|
 The truth of God about fellowship is rather direct and, with some exceptions, I
suspect that little friction will arise about definitions of words and phrases. I believe we will all probably
call to mind the same scriptures that others in this study will use in this discussion. Quoting the same scriptures,
however, does not insure unanimity. What seems ominous to me is a recurrence of what brother Harrell noted about
by-gone brethren: "In short, by the end of the nineteenth century Christians generally recognized that the
movement was dividing not because of doctrinal questions, but because of different mindsets."1 While exegetical and doctrinal
questions need to be addressed, we also need to be aware of the danger of different mindsets as we close the twentieth
century.
The debates
with brethren in the 1950's began with both sides accepting commands, examples and inferences but the mindset to
follow liberalism finally drove some to reject the "patterns" of examples and inferences: practice was
dictated by mental attitudes. Brother Guy N. Woods said, in response to Roy Cogdill's basic exposition of authority:
"With much of brother Cogdill's speech I am in complete agreement. In fact, I should say that the first half
of it was largely a waste of his time. No one calls in questions these matters which he discussed regarding the
authority of the scriptures..."2 From our vantage point today, we can appreciate what a tremendous difference existed, even
then, between the debaters' mindsets.
Unless
I am greatly mistaken, this same dangerous mindset is operating among us today. With a few notable exceptions,
churches of our time have previously excluded from their fellowship moral and doctrinal sins as well as those who
advocate them. However, the error of brother Homer Hailey3 (which has been publicly taught and has troubled churches4 ) and others who agree with him and/or
fellowship him in his error, have radically changed how some brethren are viewing fellowship as a whole. When Leroy
Garrett and Carl Ketcherside openly advocated unity in diversity and used Romans 14 as a partial basis for it,
they were publicly met and defeated by sound brethren. The first serious defense of using Romans 14 to allow fellowship
with doctrinal or moral error occurred in the Osborne-Patton Debate5, with brother Marshall Patton contending for the inclusion of doctrinal matters.
Since that time, Romans 14 has become the focal point of the mindset which will allow unity in diversity in moral
and doctrinal differences. The most extensive use of Romans 14 to encourage fellowship with "matters of considerable
moral and doctrinal import" (specifically, fellowship with brother Hailey even while disagreeing with his
error) is found in Christianity Magazine.6 Shall the fellowship of Christ be extended to embrace error that divides churches
and causes souls to be lost? We have been urged to do so, and the issue is joined. This lends a measure of urgency
to our studies today.
Additionally,
other brethren7
have added their voices as they use Romans 14 as a rationale for fellowship with "moral and doctrinal"
error in defense of unity in diversity. This teaching has precipitated
the current controversy but those who object are, as usual, being branded as instigators of controversy. We demand the same right to confront the error as those who claim the right to
introduce it. It is not "unrighteous," as has been charged,8 to quote those who teach error, citing the references, so long as utmost care
is exercised to avoid misrepresentation. It is certainly not out of order to reproduce the exact statements which
define that person's position. If there are contradictions between one's written statements and oral preaching,
one cannot be right in both instances. If there are contradictions between one's past public teaching and his current
private teaching about fellowship, these differences should be addressed and corrected rather than label objections
as "misrepresentations." For example: if some brethren have, in the past, affirmed continued and on-going
fellowship with brother Hailey, but can no longer do so, it is unseemly and unfair to charge those in opposition
with misrepresentation. Past affirmations of fellowship continue in force until they are clearly repudiated.
Does Historical Tolerance of Error Authorize Present Tolerance? It has been argued that brethren disagreed about the divorce question in the past
but tolerated their differences without dividing.9 Yet, if brethren in the past tolerated fellowship with error about adulterous
marriages without dividing, does this mean that we should tolerate fellowship with the same error today? Historical
tolerance of error proves only one thing: historical tolerance of error! If some restoration era churches tolerated
instruments of music, does that provide a present argument for toleration of instruments today? In fact, a case
could be well made that restoration churches did not tolerate adulterous marriages. But historical arguments which
offer advice to tolerate fellowship with moral or doctrinal error based on past generations should carry no more
weight than the "traditions of the elders" (Mt. 15:3).
What Does Inconsistency Prove?
The cry of inconsistency is often raised against some of us who teach that we should
not extend fellowship to those who teach and practice error. Pray tell, what does our inconsistency, if it exists,
prove? That we should therefore extend fellowship to those who teach and practice error? If someone teaches the
truth about vocal music in worship but inconsistently uses instrumental music in worship in his home, does that
inconsistency negate the truth about vocal music? If some are inconsistent in an application of the divorce issue,
does this mean that we should therefore extend fellowship to those who teach error about or receive adulterers
into our fellowship? What is the purpose of the criticism if not to advocate that we can receive into our fellowship
those who teach and practice error? It is hypocritical not to address one's own inconsistencies when citing another's
inconsistencies as proof that his position is wrong. The same issues that face us in trying to be consistent, face
those who disagree with us. If the issue on divorce and remarriage that was discussed in the Marshall Patton/H.E.
Phillips exchange10
is to be addressed, it should be addressed by both positions. You criticize us as being inconsistent by accepting
some among us who hold the Marshall Patton position. What are you calling on brethren to do? Are you saying, "Since
we accept brother Patton in spite of our differences on divorce and remarriage, we should also accept those who
hold the Hailey position, the Bassett position, or the Olan Hicks position?" If that is not what you are saying,
then you are also distinguishing in some way Patton's position from that of Hailey, Bassett, and Hicks. You also
are saying that there are some issues on divorce and remarriage that should not divide us and some that should.
To condemn others for making the same distinction you make is inconsistent! If that is not what you are doing,
then plainly make your argument for extending the same fellowship to those who hold Bassett's and Hick's position
as you defend fellowship with reference to brother Hailey. Should we be consistent? Absolutely. But the search
for truth is not the same as a search for inconsistencies. The issue has been and continues to be: Can we receive
into our continuing and on-going fellowship those who teach and practice error? Why raise the question of inconsistency
if not in order to say that our inconsistency proves us wrong, therefore, it is scriptural to receive those into
fellowship who teach and practice error?
Areas of Concern About Fellowship
Language that strains Fellowship:
I believe I owe to you brethren the same respect and honor which I claim for myself. Please note the absence in
my writing of invectives of improper motives. This can not be said contrariwise. Language that strains fellowship
has included accusations against brethren such as: "Watch Them Dogs," "A pack of snarling curs,
suspicious and paranoid, biting, snarling and snapping in all directions..." "...a paranoid frenzy of
biting and devouring one another... "...slander in the name of the gospel..." " journalistic and
pulpit jingoism..."11
"extremists who have their own cause to promote..." "...reckless and irresponsible..."12 "...unrighteous and
dishonorable..." "sectarianism," "jingoists,"13 'scavengers" "looking for carrion," "perennial gossips and
fault-finders (often 'nit-pickers'), "vultures," "unreasonable scrupulosity," "witch hunters"
and "brotherhood inquisitors,"14 (among other epithets). Though private expressions of regret may have been extended
to a few brethren that such language has been used, these accusations will continue to damage fellowship until
they are as publicly repudiated as they were publicly administered. While it is easy to attribute base motives
to those who oppose unity in diversity and fellowship with "considerable moral and doctrinal matters,"
is it not possible, just possible, to recognize that something other than a "party spirit," or "jingoism,"
or "extremism," a "cur dog" mentality, motivates those of us who hold to a different view of
Romans 14? I ask you to grant to those of us who differ the same noble heart that you envision in yourselves.
Language that restrains Sound Preaching:
A thematic that vows to "accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative"15 is not scriptural when compared with
the apostle Paul's determination to "preach the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). While recognizing
areas of judgment to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Tim. 2:15) according to the needs of readers/hearers,
policies which restrict one's ability to "reprove, rebuke and exhort" (2 Tim. 4:2) limit the scope of
the gospel. This is especially apparent when sound brethren perceive error to be taught and are denied the right
to address it. Further, the drive to "accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative" has been responsible
in large part, I believe, for current preaching that contains less scripture and more anecdotes,16 preaching that refuses to
expose the errors of denominationalism or of brethren by name and condemns those who do, preaching that makes an
"uncertain sound" (1 Cor. 14:8). The charge against sound preaching as being "too hard" is
generated by unfair comparisons to "soft preaching." Labeling sound preaching as "jingoist"
or "sectarian" demeans truth itself. Even with perfect attitudes, Jesus' preaching "offended"
some (John 6:59-66). When error is addressed today with a Christ-like spirit, a charge of bad attitudes, accompanied
by a hue and cry of "negative-ism" is the response. The seeds of "positive preaching" are reaping
a fearful harvest of brethren who detest sound preaching. It can only get worse as a generation grows up on soft
preaching, unable to "endure sound doctrine...because they have itching ears" (2 Tim. 4:3). Fellowship
in Christ cannot flourish among brethren when sound preaching is condemned as "too hard." Cries against
"hard" preaching are often disguised disgust with truth itself. Error and those who promote it must be
exposed (Eph. 5:11), or we forfeit the right to be called gospel preachers. Cries against hard preaching, generated
at first by those exposed in sin, are wafted and carried along by those in sympathy with "positive preaching"
and do disservice to servants of the gospel. Expressions of disgust against papers or preachers who are willing
to be scripturally militant (Eph. 6:10-19) encourage a lack of reading, study and diligence among brethren.
Language that advocates fellowship with teachers of error: Brother Owen has taught: "I'm talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I'm doing
it in a context of a series of discussions on the marriage question."17
Again:
"So let me suggest in the Scripture there are some cases discussed in detail where brethren had some differences
in conviction. They differed in their beliefs. They differed in their practices. And yet they not only could continue
to fellowship, but they were taught by Paul, the Lord through Paul, that they should continue to fellowship."18
And again:
"On the marriage question, as I've indicated, I'm a conservative. And there are some people who have been
very critical of brother Hailey and I agree with those people who are critical of him on the Bible teaching with
regard to divorce and remarriage. But I differ with them on their interpretation and application of the fellowship
issue."19
This is a clear case of one advocating fellowship with a brother who teaches and practices error about adulterous
marriages.
Brother Ed Harrell taught: "It is perfectly proper that some congregations
have not, and would not, invite Homer Hailey to preach because of the position he holds on this subject. Others,
rightly I believe, have decided to use him in spite of the difference."20 Brethren, fellowship with an admittedly sinful practice has been preached and
defended. This was not a call for forbearance while one called on another to repent, but a defense of an on-going
and never-ending fellowship with those who teach what all of us admit is false doctrine on divorce and remarriage.
There has been no misunderstanding of the issue that has strained our fellowship.
Jack
Holt of Richardson, TX, has been just as direct in his desire to promote fellowship with error. He is willing to
affirm: "RESOLVED: The scriptures (including Romans 14)
teach that ongoing fellowship may exist between Christians who believe each other are practicing moral and doctrinal
error (for example, different practices and teaching regarding divorce and remarriage.)"21 This plainly states the issue. Obviously,
it has not been misunderstood, over-blown or exaggerated. It is a present danger to sound doctrine. Would any here
affirm this proposition? If so, I will deny it.
If it
is true, as has been privately reported to me, that some who have previously endorsed fellowship with brother Hailey
have now changed their minds, it is incumbent upon them to openly repent of this error and publicly acknowledge
that change. This would greatly facilitate fellowship. Brother Pickup has already spoken against fellowship with
brother Hailey and our differences have narrowed. In response to my question, "Are you saying then that you
do not believe it scriptural to have fellowship with those who teach doctrines like brother Hailey," brother
Pickup stated: "I thought that that was what I said just a moment ago. That's what I intended to say."22 Now, we will continue to
work on our differences about the teaching of Romans 14 and fellowship, but this hurdle between us no longer remains.
It would be helpful to many brethren if similar statements would be forthcoming in an attempt to promote fellowship.
Language that misuses Romans 14 by inserting matters of "the faith once for
all delivered" (Jude 3) instead of "personal faith" as a basis of unity in diversity: Brother Owen has stated, "Now the fellow who thought it could be a sin to
eat those meats had to look at the other fellow and think he was sinning. Had to. In Rome, the fellow who thought
it was a sin to eat any kind of meat would have to think you sinned if you ate a piece of meat. And yet Paul taught
them that they should accept each other."23 This is the language and teaching to which we strongly object. Does fellowship
extend to "accepting each other" in matters that all concede to be "sin"? Brother Owen's argument
was made in the context of defending a congregation's right to have an on-going and continuous fellowship with
someone like brother Hailey, who was teaching what all admit is false doctrine on divorce and remarriage. Some
have claimed "misrepresentation" when they are charged with advocating fellowship with "some sins".
Such statements as this one prove our case and justify our fears. Advocacy of fellowship with some sinful practices
has been, and continues to be, taught.
"The
brethren who say that the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 can only be applied in matters that
are matters of indifference have effectively eliminated those passage for any application within our brotherhood.
Because the difference that exists among brethren, exists because one says it's a matter of law. And the guy who
says it's a matter of law, cannot come along and say, 'Well, we'll fellowship because it's a matter of indifference.'
He doesn't think it's a matter of indifference. He thinks it's a matter of law, a matter of faith."24 To emphasize once again,
does the on-going fellowship of Romans 14 extend to one who is violating "a matter of law," and not another's
personal conscience?
Brother
Pickup stated: "First of all, I said a moment ago, in the fellowship of Jesus, is it ever justified in tolerating
some doctrinal disagreements? The 14th chapter of Romans teaches that as plainly, to me as it can possibly be taught."25 At this point, brother Pickup
seems to agree with those who are willing to use Romans 14 as the basis of fellowship with brother Hailey. Yet
he has disavowed fellowship with him in that error. The charge of inconsistency often raised toward us applies
equally well in this instance. Is brother Pickup in fellowship with those who fellowship brother Hailey in his
error? Would he receive Bob Owen or Ed Harrell "into his house or greet" them" (2 Jno. 9-11)? Would
brethren Owen or Harrell receive brother Hailey into their home or endorse him in his preaching today? If Romans
14 will permit us to "tolerate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions,"
with some sins, why not allow fellowship with brother Hailey, as originally stated?
Affirmative Teaching About Fellowship
The fundamental premise upon which fellowship with God and brethren is established
and maintained is that of "walking in the light" (1 Jn. 1:7).26 The apostles gave their witness of thresurrected Christ to establish faith (Jn.
20:21; 1 Jn. 1:2-5). That faith, shared by us in common, results in fellowship with God and the apostles (1 Jn.
1:3) and "one another" as "the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin" (v. 7). We "walk in the light"
that we may become "sons of light" (Jn. 12:36) and "shine
as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15; Mt. 5:16).
Paul referred to this fellowship as the "unity
of the Spirit" into which we are called and which we
must "endeavor to keep" with "all lowliness and gentleness, bearing with one another in love"
and "the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:1-3).
The fellowship
commonly shared by those "justified by faith" (Rom. 5:1), or the "brotherhood" (1 Pt. 2:17),
is realized as we are part of the "one body" (Eph. 4:5). All spiritual blessings are found "in Christ."
Thus, there can be no fellowship among brothers which is alien to that in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14). This inclusive
faith is also exclusive of those unwilling to receive the "witness of the apostles" (1 Jn. 1:2-3), further
defined by "the faith" (Jude 3) or "the doctrine of Christ" (2 Jn. 9). From these, "brothers" are to "come out from among them
and be separate, says the Lord" (v. 17).
Text and Context: Is Fellowship With Sin Authorized?
It is bizarre, to my thinking, that seasoned brethren are discussing how much sin
we may fellowship or how much false doctrine is permissible among brethren. The idea is astounding! The chief passage
which is so often abused in order to force "receiving" brethren in sin is Romans 14:1 - 15:7. But Romans
14-15 is preceded by Romans 13:11-14 which demands that we "cast off darkness" (v. 12), "walk becomingly...not
in reveling" (v. 13), or "make no provision for the flesh" (v. 14). Thus moral sins are condemned.
Succeeding Romans 14-15 is Romans 16:17-19 which demands that we "mark those that are causing division and
occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine," (v. 17). This condemns doctrinal sins. Yet we are asked
to believe that the intervening verses (between chs. 13 and 16) permit the very thing these chapters condemn: moral
and doctrine errors.
Fellowship
with God and with the body of Christ is thus conditional upon acknowledging the truth revealed by Christ's ambassadors
(1 Cor. 2:12-13; 2 Cor. 5:20). This truth is knowable (Jn. 8:32), understandable (Eph. 3:4), teachable (2 Tim.
2:2), completely revealed (Jude 3) and will be the basis of our judgment (Jn. 12:48). As a body of truth (the faith,
the gospel, the doctrine of Christ), it provides the parameters of our fellowship. We are not to "go beyond,"
but to "abide in" the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11). Those willing to have fellowship with or encourage
those who teach error "share in his evil deeds."
We are
taught "that we all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly
joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). The apostolic practice was to "remind
you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17). Jesus prayed that all believers
"might be one." Did Jesus pray for something that can never be? Did Paul command us to speak the same
thing when it is not possible to speak the same thing? Are we
to accept that a unity in diversity that allows fellowship with doctrinal error is the fellowship that is in Christ? If "historical reality denies that such unanimity existed in New Testament
congregations or that it exists today," why does Acts 2:42 declare that the early church "continued steadfastly
in the apostles' doctrine?" To suggest that unity in doctrine is not possible is to deny the witness of the
apostles. Unity in diversity has no place in this fellowship for diversity of doctrine is soundly condemned. It
is axiomatic that "going beyond the doctrine of Christ " to allow fellowship with "major moral and
doctrinal differences" will rend the fabric of fellowship. One cannot be, both and at the same time, "abiding
in the doctrine" while embracing "works of lawlessness" (Mt. 7:23). Indeed, we are commanded: "Have
no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Eph. 5:11).
To be
sure, we are not denying the need to be patient and longsuffering toward brethren in sin (1 Thes. 5:14; Eph. 4:2-3;
Jude 21-23). In 1 Thessalonians 5:14, Paul exhorted the brethren to "be longsuffering toward all." That
"all" included the "disorderly" along with the "fainthearted" and "weak."
Yet, the "disorderly" could not be received into an on-going fellowship for Paul instructed them in a
letter shortly after this instruction to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly"
(2 Thes. 3:6). No one denies the need to work with brethren, whether "overtaken in a trespass" (Gal.
6:1) or in the grip of sinful practices (Gal. 3:1-4). But patience and longsuffering which is intended to bring
sinners to repentance is not the same as "receiving one" in matters of personal conscience in an open
and on-going fellowship (Rom. 14). The proper action in Romans 14 toward the one practicing the disputed action
is: "receive him" (v. 1), do not "judge" him to be sinful for God receives him in the practice
(v. 3-4, 10, 13), recognize that he "stands" before God (v. 4), "let each be fully convinced in
his own mind" (v. 5), accept his practice as "clean" (v. 14), "good," (v. 16), and "pure"
(v. 20), admit him to be "acceptable to God" (v. 18), keeping that matter of personal faith "to
yourself" (v. 22), and not disputing about it (v. 1).
Can such
language as is used in Romans 14 describe sinful preaching and practicing? Is an adulterous marriage or fellowship
with sin a matter of personal conscience about which we may consider it clean, good, and pure? May we refrain from
judging about fellowship with sinful matters? Does the sinner or those who fellowship him "stand" before
God by just being "fully convinced in his own mind"? Are we to keep our beliefs about sinful matters
and fellowship in them "to ourselves as personal faith"?
Fellowship on Two Levels: First - The Church Universal Every brother who is accepted in Christ is likewise a brother to everyone else accepted
by Christ (Acts 2:39). We acknowledge and share in that spiritual relationship unless we are convinced that a Christian
becomes unworthy of fellowship with Christ (1 Jn. 2:19; 4:6). In that case, brotherhood fellowship is withheld
on a personal basis rather than congregational. Fellowship is co-extensive with our relation to Christ and beneficial
in many ways.
When
Peter said, "Love the brotherhood" (1 Pet. 2:17), he implied a responsibility beyond mere relationship,
even as he did by saying, "Fear God," and "Honor the king." While it is true that fellowship
in the "general assembly" (Heb. 12:23) exists on the basis of individual (not congregational) relationships
in Christ and can never be activated as an entity, it does not follow that fellowship of a universal nature does
not carry responsibilities to those brothers whom we have not met. "Mutual participation" may be concurrent
among individuals and not only congregational. The brethren in Jerusalem gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship"
beyond congregational boundaries as he preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). Philippi had "fellowship
in the gospel" with Paul far beyond a single church boundary when they supported him in his journeys to far
places (Phil. 1:5).
May Individuals In The Church Universal Expose Sin?
It is quite obvious that some brethren erroneously limit fellowship only to the
local church relationship. They will not extend fellowship to distant saints or withhold fellowship from distant
saints, thus denying blessings on the one hand while allowing error to flourish on the other. Faithful saints all
over the world benefit from universal fellowship and its practical effects. At the same time, teachers of error
and ungodly members sin without restraint because individual brethren are condemned for exposing sin "in the
brotherhood." False teachers are allowed to travel the country, spreading their error, hiding behind an exaggerated
sense of "local autonomy." They demand the right to teach at will while speaking ill of those who oppose
their error. And those who do expose teachers of error outside their local church are accused of "meddling"
or of being a "brotherhood watchdog." It is to the point to observe that the same right some have to
advocate fellowship with brother Hailey in the general assembly gives others the same right to expose his error
and deny him their fellowship
Perhaps
we need to be reminded that the Great Commission authorizes us to preach the word to "all the world...to every
creature" (Mk. 16:15). Please observe that the right to baptize anyone, anywhere, also gives us the right
to apply "all things that I have commanded you" to anyone, anywhere (Mt. 18:18-20). Local autonomy is
not a sanctuary for sin! False teachers cannot hide behind congregational walls and claim immunity from exposure.
The word of God is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9)!
One brother
has taught: "Just as issues can only divide local churches, so fellowship, in any practical sense, can only
exist in the same. Fellowship refers to the joint participation, the sharing together, of saints in the collective
work of local churches. Christians have no fellowship in the work of the universal church or brotherhood, because
the universal church has no collective work assigned by the Lord, nor means to exercise such. Only in a local church
setting can fellowship - in this practical sense - be extended or withheld."27 I hope you understand the implications of this statement. Believing it, one might
say that "I have never been in fellowship with brother Hailey because I have never worshiped in a local congregation
with him. Therefore I have no obligation to expose his error." But this would deny universal fellowship.
In Romans
15, Paul speaks of the benevolent obligation understood by brethren in Macedonia and Achaia to brethren in Judea.
He speaks of that obligation on the basis of a common fellowship between the brethren despite their geographical
separation. Note his point: "for if the gentiles have been made partakers (gk. koinwnew, verb form of koinwnia) of their spiritual
things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things" (Rom. 15:27). Thus, the fellowship
existing between brethren in different places is given as the reason for the benevolent obligation towards brethren
in other places. How can anyone deny that universal fellowship is exercised beyond the local congregation? 2 Corinthians
8:4 also makes the same appeal as Paul exhorts those in Corinth to complete their part in "the fellowship
in the ministering to the saints." When brethren share the same faith in Christ, the same relationship in
his body, and are co-laborers in the work of Christ, the Bible describes them as having "fellowship."
Any concept of fellowship that does not take into account this fact is fundamentally flawed. Likewise, any concept
of fellowship that does not provide for discipline of sin is fundamentally flawed.
Universal Fellowship Has Blessings and Responsibilities
"Loving the brotherhood" will cause one to act in the best interest of
every brother, near and far. Paul was under obligation to all "for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker
of it with you" (1 Cor. 9:18-23). The brethren at Ephesus were commended by Paul "for the love which
ye show toward all the saints" (Eph. 1:15), as were the brethren at Colossae (1:4). He, himself, noted his
love for those, "as many as have not seen my face in the flesh" (2:1-3). The "love of the brotherhood"
is shown by our prayers
for them (Rom. 1:8f; 1 Cor. 1:4f; Eph. 1:15f; 3:14f, Phil. 1:3f et al). Again, the "love of the brotherhood"
will spur us to support evangelistic and benevolent needs among the nations as opportunity permits. Our universal fellowship compels activities
in their best interest "doing good...to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10) This will include edifying: "Let no corrupt
speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying" (Eph. 4:29). When Apollos went to Achaia,
the brethren at Ephesus wrote letters to them (an extra-congregational activity), exhorting the brethren at Achaia to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). This is identical with
the modern practice of a church sending out bulletins beyond congregational boundaries to teach and exhort. Contrary to charges against
that practice, it is not meddling in the affairs of another congregation. Much good was done during the institutional
battles of the 1950's and beyond as church bulletins openly discussed the burning issues of that time. Likewise,
bulletins that discuss current errors do not meddle as they teach and exhort "the brotherhood." Those
who sharply criticize "brotherhood meddlers" are denying to others the exact practice in which they engage.
Paul marked "Hymenaeus and Alexander" (1 Tim. 1:20), "Phygellus and Hermogenes" (2 Tim. 1:15),
"Hymenaeus and Philetus" (2 Tim. 2:17), and "Alexander the coppersmith" (4:14) for their sins
though not in a local church with them. He also commended Onesiphorus (1 Tim. 1:16), "Lois and Eunice"
(2 Tim. 1:5) and others for their faithfulness. While it is understood clearly that we must not activate a brotherhood
organization, let us not deprive ourselves of the blessings and responsibilities of brotherhood fellowship.
Second - Local Church Fellowship
While our fellowship with Christ and brethren in the general assembly is exclusive
of organizational ties, the local church is inclusive of brethren in an arrangement designed by God to permit Christians
working together under local leadership (Phil. 1:1). The Lord's people in each locality "came together"
(1 Cor. 5:4; 11:17; 14:23) to work and worship as an entity, a body (Eph. 4:11-16). Paul "assayed to join
himself to the disciples" at Jerusalem (Acts 9:26) and he was with them, "coming in and going out"
(v. 28). The congregation allows saints to engage in "fellow" activities as a corporate unit which mutually
edifies and strengthens each in a synergistic manner that exceeds each several part. Christians in a local church,
however, do sin (Acts 8; 1 Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1) and the bonds of fellowship are strained.
How Is Fellowship Maintained In The Local Church When Sin Takes
Place?
Without a doubt, scripture teaches that we should bear with one another in love
(1 Cor. 13:1-8a; 1 Jn. 4:7-11, 20-21), being longsuffering (Gal. 5:22; Eph. 4:2), and patient (1 Thes. 5:14), even
when attempting to restore a brother who sins (Gal. 6:1).
Yet it
should be fully understood that both fellowship with God and fellowship with a local church can be broken by sin
(Rev. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:4-5; 2 Thes. 3:6). Christians must be willing to "come out" from unrighteous relationships
(2 Cor. 6:14-18). Participation with another in sinful teaching or practice is strictly forbidden (2 Jn. 9-11),
whether in a local church or the general assembly. God not only
condemns the practice of sin but those who approve of sinful practices (Rom.1:32).
We are to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose (reprove) them"
(Eph. 5:11). There must be no toleration of sinful teaching or practice! Unity in diversity has no place in dealing
with moral and doctrinal sins.
When a brother sins against me,
personally, the correct procedure is patience and correction, bringing the sinner either to repentance or to discipline
before the church (Mt. 18:15-17).
When the sin is public, either
of moral or doctrinal transgression, other Christians must "convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering
and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2). Some sins should be "rebuked sharply" (Tit.1 :13). Depending on the
circumstances, different approaches may be taken: "And on some have compassion, making a distinction, but
others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh" (Jude 22-23).
Whichever approach the circumstances recommend, it should be clearly noted that the purpose of discipline is to
save the sinner from death (1 Cor. 5:5).
Let there be no mistake that patience and longsuffering with sinners is not the
same as toleration, an on-going fellowship with, or a "receiving" of one in the teaching or practice
of sin. Patience and longsuffering has limits and the sinner
must repent or be brought to discipline.
Lacking
repentance, sin must be removed from the fellowship or the fellowship itself will be corrupted (1 Cor. 5:6; 2 Thes.
3:6, 14). Romans 14 (which demands on-going, continuous fellowship in matters of personal conscience) is not properly
applied to fellowshipping the practice of sin. How, then, do we apply the principles of fellowship in a local church
in the presence of brethren who are less than perfect? First, we acknowledge that there will always be in the fellowship of the saints those
who have imperfect knowledge of Bible doctrine, for the church is composed of babes in Christ, mature Christians
and those at every step in between. Secondly, these imperfections in belief and practice are to be addressed through preaching of the
whole counsel of God, calling on men to turn away from every erroneous doctrine and sinful practice. Bringing the weak to maturity (Eph. 4:13) is not equal with toleration of sin! Finally, when men are perceived as rebelling against that revealed word, either with reference
to sinful conduct or rejection of divine doctrine, they are to be disfellowshipped.
Romans 14, Fellowship With Sin and A Lack of Clarity
There are some among us who are grossly misusing Romans 14 by pressing strongly
that we "receive" one with a sinful teaching or practice. They are advocating an on-going, continual
fellowship in violation of the passages just cited. What began as a defense of brother Homer Hailey in his erroneous
position regarding adulterous marriages has now broadened among other brethren to toleration of additional sinful
teaching and practice: instrumental music, social drinking, mixed swimming, gambling,28 divorce and remarriage, etc.29 Romans 14 is given as the
proof-text of "receiving" these "sinful matters" because Paul taught the weak brother to receive
the strong brother even though the strong brother was perceived to practice sin.
I wish
to register the strongest protests possible to this violent abuse of scripture. This false view of fellowship with
sinful matters has the potential of doing more damage to the cause of Christ in our generation than any other single
issue. If consistently applied, the application of fellowship through a misuse of Romans 14 will allow reception
of sinful teachings and practices that are "honestly held," or about which the scriptures have not spoken
with sufficient "clarity."30 Whether or not one is honest must be subjectively determined whereas the scriptures objectively
speak. Whether or not the scriptures are "clear" may depend on one's agreement with what is revealed.
Baptism is not sufficiently clear to a Baptist who honestly claims to believe the Bible. Music is not sufficiently
clear to the Christian Church member who honestly claims to believe the Bible. Adultery is not sufficiently clear
to the guilty fornicator who honestly claims to believe the Bible. Romans 14 has become the panacea for all problems
of fellowship: put the matter in the chapter and "receive" one another.
Please
notice carefully the parameters of Romans 14 which will not permit it to include sinful teaching and practices
in its "reception." 1) Neither the weak nor strong brothers were practicing matters that were inherently
sinful. 2) On the contrary, the subjects of discussion were said to be "clean" (v. 14), "good"
(v. 16) and "pure" (v. 20). 3) Both brethren could continue their practice or non-practice of the disputed
matter and be in God's fellowship. 4) Each was to be "fully convinced in his own mind" (v. 5) - which
is not a liberty in sinful matters. 5) Judging one another was forbidden (vv. 3-4) - which is not a liberty in
sinful matters. 6) Each was to keep his personal faith to himself (v. 22) - which is not a liberty in sinful matters.
7) "Serving Christ in these things" (v. 18) is not possible in sinful matters. 8) Toleration of sin does
not edify one another (v. 19). They were not to "dispute" about such matters (v. 1) - which is not possible
about sinful matters (Jude 3).
If Sin Is Permitted In Romans 14, The Context Is Destroyed
If sin is injected into Romans 14, it completely destroys the context. Apply adulterous
marriages and social drinking in the context of "receiving" and observe the ruinous effect it has on
Paul's teaching. The strong brother was the practitioner (the adulterer, the drinker); the weak brother was the
objector (the one believing the truth and objecting to the sin). As one brother taught or practiced (adultery or
social drinking), he was considered "the strong brother" by Paul. However, the one who objected (to the
sinful practice) was labeled "the weak brother." Paul's instruction to the weak (who objected to sin!)
was to stop judging and to receive the brother in the practice of (adultery or social drinking). How ludicrous
this view would make scripture to appear!
Authorized Liberties and "Matters of Indifference"
Actually, the discussion of Romans 14 centers on matters of "authorized liberty,"
not sin. In the parallel passages that discuss the same issue, Paul describes such issues as a "liberty"
(8:9) and "lawful" (10:23) - thus, authorized liberties. Authorized liberties are neither condemned nor
forbidden, but allowed. It is scriptural, right, good to practice or not practice such matters, depending on personal conscience. It is evident
that adulterous marriages are not "clean," "good," or "pure," even if their consciences
do not condemn them (vv. 5, 22-23). They are not authorized liberties but condemned sins. To receive such sins
in an on-going, continuous fellowship as permitted in Romans 14 about authorized liberties is to make havoc of
truth.
Identifying
these "authorized liberties" as "matters of indifference" has been objected to because some
say, "It is not a matter of indifference to the weak brother." Such an objection misses the point. It
is a matter of indifference to God,
regardless of the vigor of the weak brother's objection. By "authorized liberty," I am describing those
kinds of matters described in 1 Corinthians 8:8: "But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat
are the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." In the case before us in Romans 14, the weak brother
was not "weak" because he lacked fortitude against eating meats. He was strongly and vocally opposed
to it. He was weak in that his knowledge was not what it should be (1 Cor. 8:7). He was emotionally restrained
from eating meats, vehemently so. But the inspired instruction was to remind him that he was not to bind where
God had loosed; eating meats is an authorized liberty (1 Tim. 4:3-4; 1 Cor. 8:8). It was a matter of indifference
to God whether
a brother ate meat or did not, practiced circumcision or did not; observed days or did not. The weak brother was
reminded that God had received the strong brother (which would not be the case if sin was involved). Both of them
had to be careful of their attitudes toward the other, but no inherent sin was involved.
Are Adulterous Marriages Parallel To The Covering Question?
Invariably, some will equate carnal warfare and the head covering with the subject
matter of Romans 14 and insist that these issues are matters of sin to some brethren today. "Now the fellow
who thought it could be a sin to eat those meats had to look at the other fellow and think he was sinning."31 I repeat: regardless of what
the brethren thought, it was not sinful, and the instruction of Paul to the weak brother was for him to stop judging
his brother to be in sin when he was not. But please observe carefully the argument made by brother Owen: We are to receive one even though we think he is sinning!
If brethren
wish to compare our differences on divorce and remarriage to the head covering issue or carnal warfare, let us
be sure that we clearly understand what is being said. On the head covering issue, we receive into our fellowship
those who believe that it is a sin for a sister to worship God in an assembly with her head uncovered and who practice
that position. We can do that because we believe and teach that the head covering is a matter of personal conscience
and not inherently sinful (and this applies also to carnal warfare). If the divorce and remarriage issue is parallel
to the head covering issue or carnal warfare, then we are obligated to receive into our fellowship those who teach
and practice error on adulterous marriages. If one is not willing to make this application, why make the argument?
Some
brethren leave our fellowship because they are unable to accept their view as being a matter of personal conscience.
They sever fellowship, we do not. This splintering effect is the end result of brethren binding where God has not
bound. We have seen this with those brethren who teach and practice that Bible classes are sinful. While we can
accept them because of our understanding that Bible classes are matters of authorized liberty, they cannot and
divide from us. Fellowship is broken in each of these cases (the covering question, carnal warfare and no-Bible
classes) because matters of personal conscience are pressed as tests of fellowship, just as the weak brother did
in Romans 14. The apostolic instruction, however, is to stop such judging (vv. 3-4, 10, 13) and receive one another
because God has received both (v. 3). If you are not willing to apply this truth to adulterous marriages, stop
paralleling adulterous marriages to the covering question!
I realize
that some brethren get as emotional about carnal warfare, the veil and Bible classes as the weak brother did about
meat. But their emotion does not govern the case, God's word does. As with every issue, a thing must be authorized
before it is optional. If it is sinful, the practice of it is condemned. The
present danger here is that many will accept the fact that "to the weak brother, it is sinful," and accept
the premise that we can fellowship sinful things. Once you have
accepted that premise, there is no logical, consistent stopping place! Each person known to me who has argued for
"receiving some sins" has tried to erect arbitrary rules by which some sins are received and some sins
are excluded.32
None of them holds up to scrutiny. Once the gate has been opened that "some sins can be received" in
continuous fellowship, not a person living can shut that gate short of complete apostasy.
Does Romans 14 Include Matters That Are Commanded, Forbidden
or Allowed?
Some assert that Romans 14 contains matters of doctrinal importance. "First
of all, I said a moment ago, in the fellowship of Jesus, is it ever justified in tolerating some doctrinal disagreements?
The 14th chapter of Romans teaches that as plainly, to me as it can possibly be taught."33 It seems to me that one of
the greatest differences between us about Romans 14 is whether or not we consider the subject matter "doctrinal"
or "matters of authorized liberties" (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:23).
In the
broadest sense, every word of scripture is doctrine, as in the "apostles' doctrine," or teaching (Acts
2:42). But not all of scripture is "doctrinal" in the same sense of 2 John 9: "Whoever transgresses
and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ." Within the doctrine of Christ, there are some things that are
commanded, some that are forbidden, but also some things that are neither commanded nor forbidden, but allowed.
We do a great injustice to truth if we do not respect the divine distinction between these categories. Clearly, the practices under consideration in Romans 14 are neither commanded nor
forbidden, but allowed, thus "authorized liberties," or "matters of indifference to God." Circumcision is another illustration of this principle. "For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6). Circumcision
is a doctrinal matter, but it is neither commanded nor forbidden. It is a violation of the most basic rules of
Bible study to place in the same context matters of unequal values. Adulterous marriages cannot be equated with
the "teaching" about circumcision because they are not of equal force: one is forbidden and the other
is allowed. Adulterous marriages and meats in Romans 14 are not equal categories: one is forbidden while the other
is allowed. The doctrine of Christ demands that we acknowledge and practice an area of liberty, personal conscience,
where one brother can differ from another and not "go beyond the doctrine of Christ." Therefore when
one forces into Romans 14 the meaning of things commanded or forbidden, the passage is wrested from its context
and liberty is denied. Even worse, when matters of moral and doctrinal sin are thrust into the chapter, the principle
of liberty is twisted to become a license for sin, accepting into fellowship what God has condemned. Using "doctrine"
without distinction in referring to Romans 14 misleads many into believing that matters of personal conscience
have the same relation to fellowship as do things commanded or forbidden. However, neither the strong nor the weak
brother "goes beyond the doctrine of Christ" by eating meats or refraining from meats. Both are permitted
to choose and are at liberty in the matter. When matters are injected into Romans 14 that are either commanded
or forbidden and treated as though they are authorized liberties, a
license to sin has been created.
This,
in fact, is what has occurred and is the heart of our controversy over fellowship. Because some have injected sinful
matters (things forbidden) into Romans 14, they force a conclusion upon Paul that is not valid: "Receive one
another in that sinful practice." We have seen that with the approval of such in teaching doctrinal error
and the practice of adulterous marriages. Now, that the precedent has been set, others are quick to rush gambling,
immodesty, social drinking and other forbidden items into the chapter. Those responsible for this havoc are guilty
of mixing terms,34
which is always destructive to Bible knowledge.
Which Is It: Personal Faith or The Faith?
Again, a difference between "faith" and "the faith" must be
observed. Jude 3 shows that matters of "the faith" (either things commanded or forbidden) must be contended
about if violated. However, the subject matter in Romans 14 is restricted from "disputing" (v. 1) because
it is not of "the faith," but "personal faith." Notice verse 22: "Do you have faith? Have
it to yourself before God." This could not possibly be "the faith" for it is not held to ourselves
but proclaimed to others. Verse 23 carries the same type of personal faith, personal conscience: "Whatever
is not from faith is sin." However, some are making the same mistake with "the faith" as they are
with "doctrine." By mixing unequal terms, personal faith is said to be replaced with "the faith"
and differences of "the faith" are allowed. Again, a
license for sin is created. Those who make these kinds of arguments
should not ignore the fact that succeeding generations who accept that error will not stop where these brethren
have stopped. They will be responsible for opening a floodgate that will authorize a license for sin that will
flood the church with fellowship with all kinds of sin.
Is Doctrinal Agreement Possible or Must We Accept Unity in Diversity?
We all have heard: "In Matters of Faith, Unity; In Matters of Opinion, Liberty;
In All Things, Charity." I understand "faith" here to refer to "the faith" (Jude 3). Likewise,
"matters of opinion" refers to matters of authorized liberty. God's grace has provided an area where
brethren may disagree without splintering: in matters of authorized liberty, Romans 14. We quite evidently need
the instruction of Romans 14.
But it
does not follow that unity in diversity extends to doctrinal matters. In fact, there is great clarity regarding
unity in doctrine. "For this reason, I have sent Timothy to you, who...will remind you of my ways in Christ,
as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17). "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles
of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). "Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary
to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). "Whoever transgresses and does not abide
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the
Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 Jn. 9-11). "Contend for the faith once for all delivered
unto the saints" (Jude 3). How vividly this contrasts with the statement that "unity in diversity is
the only unity."
Is there
a lack of clarity to God's word? Recognizing the difference between "milk" and "meat" (Heb.
5:12-14) explains why Peter referred to Paul's writings as "hard to be understood" (2 Pet. 3:16). "Hard
to be understood" does not mean impossible. The unity in diversity doctrine is a blatant attack on a fundamental
premise of the restoration movement, namely that men can understand
the Bible alike. Does it not impugn God's wisdom to suggest that
he holds us accountable to things that are not sufficiently clear so as to be understood? On the contrary: "When
you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4). "Therefore do not be
foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (5:17). "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you, but
that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). We may "know
the truth" (Jn. 8:32). We are to "abide in that which we heard from the beginning" (1 Jn. 2:24).
We are to "keep his word" (2:5) in order that we "abide" in Christ (2:6). Which truth of God
can I not know? Which truth is beyond teaching to others (2 Tim. 2:2)? Not only can we know the truth, abide in
the truth and teach it to others, God will hold us accountable to what is revealed. "If anyone thinketh himself
to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of
the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). Fellowship is defined by doctrinal soundness while unity in diversity thumbs its
nose at "the apostles' doctrine."
How do
we explain, then, the diversity among beliefs? Shall our fellowship embrace error because "there are so many
positions, who can be sure?" If truth is understandable, why doesn't everyone understand it? Well, we might
ask Jesus, the Master Teacher, who offended his hearers so badly they turned away from him (John 6:66). The Devil
will come and plant tares among the good seed (Mt. 13:25), some will believe a lie (2 Thes. 2:11). Even men of
great stature in scriptural knowledge have their blind spots. Which of us has not profited from the scholarship
of Barnes' Notes? Yet he remained a Presbyterian. We have all profited from the scholarship of brother Hailey,
but he teaches error on adulterous marriages. Shall we ignore obvious error in our emotional desire to extend unity
to those in error? Shall we count meritorious points and conclude that we owe fellowship to one who teachers error
because of his long life of faithfulness? Was God unrighteous when he said, "But when the righteous turneth
away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked
man doeth, shall he live? None of his righteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered: in his trespass that
he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die" (Ezek. 18:24).
Conclusion
In the final analysis, it is not my role to sit in judgment on God's prerogatives.
I can extend fellowship no further than my understanding of God's word and my conscience will allow. There must
be no respect of persons, no allowance for special pleadings. Jeroboam resented Amos for the truth he preached
and pleaded special privilege because "it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a royal house" (Amos 7:13).
No man among our brethren is above the law and no person is excused from its dominion. There is no sin with which
I or any of my brethren can have an on-going, continual fellowship and, at the same time, maintain fellowship with
God.
Our present situation seems to me to be in that period of longsuffering and patience wherein we acknowledge crucial
differences which have the potential to rupture the fellowship we all esteem so dearly. We must acknowledge different
mindsets that have faced us in different directions that affect our view of scripture. I pray that this material
will make a small contribution toward "maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Am
I ready to break fellowship with those who disagree with me on the matter of Romans 14? No, I am not. I am rather
determined to preach what I perceive the truth to teach on Romans 14, calling specific attention to the doctrine
that they are teaching contradicting this, showing the inconsistencies in their application of it, and calling
on these brethren by name (as I judge the situation to be necessary) to repent of their teaching until these brethren
cut themselves off from me. My perception is that if we preach the truth on fellowship or any other Bible doctrine,
the problem of fellowship will take care of itself. Those who cannot accept what the Bible teaches about fellowship
will draw the line of fellowship against us and division will follow. In that case, they will be the ones responsible
for the breach in fellowship because they could not tolerate the preaching of the truth on that subject.
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in
unity" (Ps. 133:1).
1Christianity
Magazine [CM], Feb., 1990, "The Bounds of Christian Unity
#13
2Cogdill-Woods
Debate, p. 26.
3"Does
God require those who were married, divorced and remarried while in the world and who would obey the gospel to
separate after they become Christians; or does He accept their marriage as lawful? I believe He accepts them without
requiring their separation and I shall show the reasons why." Homer Hailey, The Divorced and Remarried Who
Would Come To God (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publishing, 1991), p. 9.
4A specific
example of church division occurred at Palatka, FL in 1958 as a direct result of public error being taught by brother
Hailey about "the alien who would come to God." Cf: Watchman
Magazine, <www.watchmanmag.com>, May,
1999.
5Faith and
Facts Magazine, Jan., 1990.
6Christianity
Magazine, "Homer Hailey: False Teacher?" (CM, Nov. 1988);
"The Bounds of Christian Unity (1-16)," (CM, Feb. 1989-May 1990); and 'The Parameters of Fellowship,"
(CM, March/April, 1997). With the exception of the article about "Homer Hailey, False Teacher?" this
series by Ed Harrell has been put into a tract form, published by Christianity
Magazine.
7Bob Owen:
Temple Terrace, FL (Sept. 2,1 993); Concord, NC, Feb. 19, 1995 (class, PM worship and Q&A session); Temple
Terrace, FL, March 28, 1996; Annandale, VA, Nov. 12, 1996. Harry Pickup: "Resolving Differences Between Brethren,"
Akron, OH, May 22, 1997; "The Holiness of God as Revealed in Unity and Diversity," University Heights,
Lexington, KY., July 14, 1998.. (Note The complete transcripts of these sermons can be accessed at the website
<http://www.flash.net/~woodmont>). David West, editor of Bible
Talk, reprinted Ed Harrell's series of articles in Sept. 4, 1994-Dec.
18, 1994 issues.
8Harry Pickup,
Jr., audio tape, Forest Hills congregation, Tampa, FL., Dec. 1998
9Earl Kinbrough's
tract, "How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree?" was recommended by brother Owen during his
Temple Terrace, FL. lecture on "Fellowship," Sept. 2, 1993.
10Searching
the Scriptures, Vol. 28, No. 2-4, Feb., Mar. , April, 1987.
11Paul Earnhart,
"Watch Them Dogs," Christianity Magazine, July 1996 (With All Boldness, Dec. 1996).
12Christianity
Magazine, Editor's Report, Nov. 1992.
13Harry Pickup,
Jr., University Heights, Lexington, KY., July 14, 1998; Forest Hills congregation, Tampa, FL, Dec. 1998, Q&A
session, audio tape.
14James W.
Adams, With All Boldness,
July, 1996, p. 5; ibid., August, 1994, p. 1-2.
15Dee Bowman,
Christianity Magazine,
"Latch On To The Affirmative," and the "Prospectus," Jan. 1984, pp. 2-3, 5; Ed Harrell, "Soundings,"
April 1984, p. 101.
16Christianity
Magazine, letter to potential writers, regarding writing style:
"Biblical and not polemical," "state it positively," "Generally speaking, two or three
passages should provide a sufficient base for such articles - perhaps even one," "The style of the writing
should be popular. We urge you to be your creative best: think of interest-catching leads, sharp illustrations,
and, if appropriate, and if possible, sprinkle in a little wit." (Undated form, early 1994.)
17Bob Owen,
Temple Terrace, Sept. 2, 1993. (Note: The full texts of brother Owen's sermons which are excerpted can be found
on the internet at <www.flash.net/~woodmont>).
18Ibid.
19Bob Owen,
Annandale, VA, Feb. 19, 1995.
20Ed Harrell,
CM, "Homer
Hailey: False Teacher?" Nov. 1988.
21Internet
message to Jeff Smith <SmithJeffS@aol.com> from Jack Holt <jackholt@home.com>,
Sept. 15, 1999. Jack Holt (the younger), who debated Jerry Bassett at San Antonio, TX, is currently a member at
the College Park church in Richardson, TX and teaches classes in that congregation.
22Tampa, FL.,
Forest Hills audio tape, Dec. 3,1998, Q&A Session.
23Bob Owen,
"We Differ, Can We Fellowship?" Concord, NC, Feb. 19, 1995.
24ibid., Temple Terrace, Fl., Sept. 2, 1993.
25Harry Pickup,
Jr., "Resolving Differences Between Christians," Akron, OH, May 22, 1997.
26"Walking
in the light" is equated by John as "keeping the commands" (2:3; 5:2-3), obeying "the things
written" (2:7; 5:13), "keeping his word" (2:5), "walking as He walked" (2:6), "continuing
with the apostles" (2:18), "knowing the truth" (2:21), "abiding in what we heard" (2:24),
receiving "the things taught," (2:27), "abiding in Him" (2:28), "purifying himself"
(3:3), "practicing righteousness" (3:7), "loving the brethren" (3:11, 14-17; 4:7-8, 20-21),
"loving in deed and in truth" (3:18), "testing the spirits" (4:1), "hearing the apostles"
(4:5-6), "confessing that Jesus is the Son of God" (4:15), and "believing the testimony" of
God and the apostles (5:9-11).
27Steve Dewhirst,
Abundant Life,
bulletin for Westside church in Irving, TX, edited by Mark Roberts, Vol. 28, No. 11, p. 5 (Nov. 1995).
28Skip Copeland,
Markslist, 1995. This discussion group included comments from many brethren.
29Don Patton,
sermon at Judson Road, Longview, TX, 1990, regarding his list of "100 items": "Notice the commands,
not suggestions, not advice, but the commands that are given regarding these issues, the scruples, the individual
conscientious decisions made among brethren: some wrong, some incidental, but differences that we have over such
matters. He commands in v. 1, 'him that is weak in the faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples.'"
30Ed Harrell,
Christianity Magazine,
"The Bounds of Christian Unity," April, 1989, p. 6; June, 1989, p. 6; Aug., 1989, p. 6, "Those who
love and respect God and who sustain their beliefs with biblical argument do not always agree. Such a confession
acknowledges a variability in biblical clarity, and it requires that I judge the honesty of my brother and his
defenses."
31Bob Owen,
Concord, NC, Feb. 19, 1995
32Rules for fellowshipping
some sins: 1) Bob Owen: it must not be congregational, must not shame the church in the eyes of the world, must
not cause strife and division (Temple Terrace, FL, Sept. 2, 1993); 2) Harry Pickup, Jr., "Any doctrinal error
which seeks to destroy or is destructive to the common five states that we have just mentioned, cannot be tolerated."
These were listed as: common salvation, common faith, common nature, common blessings, common responsibilities
(Akron, OH, May 22, 1997); 3) Ed Harrell: Factiousness breaks fellowship, immorality is intolerable, we must act
in good conscience, fellowship is based on the clarity of biblical teaching, we must have a unified mind"
(Gospel Truths Magazine, Jan/Feb/Mar, 1991 exchange between Ed Harrell and Dudley Ross Spears.)
33Harry Pickup,
Jr., "Resolving Differences Between Christians," Akron, OH, May 22, 1997.
34We saw this
in the institutional battle with the word "home." "Home" was used at times to mean a house,
again to mean the family, and again to mean a board of directors over an institution. The use of "doctrine"
as it applies to Romans 14 is every much as misleading.
|
