A Dangerous Reply

By Roy Loney

[Page 10]

     In the August issue of this paper the above heading was used by the editor to reply to an article of mine which I mimeographed. I agree without reservations that his reply to me was and is very dangerous, for the simple reason that it is a perversion of what I wrote. Before I had his reply, a brother handed me the paper with the statement that he considered that the editor was very unfair to me, and I so agree. In talking with many brethren since that time, all have expressed the same view. Putting up a straw man and punching him full of holes may be good exercise, but it certainly does not eliminate a real foe! The man he is fighting in that article is not the real Roy Loney, but a mythical character conceived by the fertile imagination of the editor. When one will put words in another's mouth, or attribute to him a position which he never took, nor even dreamed of taking, then something is wrong with the heart of the one who so acts. In the editor's reply he is plainly guilty of accusing me of taking a position that I have never taken!

     I spoke with reference to the use of tobacco by professed Christians, and referred to the fact that the Adventists and Mormons do not permit their members to use it. I am perfectly willing to confess that I did not then know of the statements quoted by the editor with reference to Joseph Smith's stand against the use of tobacco, but that certainly does not place me in Joseph Smith's boat as to the exact method of controlling the members. I had no such thought, and I feel sure the editor knows it. The editor in proceeding on the assumption that I advocate a brotherhood legislative body to rule against the use of tobacco, is neither correct nor is it fair to me. I advocate no such thing!

     About a year ago after spending a day sight-seeing in Salt Lake, Utah, I caught a train for Denver, Colorado. The scenery along the route between those two cities is very unusual, and I spent most of the day in the Vistadome car where one could obtain a far better view of the rugged mountains and valleys. The car was well filled, and I noted that most of the passengers were married couples in their late twenties or thirties. Their talk was very lively and animated, and presently I was struck with the fact that there were no tobacco users among them. This was so unusual that I was impressed. Not being able to hear their conversation, I did not at first understand the reason for their abstention. Finally it dawned on me that they were all Mormons, and I wished so sincerely that I could always be in the company of my own brethren and not be fouled up with the stench of tobacco. Those people were happy and they were clean. In the blessed name of Christ why can't all those who accept only Jesus Christ as their prophet and priest be as clean as those Mormons?

     I am supposed to be "activating a program of universal legislation" to use the editor's own words. Please bear me record that I am activating nothing of the kind! The one who advocates such a program is simply the straw man the editor has set up in order to have something to fight. The word of God clearly states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and I wish the editor to keep that divine command in mind. With reference to his accusation against me, I can say with the Almighty, "neither came it into my mind" (Jer. 32:35).

     Once when I was among the disciples in Saint Louis, one of the elders, in talking to me stated that the Saint Louis congregation did not appoint tobacco users to either the eldership or deaconship, and then he told of how he and his brother elders required the resignation of a deacon who would not give up his tobacco. Did the Saint Louis congregation activate a legislative program inde-

[Page 11]

pendent of the word of God in so doing? I applaud the actions of the Saint Louis elders, and am very sure that they have violated no scriptural principle in so doing. If the same stand should be taken even for membership with each local congregation, would not tobacco using be largely eliminated from the churches?

     Does not the church in general make adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, and such like things, a test of fellowship? In the editor's book "A Clean Church" he plainly taught that they should. Is human legislative action necessary in order obtain universal action against such sins? Of course not! All that is needful is for every congregation to impartially follow the divine instructions. If we are to be required to withdraw ourselves from all those who "walk disorderly" (2 Thess. 3:6), is the editor willing to affirm that tobacco using is not disorderly walk? He plainly states, "I do not condone tobacco using. I am opposed to it. I teach against it, and that with vigor. I advise all who use it to abstain." Good, and if every other evangelist, as well as all elders, deacons and teachers did the same thing, what would be the result? We might not eliminate tobacco using entirely, but the blessed church of the living God would be far cleaner than it is today.

     In stating that he is against tobacco using, the editor thus admits that tobacco using is wrong, hence, a sin. I'd like to ask him to name the sins that are not subject to discipline by the laws of King Jesus. Will he give a definite, scriptural reason why there should not be general action against tobacco using even as there is a definite practice to exercise discipline against adulterers, fornicators, thieves, drunkards and such like characters? If walking after the flesh brings spiritual, eternal death (Rom. 8:13) are we not justified in taking action against the sins of the flesh? Is not uncleanness of the flesh classed with adultery and fornication (Gal. 5:19)?

     The editor states that he is "deeply concerned about any teaching which encourages the church to make laws where God has made none," to which I say, Amen! But the church does not need to legislate against uncleanness, because King Jesus has already done so, but the church of the living God does have a scriptural duty to enforce the laws already given! The church is not a legislative body, but congregationally it is a law enforcement agency, else it would not practice discipline against wrong doers. Is the editor taking the position that a congregation cannot take any action save that of teaching against uncleanliness of the flesh (Eph. 5:3 and 2 Cor. 7:1)?

     Again the editor states, 'We need to follow the word of God, and not be concerned about taking a stand like the Mormons and Adventists." Well and good; but if these people do teach and practice some things that are right, are we to reject it because the Mormons and Adventists teach and practice it? Do not both of those churches teach that baptism is to be performed by immersion, and in so doing are they not teaching and practicing that which harmonizes with God's word? I wish I could understand this editor. He has been teaching that "every sincere believer in Christ, who has been baptized by immersion" is his brother. Does not that include the Adventists and Mormons? Then the editor states that we have no right to make anything a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation." Certainly not; but is not every command of God a condition of salvation, and is not cleanness of the flesh one of the clearest and plainest of God's commands (Gal. 5:19; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Thess. 4:7)? Can a man continue in a willful wrong without endangering his salvation? I think not; and our shameful tolerance of what we know to be wrong must be heaven's grief and Satan's glee.

     I am astonished at the editor's absurd query: "Shall we make an unwritten creed in 'the confession' and ask, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and promise not to use tobacco in any form?" Why not ask, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and do you promise to become Restoration minded?" That is no sillier than the

[Page 12]

one he has formulated. Just as well ask, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and do you promise you will not commit fornication?" I am prepared to say that such questions are not silly: They are asinine! A confession of the Sonship of Jesus, should be a confession of his divine authority, and if those who make the confession have the proper understanding of what is involved in the confession or even in accepting baptism, they will be willing to make a full and complete surrender of heart, body and soul to the Lord Jesus. The editor's implication that such an absurd confession is in order on the basis of my position, reflects neither credit to his understanding of what I said, nor of what I teach. Putting words in another man's mouth and attributing to him a position which he disavows, is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the loving Christ! If becoming restoration-minded leads one to ridicule a brother in Christ, then may the dear Lord save me from this superfickle "restoration"! We will all have all the "restoration" that is needed when we get to the place where Christ "dwells in our hearts by faith" (Eph. 3:17). The present need is not restoration, but Christ and him crucified! If a man is so doctrinated that he loses sight of the spiritual side of Christian living, then I can only pray, May the dear Lord awaken him before it is too late.

REMARKS BY EDITOR

     We suspect our good brother is troubled, not because we misrepresent him, but because we correctly showed the results of his teaching. His reply above demonstrates this. Bro. Loney undertook to point out errors of some "brethren out west" and in dealing with tobacco, wrote, "The use of tobacco in any form is an individual matter that affects only the user and his influence." In the same paragraph he wrote, "Many times I have wished with all my heart that the church of Christ would take the same stand with reference to tobacco as the Adventists and Mormons. I undersiand that no one can maintain membership with them and be a tobacco user."

     Bro. Loney completely misunderstood our article. We accused him of nothing except making a test of fellowship of an individual matter. He now confesses that! We only enquired how the church of Christ could go about taking the same stand as Mormons and Adventists. We did not say lie recommended these means. Now he advocates making tobacco a test of fellowship on a congregational basis. But that is not the way the Mormons and Adventists do it, and previously he wished "the church of Christ would take the same stand" as these sects. Bro. Loney needs to learn that no local congregation has any right to create a test of fellowship where God has made none! Creed making is not sanctified by being put on a local basis.

     Bro. Loney puts tobacco in the same category as adultery, fornication, lying, and stealing. Are these "individual matters that affect only the user and his influence? "We exclude those from our number who do such things because God tells us to do so. Will Bro. Loney furnish the passage that puts tobacco in that class? He knows there is a difference, because he says, "why there should not be a general action against tobacco using even as there is a definite practice to exercise discipline against adulterers, fornicators, thieves, drunkards, and such like characters." How can you generally exclude a person without definitely doing so? Our brother admits that he has always "fellowshipped" those who use tobacco, while waiting for the church to take the same stand as the Mormons and Adventists. Has he also been "fellow-shipping" adulterers, fornicators, liars and thieves? If not, why not?

     Our good brother wishes us to take his interpretation of uncleanness and make that interpretation an unwritten creed. We have not put words in his mouth. We have not fought a straw man. We have simply showed what happens when men create creeds and tests where God has not legislated. I am sorry some of my brethren use tobacco. I wish they would quit. But I do not regard them as in the same category with adulterers, fornicators, drunkards and thieves! I think Brother Loney goes too far in trying to vindicate his previous article.