On October 7th an article about Kenneth Starr and the church of Christ appeared in the Charleston Gazette. The article consists of a vicious attack upon both Kenneth Starr and the Lord’s church.

The opening line is: “Unfortunately for President Clinton, his sexual peccadillos were committed during the reign of a spiritual descendant of Oliver Cromwell.”

As the reader can already tell, this is yet another attempt to excuse the President by trying to shift his guilt to others. No one forced Clinton to commit adultery against his wife with a woman young enough to be his daughter. He has no one to blame but himself, but he seems to have many admirers who are willing to excuse him. We can only wonder if the wife of the writer (if he is married, as well as the wives of all the other men who have been minimizing this situation), agree with their husbands. And if they do, would they not mind if their own men did the same thing?

Starr does not have a “reign” and is in no way comparable to Oliver Cromwell. He was not elected, nor did he force his way into power. He was appointed by the President, and every action he has taken has been approved by Attorney General Janet Reno and/or a three-judge panel. This Cromwell comparison is ludicrous.

Furthermore, Starr was appointed to investigate Senator Robert Packwood; did Clinton’s apologists complain about him when he found evidence of impropriety on the part of a Republican Senator? Democrats approved of Starr because of his integrity and objectivity.

But the author of this article, H. John Rogers, is not content to simply trash Starr; he found it necessary to indict the entire church of Christ. He writes that Judge Starr “came from a little known fundamentalist sect that makes Jerry Fallwell look like a theological radical.” Rogers calls us “a 1.6-million-member denomination primarily based in rural sections of the South and Appalachia.” He obviously has never looked at a directory of churches of Christ and noticed page after page of churches located in big cities. We do not know what kind of law Rogers practices in New Martinsville, West Virginia, but with so little regard for facts, or even the inclination to do even minimal checking, no one would want him handling an important case.

The implication that members of the church are ignorant is precisely what he intends to convey. He later writes: “The median education level of the congregants is definitely below the 12th grade, so having an educated professional like Ken Starr in their midst is somewhat of an anomaly.” That will come as a surprise to all of the college students here at Pearl Street and other congregations, as well as those who hold higher degrees all across the brotherhood. Of course, education is not synonymous with Christianity; Paul told the Corinthians that not many were “wise according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 1:26), but Rogers’ assessment is not based on any kind of factual evidence.

He also alleges that we “still share the lower rungs with the charismatic Pentecostals” (many of whom are highly intelligent). Then he has the nerve to call us self-righteous; he should check a mirror.

Rogers heaps up plenty of venomous criticism on the Lord’s church, even though he is inaccurate:

Theirs is a fundamentalism so thorough and complete that, for example, no musical instruments are permitted in their churches, solely because the Bible does not specifically mention music in connection with either Jewish or Christian worship. They overlook David’s lyre and the frequent prefatory words to many of the psalms, “Lamnatseach Mizmor” (for the conductor of choirmaster with musical accompaniment).

What kind of off-key information is this? We have never denied that instrumental music was used in the Old Testament; 2 Chronicles 29:25 and several psalms make that fact clear. We have pointed out that neither Jesus nor the apostles (or therefore Christians in the first century) ever used it. A lawyer ought to have some respect for precedents; it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine what the U. S. Constitution authorized and what it has not. That is all our case against instrumental music involves: there is no authority for it in the New Testament (Col. 3:17); we are not under the Old Testament (Heb. 8:6-7).

If Rogers knew anything about history, he would know that we have successfully debated the subject of instrumental music many times. In 100 years no one has yet devised an argument, the conclusion of which is that the New Testament authorizes its use. Since Mr. Rogers is an ordained Methodist minister, perhaps he ought to read what Methodist Adam Clarke had to say about instrumental music in worship from his comments on the phrase invent to themselves instruments of music, like David from Amos 6:5 (volume 4, page 684):

“I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful… I am an old man and a minister; and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to think that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity. The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists said, in his terse and powerful manner, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.” I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared.

Will Rogers call Adam Clarke a thorough fundamentalist of low educational achievements? Perhaps, and maybe John Wesley was from a rural congregation in the South or Appalachia (an intended insult on his part). One thing Rogers cannot say: Clarke was not ignorant of David and his lyre. But the attack on the Lord’s church continues:

They hold a closed communion service and no one other than members of the sect are permitted to participate in “the Lord’s Supper.”

This will be news to most brethren who have failed to notice the “Lord’s Supper” police checking all the aisles to make sure no one has slipped in. Of course, the Lord’s Supper is designed for those who belong to Jesus, but there are numerous visitors each week who are unqualified to receive it–but who take it anyway. If their sins have not been forgiven, it will do them no harm. No one is prohibited from the observance. We do not practice “closed communion,” as many denominations have in the past.

Next Rogers accuses us of believing that the Roman Catholic Church is “the great whore of Babylon” in the book of Revelation. That view was once a popular one, held by many in denominations, including Methodist Adam Clarke (6:1036). But most members of the Lord’s church believe the great whore refers to the Roman empire. Rogers’ arrogance in telling us what we believe is exceeded only by his ignorance.

His next erroneous sentence (which most are) states: “The only way to avoid damnation is to repent, be baptized, and join–and be accepted into–their denomination.” The Scriptures do teach that repentance and baptism are necessary for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and we will stand with the Truth. If Rogers wishes to debate the subject, he will be accommodated.

But there is nothing in the Scriptures about joining the church–and being accepted–and we have never practiced such a notion, although many denominations have. Furthermore, we are not a denomination any more than brethren in the first century were a sect, of which they were wrongly accused (Acts 28:22). We are Christians, which is what anyone becomes when they obey the gospel (Acts 2:36-47).

A person like Judge Starr, affiliated with such hard-core fundamentalism, may well harbor a deep and visceral loathing towards an avuncular, hedonistic “Bubba” like our president. Like other fundamentalist sects, the Church of Christ’s teaching focuses heavily upon sexual conduct. As a practical matter, this reaches fullest flower in the castigation of libertines outside the fold.

May is the key word; Rogers is assigning motives to Starr’s actions. Are not denominational people supposed to refrain from “judging”? Jesus was condemning making unwarranted judgments on others (Matt. 7:1-5).

Our teaching does not focus heavily on sexual conduct–any more than the Scriptures teach on the subject. It has always been our goal to declare “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:28). It would be difficult to have fellowship with a holy God if He had not first defined purity for us. Some religious groups, such as Methodists, frequently IGNORE what God says on the subject of morality. They tolerate divorce, despite what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9; they accept homosexuals without any repentance. And, on the basis of Rogers’ column, adultery is all right, too. Telling lies must also be acceptable. The President can look the American people in the eye and say, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” when he knows he is not speaking the truth. Rogers thinks such behavior is understandable and is willing to excuse him, but we fundamentalists without much “ejukashun” think such actions are reprehensible.

We do not make it a practice to castigate libertines outside the church: “For what do I have to do with judging those who are on the outside? Do you not judge those who are on the inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Sure, we get upset that the voters of Massachusetts keep sending Barney Frank back to Washington, even though he is an admitted homosexual and one of his lovers ran a prostitution ring out of his house. And we get tired of the immoralities of Hollywood and the entertainment media. We even speak out against various evils from time to time (as John did, Matt. 14:4; see also Eph. 5:11) because as citizens of this country we are affected by the ideologies and behavior of others. But we rather expect non-Christians to be immoral. And, yes, we think national leaders should exhibit a higher standard of morality than someone not in a position of public trust. But those are expectations we have as Americans, not Christians. Most of the Caesars were corrupt; those in power frequently are. But this nation has invoked God’s blessings since its beginning; it has used many Biblical principles as a basis for law, and we would prefer that “Bubba” (and those supporting his immorality) not lead us back into the dark ages (morally speaking)!

Finally, Rogers brings up Lawrence Walsh. Bad move, counselor. People might remember how much money Walsh spent on Iran-contra and how few convictions he netted. Rogers concludes that Walsh would not have brought up any sex scandal involving Reagan; it would have been “beneath his dignity.” The reader is encouraged to consider what Walsh did, how long it took, and whom he subpoenaed. Starr did not investigate Lewinsky for purposes of sensationalism; he did it to reveal the President’s character. He succeeded.

Incidentally, has Starr even claimed to be a member of the Lord’s church? His father was a preacher, and he attended Harding, but according to an article by Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post, which appeared on the same day as Rogers’ article, Starr has been attending the McLean Bible Church for nearly ten years.