The Death of David's Child
Mac Deaver

Following Nathan's confrontation with David over David's murder of Uriah and his sin with Bathsheba, Bathsheba gave birth to a baby. Since David had confessed his sin, Nathan had said that God had put his sin away; nevertheless, the child would die. Sure enough, after the birth of the baby, "the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick."

David begged God to spare the baby, and for seven days he fasted and lay upon the earth, hoping that God would let the baby live. David's servants tried to get him to terminate his self-afflicting behavior, but David persisted.

On the seventh day, the baby died. And David's servants feared to break the news to him, thinking that if he acted in such an extreme way while the baby yet lived that he would vex himself to a greater degree after being informed of the baby's death. However, David noticed his servants whispering and perceived that the child had, in fact, passed away. Thereupon, instead of throwing himself into greater grief, he got up off the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed clothes. He then entered the temple and worshipped. Following that he went to his own house and asked for food.

His reluctant attendants didn't understand his thinking, so they approached David, inquiring of him why he had acted like he had. He had lived with self-imposed affliction while the baby lived and yet he began to act normally after the baby died. (After all, one might suppose that the grief would be greater following the death of the baby than before it). "And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (II Sam. 12:22-23).

Indeed, how could David know for sure that the baby would die? Perhaps it would in the end turn out to be like an earlier case in Israel's history when God's threat declaration was intended to evoke human response in prayer that would, when offered, cause God to spare what he had said that he would kill (cf. Num. 14:11-20). David knew what Nathan had said that God would do. But perhaps, David's intervention was all that was necessary to cause God to let the baby live. But as David finally realized, this time God would accept no intervention. And so when the issue was settled finally in David's mind and when the child now was beyond hope, as far as physical recovery was concerned, David ceased his lying on the ground and his fasting. He quit focusing on the dying and now dead baby and got on with his normal living.

Years ago as the clear line between faithful brethren and false teachers was being somewhat blurred in the kingdom, not too many preachers roused themselves to speak up, to speak out, and to speak passionately for the cessation of the use of certain false teachers on lecture programs among us. If such speakers had been invited to debate their cause with adequate time for refutation by others, that would have been one thing. But the circumstances to which we allude did not entail the debate format. The false teachers were simply being provided a wider audience among us and, thus, a way to extend their influence.

Brother Malcolm Hill raised his voice and his pen and for years fought persistently against the use of known false teachers in the brotherhood. He wasn't trying to pontificate; he rather was quite willing for others to investigate. He did his own investigation work. He would write letters or make phone calls to see what the facts were. He wasn't trying to create a false teacher; he was trying to help others realize that there were obvious false teachers yet being used by some naive brethren. A lot of others of us were not that concerned or involved in the warning work. Somehow damning error always seemed to us to be somewhere other than where we were. The false teacher was always on some lectureship other than the ones that we were on. But dangerous work was indeed afoot in the church as the influence of false teachers expanded.

Some thought brother Hill's activity extreme and unnecessary and, on occasion, chided him for it. However, he felt compelled to do what a lot of us ought to have done. He was trying to warn the brotherhood about definite and damning error within the church. Dear brother preacher, did you warn anyone at any time about any false teacher? Or did the whole drift toward the left completely escape your notice? Brother Hill did not want the kingdom to drift off to the left any more than he was willing to sanction the preceding drift to the right. The work he thought necessary was not always pleasant, to be sure, but it was something that needed to be done.

I can remember back in the 1980s that during the course of a gospel meeting, I would often preach a sermon that I called "The Sin of Denominationalism." In that sermon I called attention to the shift in brotherhood thought that was becoming identifiable with that of the denominations. Indeed, there were changes taking place within the church. And attention needed to be called to those changes that would wreck the kingdom. I remember that following our preaching of that sermon one night in Charlotte, North Carolina, a brother told me that I should preach that sermon wherever I went to hold meetings.

Years have come and gone. The church has, in far too many instances, continued to increase its ignorance and to soften its resistance to damning doctrinal error and worship corruption. The drift toward the left seems to be about to bottom out with the final sad announcement just lately made that the largest church of Christ in our brotherhood is now to introduce mechanical instruments of music and the Lord's Supper into a Saturday night service. This didn't happen overnight. Can anyone yet faithful deny that an apostasy has taken place? And the preacher for this apostate church has done what he can to influence churches of Christ to merge with the Christian Church.

Brother Hill, the Northeast church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee, and Tennessee Bible College have stood as a solid fortress against the incursions of the liberal left. And as is quite common in situations where obligatory truth is non-negotiable, they had to take the criticism that came with the territory. They took it, and now they live to see a better day.

The danger that they claimed to see early on has now worked itself out in the increasing disaster that they feared and which now unfolds before our eyes. And now that the obvious corruption of public worship characterizes the largest church among us, is there a preacher out there who thinks that early warnings were misguided? Is there any right-minded brother who could possibly think that early warnings with regard to known false teachers were a mistake?

But in an atmosphere where so many were willing to do so little in warning brethren, the good brethren at Tennessee Bible College were willing to hold on to the course that they thought they were under obligation to pursue. There was a lot, after all, at stake. For sure, the TBC brethren were not the only ones persistently presenting clear warnings to the church, but they were in the forefront of the fight. And though they did not always have the feeling that their warnings were being appreciated and accepted, they continued in their strong stand for the truth and in their exposure of dangerous error.

But now, after the many, many years of constant warning with regard to certain false teachers in our midst and to the apostasy before us and among us that was engulfing too many of us, it is time for them and us to move on. With the clear sign now before us that all the drift to the left finally has led to the corruption of public worship before God and to the effort to merge with the Christian Church, it is now time to move on to other things and to help to strengthen the things that remain. As some of the less astute preachers now finally see what "all the fuss" was about, it seems that clarity has returned to some areas that were for so long but in a fog. And as with the death of David's child, a new moment has arrived, and life goes on for the rest of us.

It is time for us to get up, to wash and anoint ourselves, to change our clothes, to worship God as He has directed, and to get on with the living beneath the care of a most gracious and forgiving Father. What has happened has happened, and we cannot call back what no longer is here. But we can arise and live before God in such a way that at some future moment, we can go on to be where the innocent now are, and to be with them forever.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

What is Bible balance? We are hearing much about balance in religion these days. We must say there is always a need to avoid extremism. The Christian life is somewhat like Middle Tennessee weather. We have four distinct seasons of weather each year. If one lives in Middle Tennessee, he can count on these four seasons each year.

We can count on balance in our lives if we are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14). The Bible is both sure and steadfast (I Cor. 15:58), and keeps us from being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). The God that made us knows what we need (Ps. 119:105). His Word perfectly, thoroughly furnishes us unto every good work (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Pet. 1:3). The Bible gives us the strait and narrow (Matt. 7:14).

The way of Satan knows no limits (Matt. 7:13). It truly is the unbalanced way. The man who does not think well in religion really does get mixed up in his life. The devil's workers think God's way is strange (I Pet. 4:3-4). The tempter is always ready to lead people in every direction away from God (Gen. 3:1-5; Lev. 10:1-2; Matt. 4:1-11; Gen. 19). Sometimes God's children are led away by "good words and fair speeches" (Rom. 16:18). Some teachers speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-31).

Is one off balance when he opposes with all his might the use of instrumental music in worship? Is one off balance when he teaches there is one church of Christ? Is a person an extremist when he teaches water baptism is for the remission of sin? Is one to be avoided because there comes a time to mark false teachers? Is one a renegade when he speaks out plain and clear about so-called Christian schools and universities which hoard, shield, use, and support known false teachers? On and on this list goes.

Is it Bible balance for one to teach one religion is as good as another? Is it Bible balance to teach that denominationalism is pleasing and acceptable to God? Do we have Bible balance when we teach that all are Christians who profess faith that Jesus is the Son of God? Are we Bible balanced when we uphold and use those who teach one may live in adultery and still be saved? Are we Bible balanced when we refuse to mark false teachers? On and on this list also goes.

It is our conviction that many people have blurred vision when it comes to Bible balance. There can be no doubt that many have lost their Bible equilibrium who are both in and out of the church. If the apostle Paul were alive today, he would not be used very much even though he is quoted often. The social drinkers would not have him. Those who believe in denominationalism would not use him. Those who believe in compromise would not accept him. The worldly crowd would fight and reject him. What church would let the apostle Paul preach for them today? What college, university, or preacher school would use him?

We have done our best to sound a warning to our beloved brotherhood, a warning we must sadly say has come to pass very clearly in 2006. On June 27-30, 2006, a convention was held in Louisville, Kentucky, with thousands of members from the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ Church along with many members from the church of Christ and many preachers and leaders from all these faiths. It was at this meeting that they openly declared "TOGETHER AGAIN." What did they mean by this? They meant that from the division of 1906 of these groups they were back together again. The churches of Christ that joined them said instrumental music would no longer be an issue but the issue goes much further than this. When the churches of Christ that joined them accepted the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ Church back, they also accepted around 80 different denominations into fellowship because the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ Church accept the United Churches of Christ which is composed of more than 80 denominations. Sad indeed, isn't it?

We did all we knew to do over 20 years ago to warn the brotherhood of such an event. Some said we were guilty of an overkill. Maybe so, but God will judge us and our motives. The only way we could get the attention of some was by plain speech. This one thing we know: we were trying to get good brothers to stand up and speak out. Let us say as humbly as we know how and as sincerely as we know how that we hate extremism. There is not a preacher living today that has fought and continues to fight anti-ism, nor is there a preacher today that has fought liberalism more than I. We detest law makers and law breakers. We still preach the same gospel we preached 54 years ago. Some have said someone has changed and to this we agree. A preacher friend of mine told another preacher friend of mine that, "Malcolm used to be a people person but now he has changed." Wrong again! We are still a "people person" and this is why we have stood so firmly as we have for the Bible way. It is truth that makes men free (John 8:32) so we have stood as firmly as we have known how to stand to save men and women from sin and death. Yes, I am still a "people person" and forever will be.

It is often the case when men and women change, they want to blame someone or some thing. This is no new deal. From Adam and Eve until the death of the apostle John on the lonely isle of Patmos in 96 A.D., men had tried to blame others for their stand and often their mistakes. We refuse to close our eyes, fold our hands, and do and say nothing when the church continues to slide further into apostasy—the results of which is leading souls to eternal despair. The price is too costly to let such take place.

Some have said the Lord's way is much broader than we sometimes think. This may be so but God's way does not include the unbaptized, the one-church-is-as-good-as-another doctrine, instrumental music in worship, creeds and doctrines of men, denominationalism, premillennialism, the removal of the Lord's Supper from Lord's Day service, and a number of other salvation issues. God's faithful people refuse to open their mouths like a young robin in the nest and swallow all that is placed in the mouth.

We have tried to rightly represent everyone on all issues. No man could have tried harder to contact in one way or another those with whom we have dealt. When we failed to do so it was an oversight or a misprint in journals and advertisements.

We can honestly say forgive us if we have believed what has been written or said. Some have said, "We did not mean what we have said or written as you took it." To which we reply, if one cannot say what he has written or said, then he needs to keep his dog out of the race. Jesus tells us to let our "Yea be yea; and nay, nay" (Matt. 5:37).

As we look out before us, we see only two ways ahead. There is the broad and the strait and narrow (Matt. 7:13-14). Yes, there are hard decisions to make at times when it comes to serving God, but the godly in Christ Jesus will and can make them. Many brethren remind us of the drunk man who told his friend he was drunk because he, the drunk man, saw two of him. I often wonder if many of my brethren are drunk on false doctrine and this is why they cannot see well in the religious world.

For the Love of Praise
Kerry Duke

Too many preachers try to impress people instead of working to help them.

One of the most common pitfalls of a preacher is the temptation to be intellectual. He wants to dazzle audiences with his learning and to be praised by other preachers for his scholarship. I am reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said about politicians when I think of preachers who crave this recognition. He said that once a man sets his heart on power, a rottenness begins in his soul. Once a preacher sets his mind on being a scholar more than on being a servant, his soul begins to rot. A little leaven of pride corrupts his whole way of thinking. His goal is to have the attention and praise of men, so he adjusts his teaching to accomplish that purpose. He may teach the truth in what he does say, but he will do so to impress, not to edify. He may be loose in his doctrine. He may become overly strict. He may neglect certain Bible subjects that would bring him criticism. In any case, the motive is the same.

A preacher like this must press an issue only he is smart enough to unravel. People won't praise his brilliance if they can figure out the answer for themselves. It doesn't matter to him if the question has little importance. He is not concerned about how important an issue is; his aim is to find an issue that advances his image as a scholar. He deals with his pet subjects like they are the weightiest matters of the law and leaves the impression that the brotherhood could not settle their issues without him. Poor church! What will the kingdom of God do when he dies? How did it survive before he was born?

Young preachers can be vulnerable to this temptation. They see and read about the fame scholarly preachers have attained in the church and try to emulate them, not realizing that faith and humility, not brains and ability, make a man great in God's sight. Young men can even admire church scholars so much that they become dependent on them for the truth on any issue and are unable to truly study the Bible for themselves. A preacher years ago asked me what we were going to do when two notable brethren died. They are both dead now, and the church is still alive.

The most important matters of Christianity are simple. This is why the common people heard Jesus gladly (Mark 12:37). But a preacher who thinks he is an instructor of the foolish and a teacher of babes scorns the simple approach. He looks for the hardest explanations of the easiest questions. He is too advanced to spend time on obvious matters, so he always tackles complex issues. What he fails to realize is that he teaches by his example as well as by his words, and his emphasis on these matters tells people that obscure, technical questions deserve more attention than the everyday duties of Christian living like being just, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.

There are some hard questions that are legitimate to discuss. There are some passages that are hard to understand (II Pet. 3:16). These require more thought and discussion; not every question can or should be answered with a simple yes or no because they need finer explanation. But typically Paul wrote in a way that Christians in general could comprehend (Eph. 3:3-4). Though a very educated and intelligent man, Paul stayed away from preaching the gospel "with wisdom of words, lest the cross should be made of none effect" (I Cor. 1:17). Admiring men because of their intelligence and eloquence—priorities in Greek culture and philosophy— caused much division in the church at Corinth, and Paul said this admiration of earthly qualities above spiritual ones was carnal and childish.

A preacher uses big words when he wants people to know how smart he is. This is foolish. The purpose of preaching is to help people understand the gospel, not bury it beneath obscure terms. Jesus communicated with average people and defeated the learned rabbis in debate not with complex syllogisms and a specialized vocabulary but with simple truths in understandable language. Most of Jesus' words were one-syllable terms.

Speaking in languages other than one's native tongue has long been a mark of learning and ability. This is why Paul warned the Corinthians about showing off with the gift of tongues (I Cor. 14). Preachers cannot speak with tongues miraculously today like the Christians at Corinth did, but they do show off their knowledge by using other languages—especially Hebrew and Greek. There are times when this is necessary to make a point or answer a question, but my experience is that about 95 percent of the time when a preacher uses Greek or Hebrew in a sermon, if he uses it correctly, he could have made the same point without referring to these terms which are unknown to most in his audience. So why does he use them? He may sincerely think he is making his point more powerful by referencing the Greek or Hebrew. But this is rarely the case. And, if the question pertains to salvation, its truth can certainly be stated in English or some other modern language as well as in Greek or Hebrew. I am not discouraging the study of these biblical languages. I am saying there is an overestimation of what is conveyed through them that cannot be conveyed through other languages, and preachers operating under this illusion make their sermons less powerful, not more powerful.

A hundred years ago the trend in theological circles was to cite scholarly biblical works in Latin and somewhat less in German. What did this add to the point they were making? Absolutely nothing, but it was in vogue, and anyone wishing to be a Bible scholar felt pressured to use these foreign expressions.

There is one simple word for this intellectual snobbery among preachers and educators: pride.

A preacher also shows his ego by constantly presenting ideas he claims are new and original. To hear him talk, you would think no one else has ever seen the points he makes. He wants people to go away saying, "I never thought of that before; that was really unique." In presenting himself as an independent thinker with extraordinary insights, he actually feeds the carnal side of people and creates an attitude in them that will eventually cause them to discard him for another preacher whose thoughts seem more novel. Of course, he is fooling himself if he thinks his insights are really different. If his point is true, then he got it from the Bible, and many before him saw the same thing. His pride blinds him to this obvious fact. Lincoln said books show a man that those original thoughts of his are not so original after all. A preacher is naturally excited when he learns a great point he had never seen, but he deceives himself if he thinks no one else has ever seen it. Besides, his job is not to present something new. His duty is to preach the same gospel fishermen taught 2000 years ago.

Our age is not the only one in which preachers have missed the mark on the purpose of preaching. The June, 1854 issue of Millennial Harbinger lamented,

The deplorable fact that the gospel is but seldom preached by its professed ministers, is the greatest, the most withering curse that rests on the churches of Christ. The refining effects of religion on society, its value as a conservative element in our wide extending empire, its elevation of national and individual character, modifying avarice, or passion, or pride—these are common themes of the pulpit. An intellectual effort, in which from an obscure text, some topic is logically developed, bearing on some debatable point in theology, or morals, or metaphysics, will pass for a fine sermon, correctly pronounced by a very intellectual preacher.

Nor is this confined to the fashionable preacher, who reads his lesson to fastidious audiences. The evil is widespread.The desire to preach fine sermons—to dive deep into matters—to have a topic and discuss it logically, is witnessed in the log meeting-house as well as in the 'sealed temple.'

But what a burlesque is all this on the gospel—the glorious, the powerful gospel of Christ—full, free, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. Where do we see the intensity of feeling which the spirit of the gospel would impart? Where do we find the zeal which the spirit of the gospel would enkindle? Where do we witness the results which the power of the gospel would effect? Instead of constant awakenings, and conversions, and revivals, all is dearth and listlessness, until the arrival of some periodical excitement, or some extraordinary revivalist, when men's passions are to be suddenly aroused and all again settle down into motionless stagnation.

The fact is, there is a lack of confidence in the power of gospel truth. Ministers rely on something else for their success. They may hardly be conscious of it, yet it is a lamentable fact. They enter the pulpit and preach their well arranged discourse without the least expectation that a soul will be converted under that sermon.

There is another more subtil way preachers draw attention to themselves rather than to the gospel. It is to shock and startle people. This is appealing today because people like to be surprised and seem to be addicted to excitement.

A few years ago a preacher made headlines by making outlandish claims about the personal lives of preachers he called "conservative." He often prefaced his statements by saying, "I don't know if this will shock you, but . . ." One preacher who listened to this man observed that he would make one of these outrageous claims, then pause with a childish grin of satisfaction. Thankfully, his appearances at brotherhood events came to a halt shortly after these statements became public.

A preacher may draw attention to himself by telling spectacular stories that tend to overshadow the gospel. A few preachers have even been known to make up stories to wow an audience! But even if the story is true, a preacher must use wisdom in its use. There are plenty of arresting stories in the Bible if he wants to wake up an audience.

The shock treatment approach can also happen when a preacher wants attention by being so strict or so strong that people are startled by his boldness. He wants people to talk more about how bravely he exposes error than they speak of the gospel, and he sees himself as the only one who says it like it should be said while he looks on other preachers as weaklings. He preaches the truth but he does so for the wrong reason: to be praised by men.

Paul said, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (II Cor. 4:5). It is high time preachers take this verse seriously.

Other Issues 1859-1906
David Hill

Philosopher Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel said, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history," but it doesn't take a philosopher to see the facts. The Bible is replete with examples of man returning to his same old practices. Solomon concluded in Ecclesiastes that there was no new thing under the sun (Ecc. 1:6). The devil continues to use his same old tricks and mankind continues to fall for them. Many have gone before us in this generation, and much has been recorded by inspiration and otherwise of the good and the bad. We have the best opportunity ever "to get it right" as we say. There were several issues that confronted the Lord's people during the last half of the 19th century. A study of those days will help us in these days to be stronger and better.

It is important to note that beginning in and around 1859 many were in a state of indecision. The United States were not so united; in fact, they were quite troubled with division and indecision over slavery and the political power connected with it. The Lord's people were seeing tremendous growth and acceptance to the plea "back to the Bible." The statement "Speak where the Bible speaks and keep silence where the Bible is silent" became known as the restoration plea, and it was being heard all over the country. So, we as a people were poised to be attacked by the wiles of the devil. His attacks were already well underway before 1859, the result of which was clearly realized in 1860 at Midway, Kentucky, when the congregation introduced the mechanical instrument of music into the worship. This issue had been stirring for some time as Alexander Campbell had dealt with it almost ten years prior in the Millennial Harbinger writing, "An instrument (would be) as out of place as a cowbell at a concert" (4th Series Volume I, Number 8, August 1851, pg. 467). Another well-known issue for the day was the missionary society. The American Missionary Society had been established in 1849. These issues have had much written about them, so we shall acknowledge them and move on to other issues of the time, namely the Civil War, Christian colleges, and related things.

The Civil War was a very divisive issue for the country and in the Church. Gospel preachers came down on differing sides of the issue. Ben Franklin of Indiana was pro-North while T. B. Larimore fought with the South. David Lipscomb was a pacifist and Isaac Errett, Editor of The Christian Standard, took a pro-North stand. There are records of men like James A. Garfield, member of the Church from Ohio, and a Northern soldier worshipping and even speaking in southern churches—namely in the Murfreesboro, Tennessee area. But, the issue presented difficulties in the church. Many preachers in the south wanted nothing to do with Ben Franklin because of his pro-North position. It actually brought on fellowship issues not only with him, but also with many other gospel preachers. For instance when a congregation thought of a gospel preacher for a gospel meeting, the question would come, "What is his position on the war?" This problem did not go away in 1864 with the end of the war but lasted for decades with some. This also tended to push some less-grounded brethren into the liberal, digressive camp because most of the folks associated with what is now known as the Christian Church movement were in the north and allied with Errett and The Christian Standard. You can see once again that the world does influence the church.

Brother David Lipscomb was a pacifist as has been observed, but he never used his pacifism as a test of fellowship or to divide the brotherhood. Did he believe strongly in his position? Yes. Would he try to influence his colleagues persuading them to his position? Yes he did, but he sought to keep peace and unity as much as possible with his brethren. I think that is a great example for those of us in the 21st century. Brother Lipscomb's position had a long-term effect on the institution that bears his name. The late brother Carrol Ellis told the story of Estes Kefauver's visit to the Lipscomb campus in the 1950s. In his witty way brother Ellis told of Kefauver's arrival and how that professor J. Ridley Stroop refused to even shake hands with him because he, Kefauver, was U.S. Senator from the state of Tennessee. Brother Stroop was a tremendous Bible student, but brother Stroop had been influenced strongly to the independence of a Christian from government. He held brother Lipscomb's view and then some, apparently. Now, I have never been impressed that brother Lipscomb held such a view, but Lipscomb's view of pacifism and a Christian's independence of government had its effects even long after his death. I've looked for evidence of David Lipscomb's drawing the line of fellowship over pacifism, but as of now I'm unable to find such an example. Other gospel preachers and students of the restoration movement have said the same. You can clearly see that man's opinions and even positions have an effect on the church, and the Civil War and the very question of war was one of those issues. These same types of issues exist today and even serve to divide brethren.

The schools of the time have been written about in this journal, but I would observe for this reading that through the approximately 50-year period being discussed only David Lipscomb College made it through. Prominent colleges of the day like Bethany and Kentucky's College of the Bible went away into denominationalism. Brother David Lipscomb fought vigorously to hold the college. He was made fun of and condemned on every hand and even cartooned in religious papers, but the Nashville Bible School survived and thrived as a result of the Lord's blessings and Lipscomb's tremendous resolve. I have asked several students of church history for examples of institutions that have left the moorings of the faith and returned to faithfulness later. To this point the only one ever referenced was Freed-Hardeman College of old that for a brief period allowed for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. This only happened for about a year or so in the early part of the 20th century and they repented of the practice and returned. This should be a warning to those living in the 21st century. In a time when institutions are changing course, one should remember that while return is not impossible, history reveals it to be unlikely.

What about the institutions of the day in discussion: 1859-1906? Those institutions were effected by the politics of the brotherhood and the politics of financial support. Again, history is clear on this point, but we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. Because of the historical pattern, should we abandon our effort to formally train Gospel preachers, Bible teachers and Christian workers? Certainly not, we must do all we can to prepare men and women for service to the Lord, but at the same time we must be vigilant in keeping our institutions as pure as we possibly can.

The division formally recognized in 1906 by census was a sad time for the people of God.

It had been a long time in the making as is all digression. Ideas arise and if not put to the test of the pattern (Joshua 22:28), then they will ferment and grow until great division results and many of the simple (Prov.1:4, 22) will be led away. May God bless us to learn from inspired history and more recent history and be among the wise in the wisdom of our Lord.

Prejudice—A Unity Blocker
Glenn B. Ramsey

For the purposes of this article the terms are defined as follows: (1) Prejudice: "pre-conceived judgment or opinion or leaning averse to religious teachings without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge;" (2) Important: "those doctrines that relate to salvation of souls;" (3) Bible Doctrine: "teachings of the Bible, whether explicit or implicit."

In Jesus' day such prejudice existed. He said, "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:15). These people were prejudiced by their own choice. Today some people decide that they will not believe anything, regardless of the evidence, that is contrary to what their parents, their preachers, their children, or others whom they like, believe. Such people are like the man who said, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!"

Some are prejudiced against Bible truth because they want to remain in their sins and want to feel comfortable doing it. A "religious (?)" person who is living in adultery, or a person who likes to drink intoxicants, or a person who likes to gamble, etc., will seek out people who espouse "theories" that offer him comfort while he continues in these sins. He then will adopt these heresies and will close his mind (become prejudiced) against what the Bible actually teaches.

The majority of the religious world is prejudiced when it comes to the Bible subject of salvation. Most believe that "sincerity" alone is sufficient. These same ones may believe that "faith alone" is all that is required for salvation. They all will agree to the error "that baptism does NOT save!" This is believed in spite of the fact that the Bible says "baptism doth also now save us" (I Peter 3:21), and that we must "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

Just about any person in a modern denomination will argue (from a prejudiced heart) that the church has nothing to do with salvation. He will argue that one can be saved in one church as well as in another. He will most often argue that one can be saved even if not a member of any church! This prejudiced conclusion exists in spite of the clear Bible teaching to the contrary. Paul said that Jesus is the "saviour of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul shows that the body is the church. In Acts 2:47 the Bible clearly states that the Lord adds the saved to the church (the spiritual body of Christ.)

Since all have sinned (Romans 3:23), all need salvation! No one can continue in sin and expect God's grace to abound to cover that sin (See Romans 6:1-2). Anyone who does not believe what the Bible says about the plan of salvation cannot obey it, and anyone who does not obey the plan of salvation of God's Book cannot be saved (Hebrews 5:8-9).

Anyone who chooses to "live in sin" while coddling his conscience with a false, prejudiced view of his sin, is condemned by his sin. On Judgment Day all men will see the folly of prejudice, even if they were ignorant of their being prejudiced. Jesus said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23).

Prejudice of any kind will cheapen one's life. In all phases of our existence it is the truth that delivers one. This is certainly true in regard to Bible doctrine.

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."