The following article by Elder G. W. Stewart is copied from the Gospel Messenger for January, 1920. As long as such men are shielded and held in fellowship by the churches, it is no wonder that there is trouble in the camps of Israel and churches are divided and sweet love and fellowship is destroyed. For our part, we would rather be alone than to fellowship some things that are winked at. We recommend a careful reading of the following article. C. H. C.

THE ARTICLE

An elder whom I have known and loved a long time, writing to me about certain disorderly elders or preachers among us in certain sections, says: “When I think of David with the wife of Uriah, and him a man after God’s own heart; and of Solomon with his many wives, and he a type of Christ; of Peter denying the Lord profanely right in His presence; of Thomas saying, ‘I will not believe it is the Lord till I put my fingers in the nail prints, and of the woman taken in adultery, whom Christ told to go and sin no more, carrying with it the idea she was guilty, etc., I must admit these are hard problems to solve, and bring me right to the footstool of Sovereign mercy.”

Now, some who are inclined to tolerate and uphold disorderly preachers and others, would be ready to construe such language as this into defense of, or palliation of, upholding, winking at and sustaining such characters as those just mentioned; but knowing the brother as I do, I am confident that such is not his purpose for he is too good a man for that; but let us investigate the matter carefully and in the light of the real facts, in the different cases as presented in the Scriptures. Because it is said that David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. xiii. 1.4) we are not to conclude that God approved of, winked at or condoned David’s great sin in connection with Uriah; for while the Lord pardoned David in that sense that He did not take his life, yet God did punish him severely, for by Nathan, the prophet, He told David that because of his sin against Him the sword should never depart from his house --and that He would raise up evil against him out of his own house, etc.,in fulfillment of which David’s own son, Absalom, arose in rebellion against his father, drove him from his wives and from his throne and from Jerusalem into the wilderness, where he became a wanderer, fleeing from his own son in his old age, weeping as he went, and the people fleeing and weeping with him; and to make his punishment more humiliating, there went along over against him an enemy, a bad man, a son of Belial, who cursed King David as he went. Besides all this, think of the death of his beautiful, beloved and rebellious son, Absalom, and of how David wept over him when informed of his death. “And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, 0 my son Absalom, my son, my son, Absalom! would to God I had died for thee. O, Absalom, my son, my son.”This is enough, I think, to show that King David was punished severely for his sin against Uriah, which was against God --a punishment in preference to which many would choose death even in this day. (See an account of the punishment foretold by the prophet, 2 Sam. Xii. 7-13.)

Solomon went off after strange gods in old age and was guilty of adultery, on account of which the Lord punished him by rending the kingdom from him, and making one of his servants, Jeroboam, king in his stead over ten tribes of Israel, yet for David, his father’s sake, left him two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, which separation or rending occurred soon after Solomon’s death.

Hence, we see that God did punish both David and Solomon for their sins --David for his carnality and gross immorality, and Solomon for his idolatry.

Consider what Paul has to say of the sins of Old Testament saints, for he shows that every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward (Heb. ii. 2), and in his letter to the Corinthians, 1st letter, X. I-12, says that the sins and disobedience of God’s people after the flesh were written for our example, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, etc., as they did, hence were not written that we should refer to them or adduce them as examples to justify us in this age in our sins, or in tolerating disorder in the ministry or in the church; for, when we do this we are doing the very opposite of what the apostle exhorts us to do.

Peter—I see no similarity between the lying of Peter and Ananias, for although Peter had been forewarned of his fall, and all the disciples plainly told that Jesus would be betrayed, and crucified, and would then rise from the dead, all the record and circumstances plainly show that they did not understand what was meant by it all. (See Luke XXlV. 13, 25.) So it was under the excitement of fear and of great personal danger that Peter sinned, or lied, a thing which any of us are liable to do even to this day. Scenes and circumstances under which he committed this great sin, never occurred before, and never will again in all history. Nothing in Peter’s case to encourage the willful, malicious, cool, deliberate, calculating liar.

As for the adulterous woman of John viii. 8-11, she was not a disciple of Jesus, nor member of His visible church. Jesus did not condemn her to be stoned to death, because to have done so would have been a violation of the Roman law, and hence would have involved Him in trouble with that power; for it was not lawful for the Jews to put anyone to death. Jesus did not come to take life, but to save it. The blessed Saviour was too wise to be caught by His crafty enemies. The whole lesson is a beautiful example of letting each one attend to his own business in his own sphere. Nothing in this is in conflict with Rom. XV1. 17, 12-3, and 2 Thes. 111. 6. What is said about Peter applies also to doubting Thomases.

We find nothing in all these cases in conflict with the law of the Lord concerning the qualifications and character of gospel ministers, as expressed in 1 Tim. iii. 18, and Titus i. in particular, and the three letters of Paul to those young ministers and others of the New Testament in general.

It will be seen according to these high and holy laws or rules for the ministry that no man of immoral, bad, doubtful or suspicious character has the right to officiate in the gospel ministry. Let churches and ministers read these rules carefully and prayerfully, and let us at the same time remember how transgressors were punished under the Old and New Testament dispensations, and ask ourselves in what sense disorderly ministers of today are punished if they are tolerated and fellowshipped by the church. Shall we undertake to explain or interpret the plain rules of the order of the New Testament by types, Old Testament characters or doubtful passages, when these laws concerning the character of ministers are expressed in such simple and plain language without a shadow, without a parable or allegory? Shall we undertake to interpret a plain passage by a doubtful or obscure one? If the sins of either Old or New Testament saints, and our own weakness and unworthiness, cause us to stumble and doubt what we should do in case of a bad or disorderly minister, for the same reasons should we not be in doubt, and hesitate to oppose and non-fellowship the minister that advocates Arminianism, apostasy, non-resurrectionism, or the human religious institutions of the day, such as popular missionism, Sunday and theological schools, etc.? Why in the name of conconsistency and the Scriptures should we be so prompt and zealous in opposing what we consider false doctrine and so ready to hesitate in opposing immorality in a preacher.’

The Scriptures require that the daily life of the minister shall be an encouragement, an inspiration and a defense of the humble believer; hence, it is said that “A good example is the best sermon;” and “better an ounce of good example than a pound of doctrine;” and “He who lives well is the best preacher;” and “preachers can talk but never teach, unless they practice what they preach.” The preacher without a blameless character honors God with tongue but obeys the devil with foot; presents a form of doctrine, but denies the power thereof in his walk; professes that he knows God, but in works denies Him; and so it may be truly said of all those preachers or elders that tolerate, fellowship and uphold him and such disorderly elders and all that tolerate him will ere long bring down upon themselves the judgment of the great Head of the Church, who will remove their candlestick and cause them to become a by word and a reproach among the people. Then let us remember that it is in vain that we try to uphold the truth and doctrine of the Lord, while we at the same time are associated with corrupt men in the ministry. I am glad to know that such things are not generally known among us, but in some instances, 0 shame upon us, they are to be found, to the suffering separation of loved ones, the heartache and anguish of soul of some of the noblest and purest among us.

May the Lord help us to be valiant for truth in His holy and blessed name. G. W. STEWART.

Email this Article's Link to someone