1. Free to Change
2. Freedom and Responsibility
3. My Kind of People
4. "Come Out And Be Separate"
5. Private Intepretation
6. A "Monkey-Wrench" Scripture
7. The Truth That Frees
8. Literary Devices
9. Fear of God
10. A Love Story
11. The Three Trees In Eden
12. Imputed Righteousness
13. Different Essentials For Different People
14. God's Sons In All Ages
15. Looking To Lust
16. Divorce Her!
17. "While Her Husband Is Alive"
18. "They Won't Let Me Preach!"
19. God's Perplexing Prophets
20. Religous Titles
21. Who Sinned?
22. "I'll Join Your Church"
23. The Church As The Route To Heaven
24. One Hundred Years Old
25. Can Our Churches Unite?
26. Can The Cause Of Sickness Be The Cure?
27. When Life Begins
28. Abortion: Law Or Principle?
29. Human Chattel
30. The Hope of Israel
31. The Great Temptation of Jesus
32. The Rich Man And Lazarus
33. My Hermeneutic
34. Is Immersion Proved By Example?
35. Who Gets The Credit?
36. Hook's Points
37. Heresy
38. I Am A Debtor

Other Books at Freedom's Ring

On the farm as I was growing up we had few wrenches for our implements, but we needed few. Our tool set consisted mostly of a monkey wrench. In those olden days our simple implements were put together with bolts and square-headed nuts, and a monkey wrench could be adjusted to fit any size of nut.

In the times of my youth there was much argumentation by sincere people about matters of religion. Many of our issues were rather simplistically square-headed (or maybe we were the square-headed nuts!). A Scripture reference that seemed to be adjustable to fit all issues was 2 John 9: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (KJV).

This proof-text was used to condemn the use of individual communion glasses, a second serving of the Lord's Supper on Sunday night, the use of wine in the Lord's Supper, Bible school classes, women teachers, uninspired literature, women cutting their hair, women worshipping unveiled, collection trays, instrumental accompaniment to singing in assemblies, indoor baptistries, eating in the church building, church sponsored children's homes, youth ministers, and most anything else that a person might be inclined to be cantankerous about. None of these were taught by Christ or his apostles.

The application of this "monkey wrench "Scripture escalated the most insignificant and immaterial details into life-or-death matters, and I fear that they brought more death than life. According to the argumentation, when people practiced any of these things which was not taught by Christ, they thereby abandoned God and Christ. Such an offender "hath not God!" Those who stalwartly refused such innovations enjoyed the assurance that "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." A brother who went beyond the teaching of Christ in any of these matters was not to be bidden God speed or received into one's house, according to verse 10, "For he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds."

Based upon a misunderstanding of 2 John 9-10, and bolstered by other passages, we developed a popular slogan which declared, "We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent." We proposed to do all and only those things which were specified or exemplified, while our failure to follow our motto was glaring.

Here are some of the practices that we have ignored or "explained away" plus some that we have added. The church was begun and nurtured by men exercising special spiritual gifts, including the speaking in tongues. Women wore veils while praying and prophesying (teaching) in the assemblies. Destitute widows were enrolled as special servants. Other women were deaconnesses also. Evangelists spread the gospel, while teachers, prophets, and elders taught the saints. Gatherings of the saints were more for a horizontal outreach than a vertical upreach. In their gatherings, they prayed, sang, communed, and enjoyed fellowship meals. The model church in Jerusalem held possessions in common, and the only collections that we read of were for the poor and for evangelism. In the first church, many met in homes. No mention is made of a corporate treasury or of continued, weekly collections. No name was worn to designate the church. Racial discrimination was not tolerated. They laid hands on appointees and on the sick, whom they anointed with oil. They fasted. The kiss of love was enjoined. Jesus gave both an example and a command to wash feet, which thing was a virtue of the worthy widow. Jewish disciples kept rituals of the Law of Moses. There was no command or precedent for church-owned property, weekly communion, orphanages, corporate trustees, paid congregational personnel (except elders), "placing membership," a membership roll, the class system of teaching, hymnals, or four-part harmony.

It is clearly evident that none of our congregations practice all of those things that the early church practiced and none of our churches have limited themselves to what was exemplified in the New Testament record. It is of some blessing that the application of this "monkey wrench" Scripture was made only selectively, else all insignificant details would have been screwed down so tightly that we could not have operated.

Since I sort of inherited that traditional argumentation and it seemed so right to me, I made similar application of that text during much of my ministry. After many years, however, I could no longer honestly ignore the contextual meaning and continue to use it as a proof-text as before.

What is the doctrine of Christ to which John refers? Doctrine and teaching are words of identical meaning--synonyms. The language allows two possible meanings of "the doctrine or teaching of Christ." It could mean the doctrine which Christ taught, or it could mean the doctrine about Christ. Which is the correct meaning?

There is much in John's writings which deals with the Gnostic influence among the early disciples. Among other things, they denied that Christ came in the flesh. In verse 7, John warns, "For many deceivers have gone into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist" (RSV). This is definitely speaking of the teaching about Christ. Such antichristian teaching would separate one from God and Christ, for the incarnation is a fundamental upon which our faith rests. John was not referring to their ignoring of some law or commandment, much less to the practice of some scrupulous detail as we have listed earlier. There is a vast difference in the gravity of denying that Christ came in the flesh and such scruples as those about women teaching children in Bible classes. Inviting her into your house and bidding her God speed is not comparable to encouraging one who went about denying that Christ came in the flesh.

After half a century of enlightenment since the discussion by our sincere, uneducated farm neighbors, it seems that we would no longer hear this "monkey wrench" Scripture used as before. But, to our dismay, we still hear the old cliche arguments put forward___but selectively, of course. None who rely on this proof-text dares to make a general application of it. It is a convenient tool adjusted to condemn what the particular teacher has scruples against but has insufficient evidence from the Scriptures to condemn.

These thoughts in no way imply disrespect for Jesus' teachings or those of the inspired writers. This is a plea for honesty in the application of their teachings.