|
 Brethren, let me thank you again for the opportunity that’s afforded me, and continue my prayer that good
and not harm will come from the things that we’re doing together. I hurriedly say that the great majority of what
brother Halbrook said in his original presentation, I not only can agree with, I could almost say I wish I had
said that. Any implication, any conclusion that implies or infers that I have any disagreement with him with regard
to the exhaustive and well done description of God’s condemnation of false teaching, both in the Old and the New
Testament, or the application of those things, would be wholly erroneous. And I pray that someone will not take
that lengthy discussion that false teaching is bad, that false teaching is wrong, and then conclude that he and
I are at differences on that. There is absolutely no validity to that. I wholeheartedly approve and endorse the
general discussion that was given with regard to God’s warning against false teaching.
Let me hurriedly say something else. In no way, do I want anything to be taken to imply that I would not
endorse a militant stand for that same teaching. I think we must be militant in our stand against error. We must
be militant in our stand for what is right in the truth of God. If I, in my preaching or in my teaching, fail to
take a clear definitive stand, I am not only subject to correction, I would welcome it. I do not want anything
implied that says I don’t believe that we ought to recognize false teaching or that we ought not reprove and correct
false teaching. Wholeheartedly, I want that agreed.
Now the questions comes with regard to our treatment in each case and, frankly, I think that there have
been some things said in all the talks that indicate that there is a level of judgment that is going to be demanded
with regard to doctrinal teachings. Brother Halbrook’s opening statement mentioned that false teaching or a false
teacher is someone who causes people to sin and be lost. In subsequent discussion, he has readily agreed that we
may have some differences with regard to our interpretation of a passage of scripture. But look at the problem,
brethren. Two people differ over a question, whether it be the covering, the war question, or whatever. Who are
we to say that this matter would not matter to God? Who are we to say that this is not something that would cause
a person to go to Hell? One man may believe that it does and the other man believes that it does not. So the criteria
of these are things that cause people to sin and be lost puts us almost into a posture of Catholicism with cardinal
and venial sins or the old denominational concept of laws of God that are required and laws that are not required
– necessary and unnecessary commands. All teaching of God is bound and God is the one who will ultimately judge
and brother Halbrook has agreed that we ought not be dividing simply over a mistaken view on some brother. That
demands a judgment as to the impact of the situation.
Now again we say, we’re talking about this primarily against the backdrop of divorce and remarriage. And
as has already come up, one particular case seemed to have focused the attention of the brethren and that is the
case regarding brother Hailey. Frankly, for many years, most preachers and certainly I think all of the preachers
who are in this discussion knew brother Hailey’s view with regard to divorce and remarriage and differed with it.
I did. Most of you did, if not all of you. We knew his view.
Then something happened at Belen, New Mexico. We might argue about what actually happened but something
happened at Belen, New Mexico. And the next stage was that some people were saying brother Hailey cannot be continued
in fellowship with the brethren. Now stop and think a minute. It was not his doctrine. The doctrine was the same
before Belen as after Belen. Somebody says, "Yes, but he’s come out of the closet. He’s made himself a problem
to the brotherhood." That’s a judgment call. That judgment
may be right, but right or wrong, it’s a judgment call. And
some brethren said now we cannot continue to have the same kind of fellowship that we had with him before. When
we had fellowship with him before, we did not endorse his view on divorce and remarriage. We could not and should
not now. But somebody says, "Yes, but we can’t have any type of fellowship and we must label him and mark
and avoid." That may be an accurate decision but it is still a judgment call. And it appears to me that what has happened has been that the word has gone out that anybody who
does not follow that judgment is deemed as being soft on divorce and remarriage or wrong on fellowship. Now, if
I have said things that leave a clouded picture, I apologize. All it would take to find out what I meant when a
statement was made is a phone call and I would readily discuss that with anyone.
Some mention has been made of a talk that I made in 1993 in Temple Terrace. In that series, there had
been three discussions on divorce and remarriage with which I agree wholeheartedly. And the very paragraph from
which a statement has been taken said I was doing this in a context of divorce and remarriage. That very paragraph
in the manuscript goes on to say I didn’t want anybody to take anything that might be said in this discussion and
imply from it or conclude from it that I’m trying to broaden our fellowship on divorce and remarriage or any other
doctrinal matter and I’ve got the transcripts and will make them available.*
In North Carolina, I had spoken at the request of the church there on the matter of fellowship. I had
spoken three times – the Bible class hour and the two worship periods. Then we had a session for questions. Not
one word had been mentioned about divorce and remarriage in any of my discussions and I had not intended anything
on it. In the question and answer period, a brother asked what I thought about the situation with brother Hailey.
I made the statement that I didn’t agree with his view but I would not have done what some brethren have done.
I didn’t say what I would do. I didn’t say what was wrong with what they did. I simply said I wouldn’t have done
it that way. That statement has been taken to imply that I believe that he would be publicly used and endorsed.
What you need to do is ask me what have I done in fellowship? What I have done is I have continued to associate
in the sense of talking with him, visiting with him and discussing this very matter repeatedly trying to correct
a view. Does that imply an endorsement of his view on divorce and remarriage. Not anymore than it did prior to
the time of the situation in Belen, New Mexico.
Now we come back to some basic things. Brother Halbrook suggests that some things that I have called doctrinal
differences are not doctrinal. By whose definition? There’s an issue on the question of divorce and remarriage.
There are multiple questions in that. One of those questions is: Does the innocent party have to file for the divorce?
As he has mentioned, he and Mike (Willis) differ on that issue. They differ on that related issue. I can find you
a very well known preacher strongly associated with both of them who has told me that that issue would be made
a test of fellowship with him. When I asked if he would accept in the local congregation a brother who had differed
with him on this, he said, "No, we would not accept him." So now who’s going to determine that this question on marriage and divorce is not doctrinal? Sure it’s doctrinal.
It’s a matter of what you teach – what somebody else teaches.
The issue is: Should this issue be made a test of fellowship? I agree with Ron it ought not be. But again
we’re using a judgment matter of where are we going to draw the line of fellowship? Do I make it moral issues only?
Absolutely not, and I’ve said that as clearly as I know how,
brethren. A man can be honest and sincere and he can be teaching error to the point that I cannot endorse or fellowship
him and I would openly oppose him. I do that with regard to some people with regard to divorce and remarriage.
My judgment might differ with yours on when and where to do that. But the principle is not different.
Do we need to be divided over this? I think not. But if we’re going to insist that everybody treat every
case exactly the same, then we’re forcing ourselves into a sectarian view of the brotherhood. We’re demanding that
every congregation follow the same judgment call and if you’re
going to do that, we have written a creed, whether it be orally done or whether it be in writing. That kind of
thinking is to me the most dangerous kind of thinking that can face us today; that is, that somebody’s view is
going to be elevated to the point of making the decisions that the entire brotherhood must follow. Christianity
is an individual religion and my standing before God is based on my treatment of God’s word and you know that and
all of us believe that. My participation in a local congregation is an individual decision that I make and should
not be made if my participation implies the condoning of or the endorsing or the supporting of error.
I believe there are some cases, let me emphasize, not all there are some cases
where I might differ with a brother on his belief and yet continue to participate with him. On that ground, I feel
it is so important for us to treat one another as brethren, to discuss matters and ask questions if we have differences
among us. We need to understand clearly what each other is saying rather than to take some statement, imply a meaning
that the author did not intend and does not believe, then teach it and make people believe that the person believes
and practices something that is totally foreign to what he believes and practices. Does that exist today? I can
demonstrate it clearly. Should it exist? Of course not and brotherly love would solve that kind of problem among
us. I pray that our discussions together here will be effective to remove those feelings.
*"I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in a context of a series of discussions
on the marriage question. Maybe many of you came tonight expecting me to take all of the old problems in marriage
and to go down the check list and tell you what ought to be done in each of these problem areas. I don’t have all
the answers. And even if I did, that’s not the intention of my approach tonight at all. But lest anybody lift anything
that I say and try to imply from it that I am soft on some certain issue, or that I am at variance maybe with the
speakers that you’ve heard here with regard to the marriage question, I want to state briefly, that it is my conviction
that marriage is for life and that the only scriptural basis for the breaking of the union and forming another
while the partners live, is that of fornication. Only unfaithfulness gives the party the right to put the other
away and to be married to another. I further believe that God’s moral laws are applicable to all men. And that
the gospel of Christ is the power to answer the problem of sin that comes upon mankind as a violation of the general
premises of right and wrong that God has always had. And I concur with the views that have been expressed that
from the beginning, God has made marriage for life, for one man and for one woman. Now whatever I may say with
regard to the other issues tonight, I hope no one takes it and tries to imply a suggestion that we ought to ignore,
vary from, or be soft on the issues of divorce and remarriage or any other doctrinal problem in Scripture."
(This quotation is from the introductory remarks of Bob Owen in a sermon 9/2/93 at the church of Christ, Temple
Terrace, Florida.)
|
