our prayers.

Fleshly Relatives: Delight or Dilemma?

By P.J. Casebolt

Both the Bible and society recognize the advantages, privileges, and responsibilities of fleshly relationships. These relationships can be the cause of much delight, or they can put us in a dilemma from which we cannot, or will not, extricate ourselves.

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). Husbands, wives, parents, and children enjoy a relationship that is as old as the human race, and a source of delight which cannot be duplicated by any other means. By virtue of this relation- ship, we even obtain an extended family which comes under the heading of “in-laws.” While these in-laws can also provide their share of dilemmas, we automatically extend and receive blessings which can be realized in no other way.

By virtue of inheriting privileges which belong to fleshly relatives, we also inherit responsibilities which are primarily ours. It may have been that because of this relationship, Barnabas entertained a responsibility to (John) Mark which the apostle Paul did not have (Acts 15:37-39; Col. 4:10). It is sometimes easier to say what we would do concerning someone else’s relatives than what we would do if they were of our own household.

When we are faced with a dilemma that arises because of a fleshly relationship, we may have to look to our spiritual relationship with the Lord in order to resolve such a dilemma. Under the law of Moses, when a relative put you in a position where you were tempted to deny the Lord, you had the unpleasant but plain responsibility to side with the Lord (Deut. 13:6-11). And other households in Israel were to “hear and fear” and allow “no more any such wickedness . . . among you” (v. 11).

In my own personal experience, I am noticing a trend which seems to be developing into a pattern of alarming proportions. An isolated case may not imply a trend, but when several such instances arise in different congregations within a short period of time, it is time for alarm. And the Lord is concerned over even one instance when it concerns the welfare of his children (Luke 15:4-10).

Digression among the Lord’s people has always alienated not only brethren, but also fleshly relatives. It was so among the Israelites, it was so in the first and 19th centuries, and it has been so in the 20th century. But as a rule, families were divided because of their personal convictions with respect to those issues which divided brethren and churches. Now, I see families being united, but united in doctrinal error due to fleshly relationships. Some can discern truth from error, and in the past have taken their stand for truth, but now they are taking a position which is influenced by their fleshly relatives and not by truth.

In the majority of these cases, I am noticing that it is the children who are having an adverse effect upon their parents, instead of the other way around. Traditionally, whether by human tradition (Matt. 15:3), or by divine tradition (Deut. 6:7), the parents and grandparents have exercised influence upon children and grandchildren, not vice versa.

I can sympathize with relatives who face the dilemma of seeing other relatives identified with false doctrine and practice, and who are forced to decide between their loyalty to the Lord and loyalty to fleshly relationships. And any relative who puts another relative in the position of having to deny the Lord in order to please man is not a relative who loves either his Lord or his own relatives as he should. Paul said that charity “seeketh not her own . . . but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:5, 6). If we claim to love God, then we prove that love by keeping his commandments (John 14:15, 23). If we love our fleshly relatives, our brethren, or our neighbors, we will do what is best for their souls, not that which is convenient or popular.

Are we the only ones who ever faced the dilemma of having to decide between our love for the Lord and our love for relatives? Certainly not, and neither should we think that the Lord will make an exception in our case.

David’s own son, Absalom, “stole the hearts of the men of Israel” and usurped his father’s throne (2 Sam. 15:6ff). David mourned for Absalom to the extent that Joab had to rebuke the king because he was showing more concern for his son than he was for those who had remained faithful to David (2 Sam. 19). When our relatives put us in such a dilemma, the best way out is to side with the Lord and those who are on the Lord’s side (Exod. 32:26-29).

The apostle Paul loved his kinsmen in the flesh so much that he would have sacrificed himself on their behalf (Rom. 9:1-3;10:1-3), but he gave up his fleshly relationship with all (Phil. 3:7, 8) of its benefits in order to win Christ (Gal. 2:10-14). And Jesus himself taught that if we deny him in favor of any fleshly relative, that he will deny us before the Father (Matt. 10:32-39). In any such dilemma, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Not only can I sympathize with those who face a difficult decision with respect to fleshly relatives, but at least in this one area, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Gal. 6:17), figuratively speaking. So, allow me to offer some advice which may help others to resolve their dilemma.

“Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1, 2). Paul referred to both Timothy and Titus as his sons “in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4).

I come from a large family, and it is a wonderful thing to see peace, unity, and love in either a fleshly family or in the Lord’s family (Ps. 133:1). And when possible, our spiritual relationship in Christ enhances even a delightful fleshly relationship. But if we have never known, or must forego the delights of a fleshly relationship, we can have multiplied numbers of fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters in the family of God in this life and eternally in that life which is to come. But the rich man did not want his own fleshly brethren to follow him into torment (Luke 16:28), and fleshly relationships will not hinder our status in the resurrection (Matt. 22:30).