DALLAS CHURCH WITHDRAWS FROM MINISTER

We have waited for months to tell this story, for we wanted to be reasonably sure that it would do good, and especially that it would hurt no one. We now believe that it may do much good to tell it, and it should hurt no one at all if we present it in the spirit of sympathy and understanding for all concerned. This story has drama, and it touches the lives of a number of fine Christian people in Dallas. It is a tragic story in that it is another instance of our failure to let love win in our lives.

The principal characters in this story are Milton and Helen Stolz, who are as fine and intelligent Christians as one could ever expect to know. They love our Lord as much as any couple I know, and His blessed Name is often upon their lips. It so happens that Milton is a business associate of one of my brothers in Dallas, and it was in this connection that I first met him. This connection is, however, irrelevant to the story I have to tell, for the facts are the same regardless of business ties. It only adds to the drama somewhat.

When I first met Milton at my brother’s office I had knowledge that he was “a Church of Christ minister” and was from a long line of Church of Christ people. I learned on that occasion that he was a graduate of Abilene Christian College, that his father was an elder in one of the leading congregations in Dallas, and. that his brother was also a minister in another state. Like myself, he had grown up in Dallas, and had attended some of the same schools I did; and being somewhat younger than I; he was a little boy in a congregation where I did some of my first preaching in Dallas. Furthermore, his parents and my older brothers were friends in one of Dallas’ oldest congregations a generation ago. We were both immersed in our youth by W. L. Oliphant.

At this first meeting with Milton I noticed something distinctively different about him: he was seeking. He had a lot to say about surrendering oneself to the Lord, dedication, prayer, and especially about the leading of the Holy Spirit. He did not sound like “we” sound, and he was definitely seeking a depth of spirituality that few Christians seem to have, regardless of what church. He was at that time a frequent speaker in Churches of Christ here and there, and had only recently been associated with churches in San Angelo and Fort Worth as a minister. He was not at that time preaching for any congregation regularly, but, as I have said, was in business with my brother as a real estate developer, and was a member of the Preston Road Church of Christ (not the congregation where his father is an elder).

Milton impressed me as being too good to be true. There he was with as much a “Church of Christ background” as I myself, and a product of the same city and same congregations, and even an ACC man like myself, and yet every bit as unorthodox as myself! But he was unorthodox in a different way. During these first conversations I had with him I supposed that he was too far out for me, especially in respect to the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life, but I saw almost at once that he had something we all need more of: a hungering and thirsting for the Spirit of God. So I did not argue any points with him. I decided 1 might learn something, so for hours at a time I listened to him tell of his search for the reality of Christ in his life. It did me good to be quiet and listen. I was edified. It caused me to ask myself if 1 were seeking the deeper truths of God like that man.

I knew then that he had better stay in the business world and gain his own support, for he would never make it as a Church of Christ minister in any professional sense. I wondered what would happen to him in the Church of Christ, for it was simply a case of his being too spiritual for them (and I’m willing to include myself here).

Months later when I received the October 6, 1964 issue of Firm Foundation I found out what happened to Milton and Helen Stolz in the Church of Christ. What I saw read as follows:

To: Churches of Christ

This is a notice of our reluctant but necessary withdrawal of fellowship from R. Milton Stolz and his wife, Helen, who placed membership at Preston Road November 23, 1963. In our judgment, they have accepted and taught serious doctrinal heresies regarding: the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and such manifestations of the Spirit as miracles of healing and speaking in tongues; the observance of the Supper, the use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship, the undenominational character and unity of the Church of Christ. Further, their extension of fellowship to, and active participation in, various “Holiness” denomination organizations have brought damaging reproach upon the church of the Lord.

This action is taken after months of prayers and direct efforts to restore them. Since they have rejected all of our entreaties, we have no alternative but to withdraw from them and “mark them” as “factious” teachers of doctrines that cause divisions and occasions of stumbling (2 Thess. 3:6; Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10).

We request publicity of this action because of Milton Stolz’s former prominence in the full-time ministry among churches of Christ and because of his widely publicized “testimonials” before such “Holiness” groups as the Assembly of God and the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International.

We hope that this action and its effect on relationships of the Stolz’s to former brethren and acquaintances may produce changes in conviction and behavior that their spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Elders, Preston Road Church of
Christ, Dallas, Texas                 

This bull of excommunication was, of course, prepared by the minister of the Preston Road church. I should like to challenge church historians to find an instance of a decree of disfellowship that was ever written by one other than a professional clergyman. It is the professional minister that both composes and executes such bulls, the reason being that orthodoxy must be protected.

Milton related to me some of the happenings leading to his withdrawal. On one occasion when he was lunching with the minister and one of the leading elders, he expressed himself freely about the Spirit of God, and was encouraged that there was as much agreement as there was. But the elder, who had heard rumblings of Milton’s questionable views, turned the conversation to matters more definite. He asked: “Can you worship with people who use instrumental music?” Milton responded that he could, that he could worship anywhere with anyone that was a child of God. To which the elder said something like: “There is no need to talk any further.”

Perhaps the elder could not then be so pure about the various points made about the Holy Spirit, for this can be rather vague and indefinite. But instrumental music was language he understood, and to him it was a symbol of apostasy. If a man would worship with people who use the instrument, then there is no further need for communication, for we have his number. This is the way the thinking goes with so many of our people. This same elder was later to say things like: “It is clear that Milton is not one of us.” Here is a shepherd of the Lord’s flock who is willing to make brotherhood contingent upon a certain view about an organ. One cannot even worship in a building where there is one without being rejected by his home church!

This was the substance of the charge about instrumental music. Milton was not advocating its use, and he certainly was not trying to bring an organ into the Preston Road church. He is in fact opposed to the organ, or at least indifferent to it. His search for spiritual meaning took him among those who use the instrument. This is heresy at Preston Road Church of Christ! His first mistake, of course, was searching for truth outside the walls of our own brotherhood, for the search is over if you are in the Church of Christ.

If it is true that the measure of a man’s greatness is the size of the thing that gets his goat, then we might say that a person’s concept of Christianity can be measured by the size of that which he makes the basis of brotherhood. It is tragic and pathetic that we have churches that will exclude a brother over an organ. With the world falling apart around us; and with the church faced with crises unparalleled in history, we spend our time castigating a good Christian brother for visiting a Baptist Church, or wherever there happens to be an organ. An organ! Is its absence or presence really that important? Is not the fellowship of the saints much more important?

The large Preston Road church spent an entire Lord’s Day service for the withdrawal ceremony. The minister made appropriate remarks, citing the scriptures that he considered relevant, leading up to the withdrawal of a fellow minister, a brother who had labored as his own associate in a Fort Worth congregation sometime before. The elder who was satisfied that the congregation had a heretic in its midst when he learned that Milton had been going where there was an organ, read the bull of excommunication. And for one of the few times in our history a Church of Christ had withdrawn fellowship from one of its ministers. This never happened to me, for instance, which must mean that I am still in. It did not even happen to Billie Sol Estes, another of our preachers!

To many of us this was even more than a congregation withdrawal from a minister of the gospel. It was a bold illustration of what has happened to us in recent decades. We have become so stratified as a party that we are impervious to any fluidity of ideas, especially in those areas in which we differ from others. Fear motivates us. Preston Road was compelled to do something about Milton, for people were beginning to ask questions. And what would the other congregations say? When a church carefully takes all the scriptural steps for disciplinary action, lists changes that are within the traditions of the brotherhood, and then withdraws from the brother with scriptural exactness, it has protected itself from any disapproval from other churches as well as answered questions from within its own congregation. The idea that the elders are not to be questioned is so ingrained within us that Preston Road disposed of the problem of Milton Stolz simply by the elders expressing their judgment. Few will stop to ask why the same men will criticize the bishops of the Roman Catholic church for their assumed prerogatives over the souls of men.

Some of us will see something else in this withdrawal: our preoccupation with doctrine over ethics in matters or discipline. The Stolz’s are known to be fine Christian people, and it is likely that Preston Road excluded from its fellowship some of its most devoted saints. We all know that all such churches have many lukewarm members, including the worldly and the vain, some of whom seldom if ever frequent the assembly, and these remain in the fellowship. However much one may follow the ways of the flesh in our churches, conforming more to the world than being transformed by the Spirit, he will likely remain in good standing so long as he is doctrinally sound.

An orthodox Billie Sol Estes can not only be tolerated by our brotherhood, but even be permitted to occupy pulpits across the country right up to the time that he was whisked away to prison. An unorthodox Milton Stolz was disposed of in short order for his doctrinal sins. Our preoccupation with doctrinal correctness leads us to receive one of them even when his life has been disgraceful before the entire world because of his doctrinal loyalty, and to reject the other even when his ethical behavior is impeccable because he digressed from the beaten path.

The statement of withdrawal reflects ideas about fellowship that should lead us to have some second thoughts. The last paragraph mentions “former brethren”. At what point did Milton and Helen cease to be a brother and sister in the Lord? They had not left the Church of Christ, and insofar as I know (or the Preston Rood church knew) they had no intention of doing so. Did the withdrawal make them former brethren? One of the very passages referred to in the withdrawal says: “Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” ( 2 Thess. 3 :15 ). Are they no long in Christ? Does a minister in a church have this kind of power of life and death, is one a brother one moment and not a brother the next, all because a minister reads a bull? Was it not this kind of thing that triggered the Protestant reformation?

And one might wonder what this language means: “their extension of fellowship to . . . various ‘Holiness’ denominational organizations have brought damaging reproach upon the church of the Lord.” Can any man extend fellowship to anybody? I thought fellowship was a relationship created by God for all those who are in Christ. “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). No man has the power of fellowship in his hands, including the Preston Road church, for this is determined by God on the basis of one’s relationship to His Son.

This can only mean that Milton and Helen attended Holiness meetings, and that Milton sometimes took advantage of the opportunity of speaking to them. I myself heard him say that he could never join any sect, and that these churches were sectarian also, and that he chose simply to be a Christian and to “witness” (not one of our words) for Him anywhere he could. My wife and I attended one or two of these meetings ourselves with Milton. Does this mean we “extended fellowship” to them? This is party language. The Bible nowhere reads like that.

How does Preston Road know that Milton and Helen have “brought damaging reproach upon the church of the Lord”? Precisely how? Drunkenness? Adultery? Unpaid debts? By behaving like Billie Sol? None of these. It is that Milton has been going to “sectarian churches” (‘the church of the Lord’ in the bull is of course the Church of Christ) and talking about what Jesus means to him. I have heard him and this is what he does: he talks about his love for Jesus! He doesn’t talk against anybody or any church, but he gives witness to the meaning of a Spirit-filled life. How does this damage the Lord’s church? They may mean that Milton disturbed the Preston Road church by such behavior, or that he held doctrinal views contrary to the Church of Christ, or perhaps even that he damaged a church’s image of itself, which we might call a party image. But how can one who is speaking sincerely and lovingly about what Jesus Christ means to him be damaging the church? I would come nearer concluding that one damages the church when he seeks to exclude such a brother from the congregation, or when he acts like Billie Sol.

The charge against Milton and his wife is heresy — “serious doctrinal heresies”. Besides the ideas about the Holy Spirit these include instrumental music, the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, and “the undenominational character and unity of the Church of Christ.” Since all these are listed as “serious doctrinal heresies,” we may conclude that anyone of them would be sufficient for excommunication. This means that if one does not believe that what we call the Church of Christ is not a denomination, and yet believes that all other churches are, then he is a heretic. Unless you believe that “we are right and everybody else is wrong” you will get booted out! Is this the kind of people we want to be!

The charge against this couple of being heretics because of “the frequency of the Lord’s Supper” is unbelievably puerile. All this means is that Milton and Helen sometimes missed the Lord’s Supper in attending these other churches. That they may have been wrong in doing this is one thing, but that they are heretics because of it is simply ridiculous. In the first place, the frequency of breaking bread may not be as clearly set forth in the scriptures as we have always supposed. Jesus made the time element vague, perhaps purposely so, when he said: “As often as you eat this bread . . . “ I fear that we make Acts 20:7 mean more than it says. If the frequency of the Supper had been paramount in the mind of Jesus or Paul, they would surely have said something about it. Can we not see how someone would conclude that it is much deeper aspects of the Supper than the time element that really matter, and these they seek to realize “as often as” they partake.

But even if brethren are dead wrong when they fail to break bread every Sunday, this does not make them heretics. One can be wrong without being a heretic. How about ourselves? Are we not likely to have erroneous views about some matters (as difficult as this may be to conceive)? Do our errors make us heretics? A heretic is a troublemaker, a factious person. He is one who viciously seeks to build his own party to the destruction of the body of Christ. Such a one is described in Titus 3 as “perverted and sinful” and “self-condemned.” A heretic is insincere, one who selfishly pursues his own proud way to the hurt of the church.

The Stolz’s are no more like that than the people are who withdrew from them. One of the very verses referred to in the withdrawal document makes clear the character of the heretic: “Such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded (Rom. 16:18).

Milton and Helen were not trying to deceive anybody, nor were they trying to undermine the church and start a party of their own. They did not “teach” these things in any such manner as to cause trouble, but simply gave their views when it seemed appropriate. They were quite willing, as they still are, for other Christians to differ with them. They only wanted the freedom to interpret some of these things according to their own conscience. What is that we say, “In matters of opinion, liberty . . . “? If These things are not matters of opinion, I’d like to know what would be.

No man has the right to press his opinions upon others as matters of faith, making his own interpretations a test of fellowship. And if one persisted in this kind of behavior, he could justly be accused of heresy, whether his opinions were right or wrong. It is my understanding that Milton had no interest whatever in forcing his views upon others. But we have evidence enough that the Preston Road church has done this very thing. They have said in effect: if you don’t see as we do about instrumental music, the frequency of the Supper, the work of the Holy Spirit, and even the idea that our church is the only true church, then we will not have fellowship with you.

This leads one to wonder who are, after all, the heretics in the eyes of God. I recall a passage from Alexander Campbell in which he said that in cases of excommunication throughout the history of the church it is nearly always the heretics that do the withdrawing!

Milton’s notions about the Spirit may alarm us more that some of his other views. But let me insist that there is reason for latitude here also. Take Paul for instance. How would he get along at Preston Road with such remarks as: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (1 Cor. 14:18). Here we have at least one “loyal” preacher that spoke in tongues! I know that this is not one of our passages, and it doesn’t apply today, and all that. But whatever we say or however much we don’t like it, Paul spoke in tongues — and he thanked God that he did!. It is true that Paul chose to speak in tongues as private devotion, choosing to speak in an understandable language in the assembly (verse 19), but yet he charges the church as follows: “So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (verse 39). Not only does Preston Road forbid it, they will withdraw from anybody that even believes such a thing. I suppose, then, that we know what would happen to Paul at Preston Road.

What is this that we say about following the New Testament? Don’t we really mean: following our own prejudicial beaten path through the New Testament? Anything that doesn’t jibe with our own brand of orthodoxy we neatly pass by with a wave of the hand: “it doesn’t apply today.” Has it ever occurred to us that other sincere believers in the Lord may find meaning in these passages that we so glibly ignore? How is it that we are so wise that we know precisely what applies and what doesn’t?

What other recourse was there for the elders at Preston Road, if any? Was this withdrawal really necessary? What might an eldership have done that believes in the freedom of an individual’s conscience before God (“It is before his own master that he stands or falls” — Rom. 14:4) and yet seeks to maintain the integrity of the congregation? Surely the scriptures give us the answer to this, and it is in that fourteenth chapter of Romans. “As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions” (Verse 1). Three times that chapter warns against passing judgment on our brother, or “the servant of another.” Verse 13 urges us to decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in. the way of a brother, and verse 15 says: “If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.”

In this chapter Paul makes it clear that our first thought toward an erring or weak brother should be his relationship to the Father. Jesus is his Lord, not ourselves. “If we live, we live to the Lord” — not the brethren. “If we die, we die to the Lord.” A brother is not responsible to us. He is to stand before his Master in judgment. We therefore need not judge him. Thus Paul concludes in verse 12: “So each of us shall give account of himself to God.” We must make sure that we are “walking in love” toward our brother, and especially that we do not discourage him in his effort to stand before God with a good conscience.

The tender words of Gal. 6:1 might fit here: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.”

What does all this mean? Is it an act of love to thrust a brother from our midst? We readily admit that a congregation must be protected from a vicious factionist whose only interest is to deceive others for his own glory, and the passages referred to in the withdrawal document would have relevance to this kind of person. But the Stolz’s are not like the sensuous people of Rom. 16:17, but like the well-meaning brethren of Romans 14 who hold different views.

So what is the answer? In view of the above scriptures the elders might have done nothing at all. Rom. 14:1 says, “Receive him who differs with you, but not with the idea of arguing with him,” and that is what they would be doing. Simply accept him as a brother and let it go at that. If other members should raise questions about what Milt and Helen believe about the Holy Spirit, the elders could turn to Rom. 14 and say a word about the freedom that we have to differences of opinion, and let the matter be dropped.

Now if one who is granted this liberty by his brothers uses it as “an opportunity for the flesh” rather than in love (Gal. 5:13 ), then the elders would have to take action, for this would be factious behavior. But this would not be so much a matter of the views he holds as the evil intention of his behavior: to disrupt the church.

This means than an eldership in a congregation where some have begun to believe “strange” things about the Holy Spirit and have even claimed to speak in tongues, could say to such ones: “We do not claim to have experienced all the joys available to the Christian. If you have tapped resources that give you deeper satisfaction, we rejoice with you. We only ask you to remember that in any congregation the people are at different levels of understanding, and you must not conduct yourself in any way that would discourage them. As we understand the scriptures, these blessings of the Spirit that you say you have, are most appropriate in private devotions. So, please, dear brethren, keep these matters as private property, and do not cause trouble over them. This does not mean that you cannot explain your position when you are asked, or even that you cannot speak of these things when you are teaching, but always as your own interpretation, and never with any idea of forcing it upon others.”

If those who believed in the tongues followed the admonition of the elders, there would never be any trouble. If they did not, then the elders would be forced to take stronger action, not so much because of a belief in tongues (after all, that’s scriptural!) but for faction. This is the meaning of unity and brotherhood. We do not “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” by running people off who come up with ideas different from our own ( even if they are dead wrong). Unity is not a forced conformity. Suppose Milton and Helen had knuckled under and given up their ideas, would that have been a victory for unity? Actually the unity between people has little to do with how much they differ or disagree. Men can see eye to eye on everything and still not be one. Oneness is the uniting of diverse elements by means of some cohesive force upon which all the elements depend. That cohesive power is the love of Christ. Without that they can never be one, however much they might agree; with that love, they can never be separated, however much they might disagree.

There is no virtue in conformity. It is nothing if a church is composed of people who see eye to eye on everything. It only means that no one does any thinking for himself, or if he does, he feels too unfree to express himself in any way. But there is virtue when a church encourages its people to grow and to think for themselves, and even to be different; and for there to be such love prevailing that oneness is always manifest amidst the diversity. This is what Paul meant when he told us to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace:’ (Eph.4:3)

Elderships must realize that keeping the peace in a congregation is not a matter of being doctrinal watchdogs or of making sure that no one comes up with erroneous views. Divergent views must rather be encouraged. As for whether they are “error” can hardly be determined always by immediate and arbitrary methods, but by time and discussion. Give men time and they will grow; give error time (and sufficient airing) and it will die. Peace comes to a congregation only through the love of Christ. The elders’ task is to keep the brethren conscious of “the perpetual debt of love,” as Phillips translates Rom. 13:8. The elders are not to restrain by demanding doctrinal conformity, but are to constrain through the love of Christ. One is born of fear, the other of charity.

When we are sufficiently constrained by the love of Christ rather than restrained by orthodoxy such an instance of the rejection of Milton and Helen Stolz cannot occur. The “love that bears all things” will hold men together amidst doctrinal disparity. Preston Road failed with Milton and Helen only because they let their love for them fail. It is our prayer that this shameful chapter in the history of the Dallas churches will never be repeated, and that this one in some way might be rewritten. But only Preston Road can do that, and they can do it only when they are overwhelmed by the perpetual debt of love.

“And above all these things put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col. 3; 14) . — The Editor