What's with you people in Oregon? Is there something in the water?

I've been getting questions from people in other parts of the country this week about another national news story involving faith healing here in Oregon. Parents, Travis and Wenona Rossiter, members of the Church of the Firstborn, are in prison after their daughter, Syble, died from diabetes. The couple used prayer to treat her, rather than seek medical care. You can read more about their story here.

So, the questions are coming in - what's up with Oregon? Faith healing does not only occur here in Oregon. The national stories coming out in the past fourteen years may indicate this is a new phenomenon here, but it is not. Walking through the Followers of Christ private cemetery, there are countless children who died before the late 1990s, but there was nothing authorities could do about it because faith healing was protected here in Oregon at that time. It was only in the last fourteen or so years that laws have been changing to protect these children.

For those who have been reading this blog since its inception, this will not be news, but the two church groups who make the news here in Oregon are actually related. The Church of the Firstborn and the Followers of Christ are splinter groups. 

In February 2012, Darren Russell, an active member of the Church of the Firstborn, wrote about the history of the groups: Monikers of Our Faith and What's in a Name?  

Darren has written several interesting guest blogs about church history and faith healing here. Two of his more controversial blogs were: Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians and his follow up story Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians, Part 2.

Darren Russell: Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians, Part Two

Last April, Darren Russell shared an article explaining his reasons for faith healing. This is a follow up on the same subject.

* * * * *

Last year I endeavored to give reasons for why I do not use physicians. I fairly strictly confined that article upon scriptural grounds, avoiding the historical, political, and scientific arguments. I had hoped even then for an opportunity to demonstrate that the beliefs some of us hold, of medicine and faith healing, was in fact the overwhelming practice of the early believers. If faith healing was only for the Apostles to perform, then once they vanished from the scene the Church would not have made use of these gifts, and returned to medical intervention.

            The importance of the historical argument has not gone unnoticed by those opposing, supposing that history sides on their part. In 2009, in anticipation of the Worthington trial, a writer for the Oregonian interviewed a professor concerning the history of medical usage in the first centuries after Christ. He claimed, “Christians were no different from the Greeks and the Romans. They used the methods of healing that their neighbors used. They accepted a naturalistic cause of disease. They employed medicine because of its cultural authority. “ He explained    “cultural authority” as  “something that an educated person should know about.” He did admit  that the 2d  century Origen recommended “that those who wanted to rely on God alone should seek healing by prayer and spiritual means. “ And that “there have always been some Christians who did that.” He also unfortunately used the same Origen to claim that most Christians at that time used physicians and  medicine.   (http://www.oregonlive.com/living/index.ssf/2009/06/osu_professor_early_christians.html)

            I say unfortunately because in Origen's works I find he examples the use of physicians  but never claims they were used by the church. In fact he was arguing against the heathen philosopher Celsus on his own terms. For example in one place was written, “IF recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore false to say that "in vain do you call in a physician." We have brought forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this learned Celsus.” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book II Chapter 20) In the same work Origen maintained that signs and wonders were still being seen among those that lived by the gospel. (Book I, Ch. 2)

            Origen's life ended near the middle of the 3d century and so I thought I would produce some testimony from those before him, who lived immediately after the age of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr , writing about 140 AD a defense of the Christian way,  explained what drew him to the Christians:

“For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other-things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death?” (1^st Apology) He also confirmed  that the signs still followed the believers at that time. “Many of our Christian men exorcising them[demons] in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs.”

2^nd Apology, Ch. 6

            His disciple Tatian, in Address to the Greeks c.155 AD gave even clearer depictions of the faith delivered to the saints. He ridicules the philosopher Heraclitus who died of his own cure, despite being a supposed top notch medical doctor (Chap. 3) , and makes pronouncements against medicines. “ How is it becoming to ascribe to matter the relief of the insane, and not to God? For by their art they turn men aside from the pious acknowledgment of God, leading them to place confidence in herbs and roots. But God, if He had prepared these things to effect just what men wish, would be a Producer of evil things; whereas He Himself produced everything which has good qualities, but the profligacy of the demons has made use of the productions of nature for evil purposes, and the appearance of evil which these wear is from them, and not from the perfect God.” (Chap. 17) “But medicine and everything included in it is an invention of the same kind. If any one is healed by matter, through trusting to it, much more will he be healed by having recourse to the power of God. As noxious preparations arc material compounds, so are curatives of the same nature. If, however, we reject the baser matter, some persons often endeavour to heal by a union of one of these bad things with some other, and will make use of the bad to attain the good. But, just as he who dines with a robber, though he may not be a robber himself, partakes of the punishment on account of his intimacy with him, so he who is not bad but associates with the bad, having dealings with them for some supposed good, will be punished by God the Judge for partnership in the same object. Why is he who trusts in the system of matter not willing to trust in God? For what reason do you not approach the more powerful Lord, but rather seek to cure yourself, like the dog with grass, or the stag with a viper, or the hog with river-crabs, or the lion with apes? Why you deify the objects of nature? And why, when you cure your neighbor  are you called a benefactor? Yield to the power of the Logos! “ (Chap. 18)

            Tatian assuringly exhorts his readers “with us there is no desire of vainglory, nor do we indulge in a variety of opinions. For having renounced the popular and earthly, and obeying the commands of God, and following the law of the Father of immortality, we reject everything which rests upon human opinion. Not only do the rich among us pursue our philosophy, but the poor enjoy instruction gratuitously; for the things which come from God surpass the requital of worldly gifts. Thus we admit all who desire to hear, even old women and striplings; and, in short, persons of every age are treated by us with respect, but every kind of licentiousness is kept at a distance. And in speaking we do not utter falsehood. It would be an excellent thing if your continuance in unbelief should receive a check; but, however that may be, let our cause remain confirmed by the judgment pronounced by God.” (Chap. 23)

            Eusebius, who wrote a history of the Church in the early 4th century,  quoted one Irenaeus who was a bishop in the late second century. “ True disciples, receiving grace from him, perform such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has received the gift from him.  For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years.  But why should we say more? It is not possible to recount the number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister. “ This Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who learned the faith at the feet of Apostle John.

Tertullian who lived in the generation after Irenaeus and  of the one preceding Origen gave us some nice examples of healings, and how they were brought about. “All this might be officially brought under your notice, and by the very advocates, who are themselves also under obligations to us, although in court they give their voice as it suits them. The clerk of one of them who was liable to be thrown upon the ground by an evil spirit, was set free from his affliction; and was also the relative of another, and the little boy of a third. How many men of rank (to say nothing of common people) have been delivered from devils, and healed of diseases! Even Severus himself [he was the Roman Emporer who died in 211AD-DR] , the father of Antonine, was graciously mindful of the Christians; for he sought out the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euodias, and in gratitude for his having once cured him by anointing, he kept him in his palace till the day of his death’(To Scapula, Chap. 5).

There are many other quotes that could be added to these, but I feel the point has been made. History shows that for the first few centuries the Church did not use doctors, but waited faithfully for their healing. They practised it upon unbelievers as well, as a testimony to the goodness of Christ. The professor interviewed by the Oregonian, seems to have been clearly wrong in many of his statements.

The True Followers of Christ: A Group of Fanatics

Thanks to Darren Russell for providing this excerpt of an editorial about the True Followers Church. It is totally the opinions of an outsider looking at the church.

Last April, Mr. Russell wrote an article explaining his reasons for faith healing. Tomorrow, January 18, I will publish a follow up article by him on the same subject.

* * * * *

By R. W. Gilbert

The Sunday State Journal, July 4, 1909, excerpted from Editorial page.

Down near Hutchinson, Kansas, there remains still some of that faith which is the salt of the earth. A group of fanatics dubbing themselves “The True Followers of Christ,” have begun to actually and literally follow the teachings of The New Testament. Of course we all do this so far as is consistent with our business interests, and the welfare of our families, but these people, who are in the strictest sense heretics-that is more religious than their brethren- follow the New Testament to their own and children's undoing. These are the sort of people that are really dangerous to conventional Christianity and ought to be sent to the asylum or burned at the stake or something of the kind.

Among other things requiring splendid courage, truly heroic faith, these people will take a live rattlesnake in their hands “in the name of Christ” and let it bite them, with even greater courage they will hand it to their sons and dear ones and let it also bite them. Think of it! In this cautious, cold, skeptical twentieth century, with it's timid worship of the safe and sane, it's Laodicean faiths and it's still more moderate heterodoxies, there are men and women and children who are voluntarily risking their lives, voluntarily submitting their bodies to torture for the sake of a few words of Jesus Christ. Ignorant, absurd, irrational, criminal? Certainly, so were the prophets before them. Certainly, for their Kingdom is not of this world. Certainly, for they are really religious.

The rattlesnake test? It is not such a bad one after all. The man who endured such a test successfully would be worth something, would be worth a whole conference of ecclesiastical side steppers and stand patters. Such a man would be an excellent addition to the United States Senate just now...he would do what he thought was right in a homely, straightforward way, he would say exactly what he pleased, and he would not give a whoop if the president and both parties and all the crowned heads of Europe were arrayed against him. Simply because he would be religious.

Another reason why the rattlesnake test would be a good one to apply to the modern world is that there are so many things in the modern world worse than rattlesnakes. There are so many deaths in the modern world more dreadful than death from the bite of a serpent. For at the worst a rattlesnake can only make your body swell up and die, but the sins which folks introduce into their houses without the slightest qualms may make their souls swell up and die.

So much for the “Followers of Christ.” They will soon be wiped out, or conform (which is an ignoble method of being wiped out) and go the way of the Doweyites and Doukhobors and such like folks who follow the Bible with a crazy consistency. But the expediently orthodox person and the prudently heretical person will remain with us and keep up their sham battles. They will do no particular harm or good to the young people, as young people want above all to be interested and flabby folk are not wont to be interesting. A narrow minded bigoted zealot will make converts because he believes in something with all his might...but the tolerant preacher and the religious “expert” will make no converts for the simple reason that you can not make something out of nothing. There is not the slightest danger that the professor who is personally unconvinced will “create conviction,” whereas the man of original religious endowment will create conviction whether he wishes to or no. God has made heaven for his saints, and hell for his enemies, but only He knows what fate is reserved for the folks who merely “study religious phenomena.”

…

But men were made to do better than they know how, to be considerably bigger propositions than harmless skeptics. They must be believers, they must be willing to adventure everything on the turn of the die, they must somehow or another drop their anchor into the unseen and cease their drifting and driveling, or be forever not worth mentioning in an obituary or otherwhere . The one thing that matters is belief, the attitude you face life in. If you grasp the rattlesnake boldly, if you face death and pain without flinching, then everything else is of little account. If you dodge and shrink and make objections and slip back into an easy-going self-indulgent life, then who cares how learned or rich or gentlemanly you may be. And the only real dynamic courage and hope and joy that I know of is religion. We praise practicality and efficiency and deplore other worldliness, but the most faith in the Christ of the New Testament.

Darren Russell: Women's Hair

In the past, there were conflicts and disagreements among the different Followers of Christ sects so severe that the churches disassociated with one another. One of the major points of contention was over women's hair. Yes, you read that right. A bunch of old men arguing over whether or not women should cut their hair. That sounded crazy to me, so I asked Darren Russell to explain the issue. Here is his response.

* * * * *

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Photos of adherents of Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church have frequent found their way into newspapers and programs. Selling stories is much easier with grabbing photos of mug shots or court proceedings. Both sides of the court system know that juries are often swayed along with the public by first impressions. A defense attorney asks his client to look the part of a normal every day upbeat true blood American and the other side leaks and introduces to the court and press the most vilifying photos. The photos themselves depict whether a person is happy or stressed, normal or peculiar, and we begin our evaluation of that person with these impressions.

I belong to a related church with some differences. And when we see these pictures there is one that leaps out to us. We don't focus on facial expressions or even much on the dress. We see the hair. I know my first reaction at seeing some of the women on trial was, "How do they pray?"

What does hair have to do with prayer? Let me explain.

In a nutshell we are faith healing sects and rely on prayer for our healing, for many of us, it is the only recourse. Any hindrance to our prayer could have serious repercussions. If we have sin in our lives we have to root it out and confess it. We also have to show ourselves to be subject to the orders God established.

In I Corinthians 11 Apostle Paul begins with, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ," It is a plea to some brethren then, and to us today to hear him out and keep what he says. He continues, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you."

His subject is the significance of the head's covering and how it indicates an order with God. "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."  Then comes Paul's statement. "EVERY man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.  But EVERY woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.  For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.  A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.  Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.  For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." 

He reiterates and presents another argument so as to press his point home, introducing the importance of having a proper relationship with God.  "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,  but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.  If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." NO OTHER PRACTICE...possibly the Followers Church has overlooked this?

I am not exactly sure how the Followers Church escaped this teaching, but have an idea. I do know that this doctrine has been a historical bone of contention among many assemblies, and some have put it aside as if it was an old coat. Long ago beginning with Charlie Smith women were forbidden to openly pray in the church. If they are not to pray publicly then their public covering becomes a moot point. I have heard it said by many men that they preferred their wives to have shorter hair, for many women it is easier to maintain. The argument then runs that they are being subject to their husband's will and therefore in God's order! Hold on a minute, since when were men able to change God's order? How did man usurp a woman's obligation to pray? How are we – men or women – to be heard when we have not submitted ourselves to God? How are we to rely on healing by prayer when we are dishonored by what is or is not upon our head, or our spouse's? 

I would like to see some responses to these questions, perhaps a deeper discussion is in order.

Darren

Darren Russell: Why I Choose Not To Use Physicians

Darren Russell, a member of the Church of the First Born, agreed to write an article explaining his practice of faith healing. Please read this with an open mind if you're interested in understanding this practice, but keep in mind that Darren is addressing "those Christians who would like a thoughtful scriptural basis for this teaching, not towards the atheist/secularists who will never accept any biblical argument above scientific consensus."

Next Sunday, I will publish an article written by Jerry Patton, a former FOC member and the grandson of an FOC preacher, which addresses this issue from another perspective.

* * * *

Why I Choose Not To Use Physicians

by Darren Russell

I found Suzi's blog one day while flipping through internet pages on a site called The Apologetics Index, a site supposedly dedicated to scriptural answers for Christians. Before I found the Followers of Christ Church with Suzi's link, I ran across this page at apologeticsindex.org concerning the body I grew up in, which has the same healing doctrine. The site stated we are “a group of churches whose faith healing practices violate biblical teaching on the subject. The church's doctrines and practices on this issue constitute a form of spiritual abuse. The problem of this church's approach is evident from these news items...” Then it went on to cite newspaper articles as the sum of evidence.

I searched the site looking for the scriptural arguments that supported their claim and found this on faith healing what the bible teaches

The Bible does not condemn, forbid, or even discourage the use of medicines or other proper medical care. Matter of fact, Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, was a doctor.

And the apostle Paul advised Timothy to use some wine for his stomach problems:

Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. - Source: 1 Timothy 5:23


On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Source: Mark 2:17

Some may find these to be decent scriptural arguments, but I do not find them at all very compelling. I intend to address these and then give several scriptural reasons as to why I do not utilize modern day physicians. My response is directed towards those Christians who would like a thoughtful scriptural basis for this teaching, not towards the atheist/secularists who will never accept any biblical argument above scientific consensus.

That Luke was a physician is not contested, but what manner of physician was he? Does the mere mention of his occupation in scripture grant divine approval? I don't think so. One apostle speaks of Rahab the harlot (James 2:25) and Luke mentions Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:22) but I cannot perceive of any making the argument that they are blessed vocations, especially in lieu of the context of other more direct scriptures. Still Rahab was faithful, Cornelius just, and Luke beloved; all descriptions of the person not the occupation. I would also think that Luke, who may have obtained a healing ministry the same as Paul, whom he was companion to, would not have much need to use a medical training in the presence of the Apostles. Luke says so very much himself in recording:

And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed: Who also honoured US with many honours; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary.

- Acts 28:8-10

It was Luke himself who noted the case of a woman who “had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,” (Luke 8:43) which is hardly a statement you would expect from “the beloved physician.”

Concerning Paul advising Timothy to “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.” I do not see that his statement can be inferred to mean anything more than giving a dietary recommendation based upon experience. Paul had already spent considerable time in Ephesus, where Timothy had been left and seemed well aware that the water there was not potable and the source of his sicknesses.

“They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Every use of the word “physician” mentioned by Jesus was in the form of a proverb, a popular saying, and used to refer to himself. The word in fact in the KJV is only mentioned 11 times, with 4 of those referring to Christ “Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). These verses surely do not prove anything concerning the medical profession; Christ healed both bodies and souls through power.

When reading, people do not always sense the sarcasm that seems more obvious when heard. Tones set a context, the spirit of a conversation. In 5 of the 7 other references to “physicians” we find this to be the case. “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” (Jer. 8:22) says God through the prophet Jeremiah to a back slidden nation. “Ye are all physicians of no value” (Job 13:4) speaks Job of his false friends.

Do any of these verses prove that physicians are contrary to God? No. But they do not show them to be approved either.

The vast majority of Christians throughout the world believe in miracles; that divine intervention is possible. Still most use hospitals and doctors where they are available. I choose not to, not because there is a written command against it, but because I believe my faith leads me to that decision.

I believe in God and that he has both the power and will to heal us. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.” ( I Peter 5:6-7) I find it comforting to know that he cares. A minister in my church recently went to visit his daughter in the hospital who has cancer. The doctors meaning well explained to him they were powerless to change her condition. “I believe so,” he told them, “but you don't know my God.” He is right; he knows that God has all abilities to change her situation. “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy “ (Jas. 4:12).


I believe healing was specially reserved by God in the same manner forgiveness is. “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” (Ps. 103:2,3) Jesus once asked, “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?” (Matt. 9:5) Both come from God, he is the sole proprietor of these institutions.


I believe faith healing is a sign that follows the believers, giving assurance to the message of the gospel. “These signs shall follow them that believe; In my name ... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover...And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:17-20) “and being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” (Acts 15:22) Luke says Apostle Paul and his company remained awhile in“speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands..” (Acts 14:3) I fail to see how using doctors would promote God's word, it would only affirm the medical industry.

I believe that Christ gave gifts to the church, including healings, for our benefit until that day when we should all arrive to perfection (I Cor.12:28,30; 13:10) and not need them any longer. God wants us to pursue these gifts (I Cor. 14:1) and not be behind in any gift until his return (I Cor. 1:7).

I believe that the same faith toward God that can heal is the same faith that obtains forgiveness of sins and salvation, giving personal assurance of God's might. Paul was clear there is only one Lord, and one faith which saves (Eph. 4:5). This faith which healed (Luke 7:50; 18:42) is the same by which we are“buried in baptism” ( Col. 2:12). Healing when it arrives is a very powerful confirmation of God's desire and ability to resurrect us to salvation.

Does any of this mean that Christians never get sick? Far from it. I believe that as a son, suffering and chastisement is from God. “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” (Heb.12:5-7). Paul also was afflicted with a physical impairment, “a thorn in the flesh” not because of a sin, but so he would not be “exalted above measure”. Paul says, “ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities” (II Cor. 12:7-10). We should all have this attitude, but I do not see how a doctor fits well into this scenario. Our sufferings are to teach us, and by ameliorating them we may be rejecting what he has to say, even Christ himself learned this way (Heb. 5:8).


I believe God's knowledge is complete, man's incomplete. That doctors are trained in their field is not doubted, but still, they lack total comprehension. A co-worker once asked me why I did not go to doctors. Knowing he was not particularly religious but fanatical about his vehicles I asked him who did his mechanic work. “I always take my cars to the factory dealer for repairs”, he said, “they are the ones who made it, they best know how to fix it.” I agreed. And so I choose to go to my maker and not to the “shade tree mechanic” who has something less than a perfect knowledge.

I find in the bible this same thing is taught. In the book of Jeremiah the prophet has been sent by God against Judah to “utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness” (1:16). He explains, , “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (2:13). They had forsaken the knowledge of God, and replaced it with the knowledge of the peoples they were around. God asks, “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” (8:22) to illustrate that what they were dependent upon was not of him and of no value to them.

God tells Jeremiah, “Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence (contagious disease)” (14:11,12). The people cry, “why hast thou smitten us, and there is no healing for us? we looked for peace, and there is no good; and for the time of healing, and behold trouble!” (14:19) and repent, “We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee “ (14:20). They even realize the cause,“Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things” (14:22).

Jeremiah at last records the previous sin and the revelation to God's people. “The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart...Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit....O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. Heal me, O LORD, and I shall behealed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise. “ (17:1,5-7,13,14)It is a lesson of how God deals with his people, a lesson with parallels today.


I believe that knowledge may come from God, but that that physicians and the medical community has obtained its knowledge by using methods forbidden by God. “The LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” (I Sam. 2:3). Daniel and his brethren were gifted knowledge from God, even in the area of sciences (Daniel 1:4,17) but can the medical industry today make that claim? Probably the greatest source of study, contributing to anatomical knowledge, has been the dissection of humans, both autopsies and living persons. Leonardo Davinci was once expelled from that Catholic Church for this very reason. The bible prohibits touching the dead (Num. 19:11,16), except in burial process which must occur the same day (Deut 21:23), or any deriving of benefit from a dead being. ( Daniel Eisenberg, a Jewish M.D. notes that the primary purpose of autopsies “From a medical perspective, autopsy predominantly serves the purpose of improving quality control in medicine. A physician has the opportunity of finding out whether his diagnosis was correct and whether treatment was appropriate.”(aish.com). Surely one cannot consider knowledge gained in this manner as approved by God.

In fact I believe the ethical problems surrounding the medical community have grown considerably, replacing Godly morality with ethical considerations based on extending physical life. We have scientists experimenting with animal parts in human beings, medically supported abortions, extending lives without any quality, all in the name of science and medicine. It is too bad that many now have extended their earthly existence without coming any closer to God. It is as Jesus said, “He that loveth his life shall lose it”, and we should be considering, “he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12:25) The case of the mother who dies in childbirth with her child at home avoided all the spiritual ramifications of her counterpart who in a hospital is induced to make a “moral” decision to save her own life or that of her child's. Where the decision is left in God's hands, there is no quandary or judgment, just a clean conscience. For me, a clean conscience is preferable to a longer life. The medical industry has blurred ethical and moral standards.

I believe that most of mankind has fallen into idol worship by placing the medical profession and their practices above God and his standards. All too often in life I witness men challenging God and his precepts. Even when that person becomes frightfully ill, he will eschew God's promises and head straight to a doctor. The doctor, he will hear. If he is prescribed medications, or counseled a surgical technique, he will oblige. After all, his health is at stake. Doctors have become the people's new priest. It is a relationship that will lead to downfall, as in the case of King Asa, who once believed in God with his heart, but turned against the prophets of God who warned him of his unbelief toward God and reliance upon men. It is recorded in II Chronicles 16:12“Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.” The verse shows if anything, how diametrically opposed physicians and God are.

There is no warrant in the scriptures to use a physician, but I find many reasons in the scriptures to depend on God and his ministers.

Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

James 5:13-16

Hopefully for the reader, I have presented a biblical case against the use of physicians sufficient to illustrate the spiritual benefits of reliance upon God, and to destroy the myth that our “faith healing practices violate biblical teaching.”

Darren Russell: What's In A Name?

This is a continuation of last Sunday’s blog, by Darren Russell. The Followers of Christ, in Oregon City, claim that the Church of the First Born is not the same church and theology. That is not what the history of the church tells, as Darren so aptly explained in his last post.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

 It's an oft repeated phrase from one Shakespeare's tragedies, the words of Juliet to the thought of Romeo who may have to give up his family name to be with her. Stripped of his name and family fortune, he still would have been the man she loved.

So what does the Bible say about names?

When God created Adam, he left it to him to name all the animals of the garden. God knew each and every one but had no need to name them to distinguish them. There were times when he gave people names, and they were always significant. He named Abram Abraham, Jacob Israel and gave the words of the prophecy to Isaiah that the messiah would be called Immanuel. In fact he gave his Son a better name than any of the angels. (Heb. 1:4) Before his birth he sent an angel to name him Jesus, a name meaning savior, a name he lived up to.

He has also promised a name to his people and to Jerusalem:

Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

Isaiah 62:11-12

Jesus established his Church while here, and simply called them “my disciples” (John 13:35). Luke said in Acts that the disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch. Apostle John in his vision referred to the church as “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 3:12; 21:2,10) and this is confirmed by Paul (Heb. 12:22) and is a direct fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Paul goes on to describe the “city of the living God” as a “general assembly and church of the first born...” (Heb. 12:23). Of course the first born is none other than Christ (Col. 1:15), and so it is just a flowery way for Paul to say the “Church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16).

The most common way for Paul to address believers was as “The Church of God” which he uses a dozen times with slight variations. He also referred to this same group as “the churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33) but for the most part he simply said “the church”, and all the believers who read his letters or heard his voice new which church he was referring to, there is only one, that of “The Redeemed of the Lord”.

So many names to choose from, so many good names, and people like to hold on to one, as if it had a magical charm to it that will save you in itself. God gave his Son a multiplicity of names (Isaiah 9:6) to describe him more fully, and we should not be surprised that the church, his “New Jerusalem”, the “Bride of Christ” is known by as many different names. As followers of Christ we just need to keep in mind the reputation he earned with God, the name he inherited, and “the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” ( II Tim. 2:19)

Darren Russell: Monikers of our Faith

Darren Russell, is from Tulare, California and is related to Marion Reese, Charles Calvin Smith, and the Morris family. On January 25, 2012, Russell contributed his first guest blog on Early Church History. Today Russell addresses the question of church names. Please come back on Wednesday, February 8 for a continuation of this topic.

* * *

A good name is better than precious ointment.

Ecclesiastes 7:1

When our faith hit these shores the predominant denomination was Congregationalist, but Rhode Island was home to the Baptists, and Pennsylvania to the Quakers. For lack of a better term they called us “Quaker Baptists” of which we were neither. Among ourselves we used the term “The Brethren.”

In the early 1700s there was a group that moved to New Jersey and created their own farming community. No name has ever been learned in which they called themselves, they disdained all creeds except the Bible, they abhorred denominationalism and so never hung a sign on their meeting house, and they hammered upon paid clergy, lawyers and doctors. They also were very upright citizens but opposed to war, especially those with political objectives. As a people they suffered greatly through the Revolution, losing much of their estates, because many suspected them of being treasonous closet Loyalists. 


This set off a migration and many fled to British Canada, Long Island, Western New York and to an area called Redstone which was on the border of Kentucky near Fayette, PA. Some returned to Connecticut from where they had originally moved.

The American Revolution had served a godly purpose of scattering the Faith all over the land reminiscent of God's dealing with the Apostles who refused to leave Jerusalem. They still considered themselves solely “Christian” and refused to organize as a religion.

By the early 1800s we find these different groups referring to themselves as “True Followers of Christ” and “Free Brethren.” It was never conceived of as a name as much as they were describing themselves in ways that communicated to the different sects they wanted no part of them. Bro. Elias Brewer was one such New Englander living in Western New York until 1826 and then moving on to Michigan. In Superior, Michigan he held meetings in his home for the “Free Brethren” and a few years later two members of his congregation, his son, John, and Judge Parkhurst erected a “Free Church” next door to him. He died there in 1870 and is buried in the Free Church Cemetery, which belonged to the church.

New York was also where Brewer baptized Jacob McDonald, where an infernal prophet created and organized a near replica of the Church, and the Brethren first received the name “The Kissers.”

The rising of the Mormons in the same place initiated confusion for the church, they were very similar in doctrine at that time and the followers of Joseph Smith referred to themselves also as “The True Followers of Christ” and “The Church of the First Born”. Smith later had a revelation that changed their name to something similar to what they are known by now, and added temple and priesthood doctrines which stretched the doctrinal differences. Many of the Faith were among the first converts of Mormonism which created much friction in future generations.

McDonald moved to Wisconsin in 1842. There were Brethren in Missouri as well, and one of them in 1850, Johnson Wright deeded his land to “Christ....and to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born”. After the Civil War the Wisconsin group led by McDonald joined those in Missouri. McDonald would move one last time to Smith County, Kansas where he died in 1891.

In the 1870s calling themselves “The True Followers of Christ,” McDonald, Marion Reece, John Annis and others preached the gospel. They were in the newspapers of the day slandered to be Mormons, but usually called “McDonaldites” from their leader, or “Faith Preachers” from their doctrine. These brethren were among the first that took up stakes in Oklahoma Territory in 1889.

In 1906, before Oklahoma was granted statehood, a letter was written from Stillwater, OK to Governor Frantz on whether or not “The Followers of Christ or Church of the First Born” were a State-recognized body and capable of performing their own marriages legally. Stillwater is where Bro. Lawrence Webb was from, and where he returned after Oregon.

In Indiana about the same time, the Church there became known as the “Viners”. This was because of the preaching to the people that they should repent and be baptized into “The True Vine.”

When WWI came about many of the people of the Faith refused to enter the war effort for conscientious reasons. A few were imprisoned and many investigated for draft evasion. The Church was even investigated for harboring German spies! The Draft Board was having issue with the Followers because they lacked an organization, formal creed, permanent building, or even so much as a uniform designation. This led to the Church being denied conscientious objector status for its members.

Two congregations in particular seeking to alleviate the situation filed petitions with the authorities to be recognized as legitimate assemblies for religious exemptions. “The General Assembly and Church of the First Born” of Indianapolis, Indiana and “The Church of the First Born also known as The Followers of Christ” in Homestead, Oklahoma. The story passed down was that both groups sought the designation “True Followers of Christ” but it was rejected by the authorities as either already taken or too vague for the purpose of identification.

When WWII hit most groups opted to fall under the umbrella of Indiana's group, homestead no longer being an active body, for purposes of the impending draft. Most at that time used the expression “Followers of Christ” to denote who they were as a group.

Since then many congregations, seeking tax exempt status, have been incorporating under different variations of these names. Personally it seems a mistake to me, if not sacrilege, to register a church's identity for tax advantage, or to incorporate and treat the “Church of the living God” as if it is merchandise. 

Guest Blogger: Darren Russell

Guest Blogger, Darren Russell, is from Tulare, California and is related to Marion Reese, Charles Calvin Smith, and the Morris family. He currently lives and works near Phoenix, AZ, where he assembles in a house meeting of believers with a few other families.

I would like to clarify some of the very early history of the Church in question. In the 1930s there were thousands, yes literally thousands of brethren, scores of ministers and prophets who were following the picking seasons.

Those were hard times and many of the groups from Oklahoma, Idaho, and Colorado were coalescing in a western migration to alleviate their poverty. They were a very evangelistic bunch who for years lived a gypsy type of existence up and down the west coast from Southern California up into Canada.

When the Oregon City church took off it was not Walter White's Church, it was a group of believers that followed Christ, of which he was one. As brethren began to settle themselves in areas many stayed on in that area, Bro. Walter even opening up a store. The truth is the Church existed in that part of Oregon for over 50 years prior to Walter White moving there.

When Walter White left Idaho, he had been taken in by a doctrine that was present at Jerome since about 1900 that the "fullness of the gentiles" was upon us. He also debated with other leaders about such matters as divorce and women cutting hair. He went to Oregon City where there were already people who would accept him, he having made several trips through the years into that body.

He was accepted as an apostle by many, and gradually usurped the authority of many elders who had been there prior. After a few years most of his opposition left and his faithful remained, the rest is a matter of history, of which I believe Suzanne is doing a wonderful job of expounding upon.

For those who do not appreciate the ramifications of the "fulfilling of times of the gentiles", that is when the amount of people who will be saved is completed and afterwards comes the Judgment. Once all those that will be saved have been, there is no longer a point to baptism. Your only hope is to be numbered among Israel. There are of course variations on this theme, but they all have the same consequence, a spiritually dead church results.

You have to understand, there was no thought for the future, because the eternal future was expected around the corner. There were no baptisms, no ordinations, and no one expected to live long enough to produce offspring that would make it to adulthood. Children were always grandfathered into salvation until the reached the age of personal accountability, when they were expected to be baptized. At the time of Walter White's death few of his congregation seriously contemplated that the world would last long enough for baptisms to be necessary.

I must add that these aberrations in doctrine are not indicative of the Followers of Christ in general. There has been through the years and in different areas other splinter groups who have led similar doctrines. One related group in Cortez, CO are very similar to the Oregon City group in everything except their last days doctrine, at least they have maintained their baptisms. Their leader, a man named Carver, as long as he was living was also supposed to be the only man who could baptize. After his death there were appointed leaders from his family who could baptize, but their sermons were simply reiterations of previous Carver sermons, they were reported to sometimes listen to tape recorded sermons of their late pastor in lieu of church. Their doctrines were not so much different from the rest of the groups as much as their claim to be the exclusive inheritors and founts of the truth. 

Then there was the True Followers of Antlers, Oklahoma whose leader Old Joab Morris sewed his bible shut and would not allow another one on his mountain or any gentiles to step foot upon it without a curse. He believed he would live forever, and never see death as long as he remained at that place. They also expected Christ to return at any moment. He was never able to put that belief to the ultimate test as he was evicted by the state authorities and those who possessed the deed to his property, which he held by a revelation from God. Seems God neglected to file this revelation at the local courthouse. They had a few more peculiarities but of course the one predominant in Prophet led flocks, they were the ONLY ones who were going to heaven!

Now I don't tell about these groups to insinuate that all FOC churches are the same, I'd say far from it, the FOC churches as a whole are evangelical in outlook, and take Christ's commissions seriously. I would like to point out that throughout the entire history of the Church, since even the days of the original apostles, there has been group peculiarities and even heresies. Once a group has turned inward on itself and neglected their duty, their candlestick is removed and they are no longer a light to any.