By Elder Afton Richards published in The Banner of Love, March 1953
There has been quite a bit said and printed of recent date about the peace meeting that was held in Lampasas, Texas, and the list of recommendations that was passed at that meeting, as well as the resultant good.
That meeting was simply this: a group of Baptists who felt they were agreed on the fundamentals of doctrine and practice, but in a divided condition, got together and drew up a document that set out terms upon which they could agree, and upon which they felt they could maintain a lasting peace.
So far as I know, it has accomplished much good and I know of no instance where these terms have been put into active use that any harm has come from it.
These recommendations contained four major premises. One was that each local church has complete authority in the disciplining of its members. Another deals with the matter of two churches that were having a disagreement. A third dealt with the problems where a church was divided. A fourth premise was the agreement made by all that there is forgiveness for the act (or repeated acts) of fornication.
Upon these things we all agreed, and by such an agreement many churches and thousands of members who had previously been divided came together and have been enjoying sweet fellowship and communion together.
Some of the very ablest gifts among the Primitive Baptists sat around the table and helped draw up this document. They felt it was in unity and harmony with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, and they presented it to a divided and war-torn people as a summation of the teachings of the Bible on some points that had probably been misunderstood by some in the past.
I happened to be a representative at that meeting by church authority. Together with two other members of our church that were there, we went home and presented them to the church with our endorsement, and the church adopted them unanimously. I thought it was a good thing then, and I think so now. I stand ready at any time to defend the principles set forth in the recommendations, any or all of them.
Lately there has been considerable talk going about, that many others, who at the time of the Lampasas meeting were not ready for peace, are now ready. I can speak for myself personally, and I feel for many others, that we stand ready and with open arms to make peace with all of them “with whom we are agreed” on the principles as set forth in this document, or as set forth in the Bible.
However, in all seriousness and devotion to the cause, I want to add that we are not making peace overtures toward those with whom we cannot agree on the fundamental principles. One of the Old Testament writers (Amos) asked this question: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?”
In this same regard, a few weeks ago I received a letter (for publication) from a brother of another state, who attended the Lampasas meeting, but all his efforts seemingly were directed toward defeating the purpose of the meeting, and he, as far as I know, has never accepted or endorsed any of its principles. But it was a very sincere-sounding letter. He expressed a desire to work for peace, and made the statement that “I am herewith confessing that I have made many mistakes and missed the mark oftentimes when I thought I was doing right and beg forgiveness of all whom I have wronged or wounded your feelings.”
Later in the letter, he expressed the thought that he was not willing to give up or sacrifice the principles he had been contending for.
I appreciated this letter very much. But, I remembered this brother’s attitude at Lampasas, and the “principles” he was defending there. He was holding to the principle that there is no forgiveness for fornication.
By return mail, I wrote this brother, a quotation from which is given below:
“Very dear brother: I am in receipt of your recent communication, and was indeed glad to hear from you.
“Relative to your footnote, I assure that I hold no ill feelings toward you in any way. Anything you might have said or done, has long been forgotten as far as I am concerned.
“Now, relative to the article you sent for publication. I will say if there is a possibility of removing the barrier that now stands between us, I will be glad to give it publicity. However, I note you state that you are not willing to sacrifice principles; and I do not blame you for I feel the same way. But I am wondering if you had anything in particular in mind when you made the statement.
“We might as well be sincere and to the point: our people here, those represented by the Banner of Love, hold to the doctrine, which we count fundamental, and a vital principle, that repentance is the cure for sin – that there is forgiveness for fornication, and that a person, even though once a fornicator, if that person has repented of his evil acts, and turned away from them, and is living above the former sinful condition, can enjoy membership in the church. If you can likewise endorse this principle, then I will be glad to publish your article and proceed with the idea.
“But if you will not accept this doctrine, and it is one of the `principles’ that you might be called upon to `sacrifice,’ then to publish your article would only create a false hope among our readers, and the ultimate results would be confusion, rather than peace.
“I would be glad to have a clarification from you on this point.
“Yours in hope of peace.”
I received a speedy reply from this brother – three closely-written typewritten pages, but he did not answer the question I had asked him. The only reference he made was that my expression that “repentance is the cure for sin” was very unacceptable to him, and he would not sign a document with that in it. And he continued that I probably would not accept a document giving his view on the matter, but said he felt we were fundamentally agreed on the matter.
In my reply, I had this to say: “Our brethren have all agreed … that there can be certain cases, and conditions, where a person who has committed such a sin can live in the fellowship of the church.
“If we cannot agree on this general principle, then we will eventually run into a brick wall in our negotiations for peace, and the sum results would be more confusion, rather than a lasting peace. That is the reason I asked you to explain your position on this major issue.”
I put the matter to this brother in the most liberal form. I asked him: “Would you say that there could possibly be any conditions that could exist where a person guilty of the act of fornication could later live in the church?”
In his answer, he would not commit himself even to that liberal a wording of the matter. I quote his reply directly: “I can agree with the principle of what you say about `there can be certain cases, and conditions, where a person who has committed such a sin can live in the church.’ But such a statement can cover so much ground, and can be made to mean so many different things and to incorporate such a statement in a written document would advertise the church to the world in a false light that I am unwilling that such a thing be done.”
So, after this exchange of correspondence with the brother, and having failed to get any kind of a commitment from him on the major point of doctrine that they gave4 for their reason for withdrawing from us in the first place, I decided against publishing his series of articles on the subject. I felt that the time was not ripe for such a discussion through the paper.
Here is the point at hand: I know of a church in Texas that had excluded a sister who confessed that she was guilty of the sin of fornication. After this sister showed signs of repentance, had turned away from sin, and was living a true Christian life, she came back to the church, asked forgiveness, and was accepted back into the fellowship of the church, and this church is in good standing with all other churches in Texas that have adopted the Lampasas peace plan. So this is not a matter to be settled in the future. If these brethren want peace with us, this they must decide. The first decision they would be called to make would be, “What about the church that restored the woman who confessed to the act of fornication?”
If they can not make up their minds about whether or not there is forgiveness for this thing, then they could not make up their minds whether or not they would fellowship this church. And perhaps other churches.
I will uphold and defend any point of doctrine that I find taught in the Bible, yes the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness. And I am not ashamed to sign and advertise to the world any doctrine that is substantiated by the Word of God – let them think what they will of it.
They accused the Saviour of associating with sinners, and He gave them the parable of the man and his son. The son drew his inheritance and went off and associated with harlots (more than one – repeated acts), but when he “came to himself” and returned to his father’s house, he was received.
And John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (repeated acts) and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Along this same line, we often hear this scripture quoted: “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortionists, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Certainly, we all agree that scripture is true. Of course there is no place for such people in the church. No one would want any of these type people in the church. I don’t know of a church anywhere that would hold in fellowship anyone who could be classed as such.
But there is a vast difference in having at one time been in such a class, and then repenting and turning away from it and living a Christian life.
Suppose a man in his youth, in a moment of temptation, drank too much and got drunk? Suppose he got drunk two, three or five times, but later repented of his sinful acts and quit it? Suppose he had for years lived above it and had proved this to everyone? Would you call that man a drunkard all the rest of his life? Certainly not.
Supposing the so-called Prodigal Son had returned to his father’s house before he “came to himself” and wanted to bring some of the “harlots” into his father’s house to live there. Would the father have accepted him with open arms and held the big feast? Of course not. But when the son “came to himself” and turned away from his sinful acts, and returned home, then the father was ready to receive him, and the father when he saw him coming did not address him as an adulterer or, by some other sinful title, but as “My son.”
I would like to see every one of the children of God who can agree on the doctrine and practice of the Bible live together in a church capacity in love and fellowship and affiliation, and I would be just as lenient as I could possible do so without sacrificing a major principle in order to bring this about. And I will add this, that so far as I am personally concerned, no one owes me anything. But I can see no point in writing a peace today that may result in confusion tomorrow.
Word has gotten to me that some, who have read the article from the brother in another state, in other papers, have asked the question, why it was not in this paper. Some of my brethren, ministers and deacons, in whom I have the utmost confidence, have advised that I write an explanation. I told them I had rather go ahead and bear the criticism rather than let this matter cause confusion, but they thought this article with the thoughts herein expressed would be beneficial to the cause of the time, and that is my reason for writing it.
I want this made plain: I am not trying to dictate to our people anywhere or tell them what to do, or withhold information that I might have, from them.
But my desire during the 19 years that I have been editing and publishing the Banner of Love, and I feel it as strong today, if not stronger than ever before, is to not print anything in the paper that would have even a possibility of causing confusion.
So long as I feel the way I do now, at any time I receive anything that I fear would not be for the best interest of the cause I dearly love (regardless of the author or authors), I will withhold it from publication, and if my brethren want to criticize me for it, then I am willing to bear that criticism.