Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Bobby Knight, long-time Indiana basketball coach, is known for speaking his mind. According to a recent report in the Houston Chronicle, if Knight were coaching in the pros, the first thing he would do would be to fire the cheerleaders. Referring to them as “bump-and-grind girls,” he said they are an unnecessary and inconsistent distraction: “It’s like we’re selling a picture of a naked gal on the cover of the Methodist hymnal.”

Jesus once said, “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” (Luke 16:8). Bobby Knight, for all the reckless excess that he occasionally displays in other areas — throwing chairs on the basketball court and allegedly choking players in practice — is dead on the mark in his aforementioned comments. In this regard, Coach Knight is more discerning than some members of the Lord’s church who allow and/or encourage their daughters to become cheerleaders. In today’s world, sex is the name of the game. The only difference between professional cheerleaders and their younger counterparts is degree. In both cases, flesh is on display. Whether we are talking about junior high, high school, college, or professional cheerleading, the clothing is typically scanty, the dancing provocative, and the bodily movements undeniably sensual and suggestive. Professional cheerleaders are held forth as the ideal for which younger girls are to strive. 

The gospel of Christ, with its exalted demand for holiness and purity, stands in sharp contrast with such displays of lascivious lewdness. The apostle Paul said, “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness” (1 Tim. 2:8-10). In like manner, the apostle Peter encouraged Christian women to be chaste and respectful in their behavior and dress (1 Pet. 3:1-4). 

Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:8-10, NASU). 
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God (1 Pet. 3:1-4, NASU). 
Oh, that contemporary Christians would have the wisdom to cultivate within the hearts of their daughters the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God! Instead, both parents and children bow before the goddess of popularity. Through immaturity and insecurity, they compromise their convictions, conform to a corrupt culture, and then delude themselves into thinking that God approves of their sinful decisions. Have we forgotten that friendship with the world makes us the enemy of God (Jas. 4:1-5)? 

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us? (Jas. 4:1-5. NASU). 

Many Christian parents are in this very situation, having foolishly allowed their children to become involved in cheerleading and other inappropriate activities. They permit immodest dress, lascivious dancing, mixed swimming, indecent and sexually explicit literature, movies, and music. Brethren, such carnality is not befitting to those who are saints (Eph. 5:3-6).

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Eph. 5:3-6, NASU). 

What should be done if we find ourselves (or our families) in such a situation? Sadly, when error is exposed, many get mad at the messenger. Faithful gospel preachers have often suffered grief at the hands of such stubborn and rebellious brethren. However, such a defiant response to the truth is displeasing to God, and of no benefit to the offenders. Instead, if we have allowed sin to invade our homes, we should act like men, and assume our God-given responsibility as head of our household. Let us take charge of our families. Real men will say “No” to the foolish immaturity of their sons and daughters. Occasionally, they may even be forced to overrule the wishes of their wives. Sadly, some moms push their daughters to become cheerleaders, prom queens, etc., so as to live, vicariously, through the accomplishment of their children. Godliness will not allow such folly.

James sets forth the divine pattern of reconciliation for the erring child of God: Quit trying to please men, and start trying to please God. Resist the devil, and submit to God. The double-minded, inconsistent man, if he wishes to draw near unto God, must cleanse his hands and purify his heart. Sinful laughter must give way to godly sorrow. Only through genuine, humble repentance can such a wayward disciple be restored to divine favor (Jas. 4:6-10). 

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you (Jas. 4:6-10, NASU). 

Source: Mickey Herskowitz, “Latest Knightmare Tests Behavorial Line,” Houston Chronicle (April 15, 2000), B1.

4805 Sulley Dr., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Jere E. Frost

We gave attention earlier this year to the sad reports we were hearing about Florida College’s lectures (April issue of Gospel Truths). President C.G. “Colly” Caldwell wrote a brief statement (May issue of Gospel Truths) assuring us of what he and those closely associated with him and the school believed, including a disavowal of “unity-in-diversity.” It was a good statement as far as it went, and I commended it.

Now an eruption over “the days of creation in Genesis one” has occurred. There has been an advocacy of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis one by Hill Roberts during an earlier lectureship, and a continual and still ongoing teaching thereof in classes by Shane Scott. Both Colly Caldwell and Ferrell Jenkins, the head of the Bible department, say they personally believe that the days of Genesis one are literal days.

But their beliefs notwithstanding, they do not oppose what they believe is error at the very foundations of faith.

It is becoming clear now that the confusion is not over anything the administrators ostensibly believe, teach, or promote. The confusion is over what they do not say, and to the stand they do not make. They believe the world is round, but support those who teach it is flat.

The Ecumenical Background

This smacks of the spirit of ecumenism. Ecumenism is a denominational concept of promoting cooperation and unity among differing denominations in spite of their conflicting and contradictory beliefs. 

[Ecumenism is] aimed at the unification of the Protestant churches of the world and ultimately of all Christians.
 The Ecumenical Movement [is the movement] for worldwide cooperation and unity among Christian churches… (Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia).

It is the concept that Methodists (with their sprinkling) and Baptists (with their immersion), Catholics (with their pope) and Pentecostals (with their personal guidance by the Holy Spirit), and Mormons (with their extra holy books) and Unitarians (who have no authoritative book at all) should all recognize and embrace one another under one loving, all-inclusive canopy of cooperation and fellowship.

Ecumenism Invades Us

The very expression, “the ecumenical movement,” is too strong for the school or erstwhile conservative churches of Christ. “Unity-in-diversity” has a much nicer ring to it. Featured and promoted in the now defunct Christianity Magazine by its owner and co-editor, Ed Harrell, the doctrine is a modified version of the same ecumenical philosophy denominations have had for years. There is “nothing new under the sun,” except that it is comparatively new to us, not having received notoriety since the days of Carl Ketcherside. In fact, if brother Harrell had been tired or wanted to take a break during his “unity-in-diversity” series, he could have selected one of Ketcherside’s old Mission Messenger editorials on unity and have run it instead. The reader would not have detected a difference.
 
Just here one is reminded that it makes a difference whose ox is goring and whose ox is being gored, as to what the reaction will be. Brethren staunchly resisted E.C. Fuqua’s doctrine of sanctified adultery, but Homer Hailey’s doctrine of sanctified adultery has found considerable sympathy and acceptance. 

Part of the difference is doubtless in the fact that brother Hailey had gained an uncommonly high esteem and respect in brethren’s affections all across the country. Ed Harrell made a direct appeal in his paper (Christianity Magazine) for brethren to tolerate and indulge brother Hailey and his admittedly incorrect position. He vigorously argued that this “old soldier” not be “turned out” (his terms). His appeal was strengthened by the fact that not a one of his staff of respected co-editors and writers said a single word against it — not a single word. The effect was that the whole influence of Christianity Magazine was for this positive gospel and unity-in- diversity. It was a “done deal” with many brethren. Fuqua’s doctrine and person never received this kind of support.

Carl Ketcherside also had his own paper. He was an exceedingly capable man who possessed an abundance of dignity and grace. But when he came to the campus of Florida College (when I was a student there) he was courteously received, but his doctrine was unequivocally opposed by administrators, faculty, and students. This is not a commentary on Ketcherside as being in any way short of ability or personality; again, he was a powerful and persuasive personality who was second to no one in those categories, then or now. It is rather a commentary on the spiritual fervor and fortitude to be found on that little Temple Terrace campus in the fifties.

A “Germ” of Truth Shifts the Emphasis

Ecumenists, including the “unity-of-diversity” brand among churches of Christ, emphasize that there should be unity despite differences. The “germ” of truth is that there should be unity, and indeed there are always some differences between what are considered to be sound brethren. It always has been and doubtless always will be that way. 

Aha, say they — differences! You admit differences! That’s diversity! And it has not destroyed unity — ergo, unity-in-diversity! So they ignore the differences and concentrate on the unity. Let us proceed slowly and carefully here.

Unity is indeed important. Jesus prayed, and then died, that we be one, and Paul pled for unity (Eph. 2:26; John 17:20, 21; 1 Cor. 1:10). But when this unity is described in Scripture, it is a unity of the Spirit, and unity of the faith (Eph. 4:3, 13). The truth that constitutes the faith is the only thing in the world that will sanctify, free, and save us (John 17:17; 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:22). Men can be united in error, and it will not save them. Truth obeyed necessarily saves one and produces a unity with God. 

Thus whereas it can be said that unity is precious, it must be said that truth is supreme. 

The Constant Struggle

Every man is in a constant struggle to know the truth, and to be faithful to it. The god of this world would confuse us. If unity is the goal in and of itself, then all of us should be ready to make whatever compromises the moment indicates are expedient. This kind of unity does not like debate or a spirited discussion of Scripture, for such will invariably produce some friction. It seeks to avoid the heat of the crucible where the gold is purified and separated from the dross.

But truth enthroned requires the constant study and discussion of Scripture, and a bringing to the fore those concepts that are held, or exegeses of Scripture that are made, to be subjected to the crucible of controversy as to whether or not they are correct. It is not by the vote of any tribunal or political massaging, that agreement is reached, but by a mutual appreciation of truth and those who esteem it. Certainly there is a need for much patience in this process, and in attitudes toward one another, but the emphasis is altogether on the truth, and not on the diversities — unity of the faith! That is the cry. 

We are obligated to speak only “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Do not deliver your opinion and then smile, and say, “Diversity . . . everyone has the right to his own opinion and we’ll still be united anyway.” No! We seek no unity at the expense of truth, or that enthrones opinions. We seek truth. And in the process of peaceably and courteously addressing and discussing whatever issues and concepts have arisen and challenged our unity, we must trust the truth to produce the unity we need. 

In no instance are we justified in lowering the bar because we want to accommodate some prominent brother with a glaring and galling false doctrine. In no instance are we justified in moving the ancient landmarks to accommodate an ecumenical spirit. 

The Seduction of Unity in Diversity

Brethren Colly Caldwell and Ferrell Jenkins are to be commended for the personal belief they have expressed as to the days of creation in Genesis one being literal days. But I fear that they have unwittingly been seduced by the unity in diversity philosophy. 

I say “unwittingly” because (1) brother Colly says that neither he nor those closely associated with him at the school believe in unity-in-diversity. I do not for a moment question his integrity. This is, I am confident, the way he feels. And yet, (2) he has been and is fully aware of the error on the days of creation that was promoted at a lectureship and that is advocated in the school’s classrooms. (3) He believes it should be allowed, has made it possible, and has not said a word in repudiating it or taken a step to disallow it, notwithstanding its perverting of fundamental and basic truth, and its contrariness to his own belief. (4) This is the practice of unity-in-diversity  — it may be unwittingly done, but nonetheless, that’s what it is. (5)  Brother Jenkins’ speech actually called for “tolerance” for this view. His pacificism and rationale are exactly the same as Ed Harrell’s. 

“Unity-in-diversity” has done its work, and I repeat the fear that we are witnessing the seduction of good men and a good school by this philosophy. 

A Word of Encouragement

The political massaging of a situation and lining up of support will not meet the real needs of this or any other hour. This is not to say we should not use the best judgment of which we are capable. And we should indeed work to moderate feelings and to encourage kindness and brotherly affections and patience toward one another. 
But all of that being said, the need is to break the seductive power of ecumenism and to enthrone divine truth in its proper place. And then, having enthroned it, to not speak of divine truth as a “personal” view while giving error a pass, but rather to “contend earnestly for the faith.” 

Let us, with exceeding kindness toward one another personally, but with staunch convictions as to truth, address the issues at hand with the confidence that there is a truth, it can be understood and agreed upon, and that it is therein that unity can and must be found. Nothing — absolutely nothing — can take the place of truth. Unity is precious, but truth is supreme, and unity of the faith is its sublime fruit.     

2455 North Courtenay Pky., Merritt Island, Florida 32953 JereFrost@aol.com

By Mike Willis

The restoration hermeneutic has been to find a “thus saith the Lord” for all of one’s practices. Those things that cannot be found authorized by Scriptures are to be discarded. Throughout the years, brethren have demonstrated that things are either “from heaven” or “from men” as Jesus directed us to search with reference to the baptism of John the Baptist. 

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things (Matt. 21:23-27).
The directions to inquire whether a thing was authorized “from heaven” or “from men” is tied to another statement from Jesus. Jesus said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:8-9). Those things that are practiced in religion on no greater authority than the “commandments of men” render man’s worship void of result or useless.

Command, Example, and Necessary Inference

Accepting Jesus’ statements as the truth, since Jesus is “the truth” (John 14:6) and he is the faithful witness about spiritual things (Rev. 1:5), brethren seek to establish divine authority for their practices. We are serious about providing divine authority for all of our practices; this is not a religious game that we play. In studying to provide authority, faithful brethren generally recognize the Bible teaches that God authoizes by three different methods:

1. Direct command or statement. When Jesus or an apostle gives a direct command, all men are bound to obey that command (unless there is something in the context that limits its application). We usually have illustrated these principles with reference to the Lord’s supper. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). The command provides divine authority for the church to observe the Lord’s supper. Indeed, a church that does not observe the Lord’s supper is guilty of sin.

2. Approved apostolic example. Another way that authority is established is by approved apostolic example. Paul instructed, “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample” (Phil. 3:17). The example of the practices of the early church show us conduct that pleases God. We know that the early church observed the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week from the example of Acts 20:7. (Additional information about saints meeting every Sunday can be learned from 1 Cor. 11:20; 16:1-2. The Corinthians assembled for the purpose of breaking bread and also to give; that assembly occurred on the first day of every week.) Consequently, we have divine authority to observe the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week.

3. Necessary inference. The third means by which men learn the will of the Lord is through necessary inference. Peter learned that Gentiles could be saved by the shed blood of Christ on the condition of faith, without being circumcised and obeying the Law of Moses, from necessary inference. On the basis of the vision of clean and unclean animals let down on a sheet from heaven and God’s word, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common,” Peter concluded that Gentiles could be saved through faith in Christ. He said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). Peter necessarily inferred from the vision and God’s words that this conclusion was true. In the same manner, brethren necessarily infer from the fact that Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matt. 26:17) that the bread used in the Lord’s supper is unleavened bread.

A New Hermeneutic

Our liberal brethren generally forsook restoration hermeneutics during the battle over institutionalism. There were two groups among the liberals: (a) A first group believed that the Bible is the only source of authority and that they can provide Bible authority for church support of orphan homes and other institutions: colleges, hospitals in third world countries (why not in America?), old folks’ homes, summer camps, and a host other things. (b) Out of the first group, another group emerged who believed that the old restoration hermeneutic was to be rejected. This group ridiculed the idea of “command, example, and necessary inference” in their periodicals. I especially recall an article on the 301 cubit ark, which belittled Bible authority.

The “where there is no pattern” argument was used to defend the sponsoring church. The “if we can support orphan homes then we can support colleges” argument was used to justify church contributions to David Lipscomb College, Freed-Hardeman University, Abilene Christian University, and other colleges operated by brethren. 

The one thing that is absent from all of the articles, books, debates, and tracts on the sponsoring church and church support of human institutions is the clear presentation of Bible authority for such practices. A few passages such as Galatians 6:10, James 1:27, and Philippians 4:25 were twisted and tortured in an effort to produce some semblance of authority. The following things are conspicuously absent from all such materials:

• A Scripture that gives a command for the church to support human institutions or the sponsoring church.
• A Scripture that is an approved apostolic example of a church supporting human institutions or organizing a sponsoring church.
• A Scripture that contains a necessary inference that a church supported a human institution or participated in a sponsoring church arrangement.

In the absence of divine authority to authorize these practices, brethren who were faithful to the Lord repudiated church support of human institutions and the sponsoring church arrangement.

A New Way To Establish Authority

Forty to fifty years have passed and a new issue is before us. Can the church maintain an on-going and never ending fellowship with those who are teaching doctrines contrary to divine revelation? The issue was raised several years ago when brethren defended an on-going fellowship with those who are teaching false doctrines on divorce and remarriage. It has now extended to include those who are teaching doctrines not revealed in the Scriptures with reference to creation. And, I might add, there is no logical stopping place, although none of those among us who defend the on-going fellowship with those who err on divorce and remarriage or creation can see or admit that logical consequence or would teach that.

Before progressing, let me pause to state that the church is composed of mature Christians and babes in Christ, and members at every step in between. The fellowship of the local church includes mistaken believers who must be patiently taught and trained as disciples of Christ. Recognizing this fact is not the same as extending and maintaining an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach things contrary to divine revelation. Jesus warned those who “shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so” (Matt. 5:19).

How is the doctrine that one can maintain an on-going and never-ending fellowship with one who teaches false doctrine (i.e., things contrary to divine revelation) being authorized? I have not seen brethren present book, chapter, and verse which clearly authorizes the position they have advocated. Romans 14 has been twisted and tortured in an effort to produce some semblance of authority, but this error has been thoroughly exposed and refuted. The following things are emphatically evident in the present controversy:

• There is no command for brethren to have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrines.    
• There is no approved apostolic example of brethren having an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrines.
• There is no necessary inference from a Scripture that indicates that brethren had an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrines.

So, how is this authorized? The argument is simple: Brethren who have spoken out on this fellowship issue do not agree on some aspect of divorce and remarriage, and yet they stay in fellowship with each other. Names sometimes used to create this caricature of inconsistency include Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook, Connie W. Adams, Weldon Warnock, Harry Osborne, Donnie Rader, and others.  Now, the same method of attack is being used in regard to the controversy abut the days of creation. It is being murmured that Mike Willis, Dan King, Harry Osborne, Steve Wolfgang, Steve Wallace, and others do not agree on every aspect of Old Testament interpretation, and yet they stay in fellowhip with each other.  

If brethren are able to prove that several of these men are inconsistent, does that prove that brethren can have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrine? If brethren could prove that several of these men are guilty of showing respect of persons, would that prove that brethren can have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrine? No! and repeated a hundred times more, NO! All that would prove is that someone is inconsistent or guilty of showing respect of persons. That would never provide Bible authority for the practice of maintaining an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrine.

Have we come to the point that no longer are we a body of men committed to providing book, chapter, and verse authority for our practices? Suppose someone were to ask one of these brethren, “Where is your Bible authority for water baptism?” In response they would say, “Consider Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.” Suppose someone were to ask, “Where is your Bible authority for appointing elders in every church?” They would respond, “Consider Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5-9; Philippians 1:1.” Suppose one were to say, “Where is Bible authority for using mechanical instruments of music in worship?” They would say, “There is no authority for their use. When men add instruments of music to worship, they violate 2 John 9-11; Revelation 22:18-19; Matthew 15:8-9; 1 Peter 4:11 and other passages. We can have no fellowship with those who pervert the worship of the Lord’s church.”

But, one asks, “Where is your authority to maintain an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who teach false doctrine on divorce and remarriage or creation?” Now the reply is different. There is no effort to provide book, chapter, and verse authority for their practice. The authority of the practice is this: “Certain brethren (insert the names you wish) don’t agree on every aspect of divorce and remarriage and yet they maintain fellowship with each other.” Brethren, this is a new way to establish authority and it carries just as much weight as “if we can support orphan homes, we can support colleges,” “where is the Scripture that says thou shalt not,” “we do many things for which there is no Bible authority,” and a host of other arguments whose design is to divert attention from what the Scriptures teach.

Conclusion

There are some things with reference to the application of the Lord’s supper that I do not make a test of fellowship. Here are some of them: whether it is observed at 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.; whether it is observed with one cup of many; whether a cloth is placed over the table when it is served; whether the bread must be broken before or after the prayer; whether the bread is store bought or home made; whether or not a brother feels conscience bound to eat the Lord’s supper at the evening service when he is unable to attend in the morning; etc.. These are all application differences with reference to the Lord’s command to observe the Lord’s supper. Any of us may hold strong conscientious views about some of these points without charging everyone else with false doctrine and sin.

There are some differences brethren have about some aspects of the issue of divorce and remarriage that fall into the same category. Here are some of them: whether the innocent party must initiate the law suit for divorce in order to have the right of remarriage; whether the divorce decree must contain the words “for fornication” in order for the person to have the right to remarriage; what steps a wife may take when in physical danger at the hands of her husband; etc. The difference that these brethren have fall into the realm of application of the one marriage law. In some local congregations, these differences have created tensions among brethren but generally have not divided us. This is the kind of difference that brethren listed above may have among themselves at times — a difference in the realm of application of a law on which we are agreed. Any of us may hold strong conscientious views about some of the points without charging everyone else with false doctrine and sin.

If another thinks that I am wrong in how I handle this difference, he will be my friend to take the Scriptures and teach me a better way to handle it. I make no claims to infallibility. However, I have enough clarity of thought to know that some who are throwing this issue in my face are insincere in so doing. I ask them, “Are you saying that we should draw a line of fellowship between those of us who disagree on some matter about which brother Halbrook and I disagree or brother King and I disagree?” They say, “No, I am not saying that.” I ask, “Are you saying that because brother Halbrook and I can work together in spite of our difference in this realm of application, we should therefore have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with brethren who are openly teaching a different law on divorce and remarriage, such as Homer Hailey, Jerry Bassett, Glen Lovelady, etc.?” They say, “No, I am not saying that.” Well, just what are you saying? 

I think the point is this, although it is never expressed: “We are just trying to undermine the influence and destroy the reputation of certain brethren who have spoken out against flagrant false teaching on divorce and remarriage, on the days of creation, and on the spirit of softness and compromise creeping into the church. We are attacking the character of these men by painting them as a bunch of hypocritical, two-faced troublemakers driven by partiality and favoritism.”

Brethren can do better than this. They can respect each other as honorable brethren and go directly to the Scriptures to provide authority for their practice. If they believe that they can invite men to lectureships who are teaching false doctrine on divorce and remarriage, let them say so and then honorably go to the Scriptures to demonstrate their proof for all men to examine. If they believe that they can invite men who are teaching “progressive creationism” (a term which Bert Thompson says is equivalent to “theistic evolution”), let them say so and then go to the Scriptures to provide authority for the practice so that all men can examine it. 
Every time you hear a brother say, “Some of the Truth Magazine writers disagree on some aspect of divorce and remarriage, on some aspect of interpreting a given Old Testament passage, or on some aspect of some other point, but they fellowship each other,” ask yourself, “Why is this being said? Is this to provide justification for an on-going and never-ending fellowship with someone who is teaching false doctrine?” If that is the case, just ask them to provide Scripture for their practice. You have no obligation to defend any or all of the men mentioned above. Remember the words of Jesus, “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” Find out if their doctrine on fellowship is from heaven or from men! The very argument that is being used should cause an alarm to go off in your mind that says, “This isn’t Bible authority. Why are they bringing this up: To cover up the fact that they cannot provide Bible authority for their practice or to maliciously destroy a brother’s reputation?” Let’s remember these words from divine inspiration:

. . . be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16).
. . . for we are not ignorant of his (Satan’s) devices (2 Cor. 2:11).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Ron Halbrook

Women are increasingly taking the roles of evangelists and pastors, but is this the work of God or of people in rebellion against God? The question cannot be answered by human traditions, emotions, or opinions. The Bible is the inspired Word of God which answers every religious question so that we may be “thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). 

The Preacher’s Work

First, the Bible defines each work. An evangelist publicly proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ. An evangelist is a preacher or minister of the gospel and here is his work: 

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry (see 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Paul was an Apostle and “a preacher” especially dedicated to teaching the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7). An evangelist may travel from place to place at times; he also may remain with the same church for several years, teaching “publicly” and “house to house” (Acts 20:20, 31).

The Pastor’s Work

The pastor’s work is entirely different. A pastor is a shepherd of God’s people viewed as sheep. He is also called an elder because of his spiritual maturity and a bishop because he oversees the local church. Pastor (or shepherd), elder (or presbyter), and bishop (or overseer) refer to the same person doing the same work (Acts 20:17, 28; Tit. 1:5, 7). This work involves overseeing and managing all the affairs of a local church:

Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind (1 Pet. 5:2).

The unique work of a pastor is not publicly proclaiming the gospel as a preacher. False religions confuse the roles of pastor and preacher. Each local church must have a plurality of pastors, never a one-man pastor (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5).

Women Too?

God’s Word teaches men, not women, to serve as pastors in a local church and as public preachers of the gospel. Christ as head of his church forbad women to take the roles of public leaders in the church. Christ commanded,

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Women are not to preach in assemblies with men present or in any other way to exercise places of authority over men. A pastor must be a male: “the husband of one wife     . . . one that ruleth well his own house” (1 Tim. 3:1-7). No woman can obey God’s Word as a public preacher or as one of the pastors in a local church. Any church which tolerates such practices is a false religion. Another mark of false religion is the fear of examining such issues in public debate. Are you in a false religion?

How To Escape False Religion
Any person who remains in a church with women evangelists and pastors identifies himself with Satan and false religion, and thus wears the mark of the beast as others have done in the past (Rev. 13:11-18). Another such identifying mark is the substitution of human plans for God’s plan by which men are to receive the remission of their sins. God says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). False religions say, “Repent for the remission of sins before and without water baptism. Perhaps you will be baptized later, but not for the remission of sins.” Through the gospel of Christ, God calls men to leave every false religion, to receive the forgiveness of sins by an obedient faith in Christ, and thus to be added to the true church of Christ found in the New Testament (Acts 2:47). 

3505 Horse Run Ct., Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165-6954