Home

*** SEE UPDATES ***

For Audio Version, click Menu or the 3 parallel lines in the Header, then choose Audio Version

Proclaiming the Return to the Bible on Medical Aid

The purpose of this website is to proclaim the return of the church of God to the teachings of the  Apostle Paul, as expounded by D.S. Warner, on the subject of medical aid for believers, effective immediately.

It was prophesied by Isaiah that Christ would arise with healing in His wings and that by His stripes we will be healed.  When Christ came to the earth, the scripture tells us that He went about healing all manner of sickness and diseases, and that before He left the earth, He commissioned His disciples to do the same.  The scripture says that one of the signs that would accompany those that believe would be that they would lay hands on the sick, and that they would recover.

We don’t find any instance in scripture of a prohibition against self-help or medical aid; nevertheless, our movement teaches that the scriptures which proclaim that Jesus heals constitute a prohibition against being helped by any other means, no matter how readily available that help may be.  Members are taught that divine healing and medical aid are mutually exclusive, and that it is a violation of scripture and of our faith in God to accept medical aid.

We are taught that a person who accepts medical aid is guilty of trusting in the arm of flesh instead of placing his trust in God, and this falls into the same category as one who violates his faith by worshiping an idol under pressure.  It follows that to a person who is taught this way, there is no situation that would justify accepting medical aid.  This person believes that he is to remain faithful until death in the same way that the martyrs went to the stake or to the lions rather than recanting their faith in God.  A person who is so taught and who believes the teaching, is bound by their conscience to the extent that they would have to make a decision in their heart to be unfaithful to God before they could accept medicine or medical aid.

To anyone who might find it hard to comprehend that going to a doctor or taking medicine could be of such consequence to a person who has been taught this way, I would point out that you would no doubt lay down your own life before doing anything you believe would cost your eternal soul.  Jesus said, “What shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what would he give in exchange for his soul?”  It is the purpose of this effort to shine the light of the gospel in this area, which alone can set a person’s conscience free from error and condemnation.  The apostle Paul makes it clear that when a person does a thing that they believe to be wrong, they violate their own conscience and stand guilty before God, even though the thing is not actually wrong in itself; it becomes wrong to them.

One of the most disturbing things I have heard as a response from ministers to the scriptures I have presented on this topic is that a lot of people are already going to the doctor anyhow.  My response is that people may be doing it with a troubled conscience, especially if the ministers continue to preach against medical aid.  The people deserve to know what the Scripture teaches on this subject of life and death, heaven or hell, and the people also deserve to know what their minister actually believes himself.  The apostle Paul said, “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”  

The scriptures most commonly quoted to support the teaching that the Bible prohibits a believer from accepting medical aid are:

 

We will examine each of the above scriptures in this article, but it is important to note that there is no component of moral duty to our fellow man that is involved in accepting or refusing medical aid. Rather, we are taught that our allegiance to and faith in God is on the line, and because the whole issue of refusing medical aid is solely a matter of our relationship with God, it is important to look at the boundaries that God has set to govern our relationship with and our worship and sacrifice to God. This is a critical point, and it is key to understanding how God views this matter: 

God did not leave it to man to determine the boundaries of man’s acts of sacrifice and devotion to God; and Jesus made it clear that there is a line that is crossed where “Trust” becomes Tempting God, and that line is whether that person has another means at hand.  

A minister made the statement from the pulpit: “Some may try to make it controversial, but it is always safe to trust the Lord”.  However, the Word lets us know we have to do more than Trust: we have to Trust and Obey.  And between the two, Obedience is the most important, because the scripture says, “Obedience is better than Sacrifice, and Sacrifice is what the minister is actually referring to when he continued by adding, “we want to go to heaven anyhow, don’t we?”.  

Elijah scorned and mocked the idol gods of the prophets of Baal because the prophets thought they needed to cut themselves to get the attention of their gods.  Elijah drew the greatest possible contrast between serving gods who drew no boundaries for their worshipers, and the true God, who sets clear boundaries and does not require or condone any harm beyond fasting in our relationship with or our worship of Him.

Following are 2 letters I wrote to Bro. Ed Wilson, the 1st in 2013, and the 2nd in 2015 regarding our teaching on medical aid.  Bro. Ed has for many years been the point person on this subject, and has been called on as an expert witness in court trials of parents whose children died after the parents refused to seek medical aid, and has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss the subject on national television.

I wrote the 1st letter to Bro. Ed Wilson in 2013, the 2nd in 2015, and published the letters to some 3 dozen prominent ministers on July 4, 2016.  It has now been more than 6 years since the ministers received the letters.  Two ministers immediately responded their complete agreement, not counting Bro. Ed Wilson, and several others promised responses, but to date only 1 additional response has been received, which was from Sis. Angela Gellenbeck, who wrote that I may share her written response with others.  Sis. Angela says the things that I have proposed terrify her, and that she has always equated the suffering and death of the martyrs with choosing suffering and death by refusing medical aid. It is the purpose of this website to show the error in equating martyrdom by other people with self-caused human sacrifice.  Jesus said the time would come when some of them would be killed,  but He never said, “Some of you will be required to commit child sacrifice to promote the cause of Christ.”

In the 2nd letter to Bro. Ed Wilson, I quote what God had to say about any of His people sacrificing their children to Molech, and that God went on record, stating that He never commanded such a thing, and that such a thing never came into His mind, because no such thing was ever in His heart.  And God said if you don’t utterly destroy anyone who does such a thing that God Himself would come down and deal with the perpetrators, and with those who tolerated such a thing to happen to a child.  Why did God protest so vehemently to clear Himself from responsibility in this matter?  Did anyone accuse God of commanding any such thing?  It was clearly for the purpose of erasing any possible doubt for all time that any harm that is caused to a child (and any harm that a child could be protected from, but isn’t) could ever be associated with God in any way.  

The medieval French historian, Schlomo Yitzchaki wrote in the 12th century regarding child sacrifice to Molech, described in 20th chapter of Leviticus:

“Topheth is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.”  

How is that different than allowing a child, such as the 13 year-old whose parents are sitting in prison today, a child suffering and dying while available medical aid is not sought or provided; what of her agony as she suffered util she expired, or of the unimaginable suffering of a young man with testicular cancer, when early medical treatment was available and urged by the doctor, treatment whose effectiveness is well known.  There is only one answer to this question: that God requires it, right?  But what about the scriptures on this? Everything in the Bible, from the Old Testament, to the rich man and Lazarus, to the Judgement Scene: the sin of omission is held forth as the offense against God that sends people to hell.  God knew that people would try to hide behind omission as being different from commission.  

In early Rome, there was a practice of infanticide that was used when a child was not wanted.  It was called “exposure”.  Infanticide itself was illegal. So, the parents would take a child to some open place and abandon it, knowing it would die, but excusing themselves from the crime of infanticide by claiming they did not kill the child, and that God could have provided some form of rescue if God wanted the child to live, so it was ultimately God’s decision and not the parents’.  How is that different from what we do in withholding medical aid and then saying it was God’s decision, not ours? (Google “Infanticide by Exposure in Ancient Rome”).  Early church writer Lactantius echos the unanimous view of early church fathers on this subject when he writes: Can those persons be considered innocent who expose their offspring as prey for dogs? As far as their participation is concerned, they have killed them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them. This is the same as to say we are charged with committing what we could have prevented. 

We have seen that the parents who sacrificed their children to Molech were in such agony over the requirement to sacrifice their child that measures were taken to drown out the screams of the burning child.  We all know of those among us who refused a simple procedure to remove a small skin cancer, and whose faces were slowly eaten away, and, to quote the son of one such person, “his face looked like it had been blasted with a shotgun”.  It is hard to comprehend or fathom that our existing ministers seem unmoved by any of this, and that they cherish only our doctrines and our “heritage”, as you will see from the attempt by one of them to intimidate me into silence with the threat of a desist order from the ministry.  I have included the list of ministers, so that any of who are interested can ask theor pastor about these matters for themselves. I have tried to invoke our covenant to the world and to each other, that this would be the “Last Reformation”, in that we would never place our traditions or our teachings above scripture, and thereby require yet another reformation.   

From the Old Testament, to the rich man and Lazarus, to the Judgement Scene, the sin of omission is shown to be the offense against God that lands people in hell.  We are charged with committing what we could have prevented.  God held responsible anyone who had the ability to break up this practice to do so, or face God’s wrath.  I have received a request from a judge who presides over child cases in the town where our largest congregation is, for access to this material, and he is showing more interest than the pastor of that congregation.  Back to Angela Gellenbeck’s response to the letters, since it is the only response I have to work with, I have presented her response and my reply to it at the end of the letters and follow-ups. In order to avoid the appearance of “judge shopping”, I limited distribution of the letters to pastors who were listed on the churchofgodeveninglight.com website.

D.S. Warner, Oct 1895, 2 Months Before his Death

Before presenting the letters, let us first take a look at how we got here; how the doctrine we currently teach and practice was developed.  It is a story of two opposing views of scripture on the subject of Divine Healing: the view of D.S. Warner, the reformer and founder of the Evening Light reformation and, after the death of D.S. Warner, the view of the young preacher, E.E. Byrum, who had just turned 34 years old at the time of D.S. Warner’s death.  The fact that Byrum himself had produced writings in the past that could not have been written by a person who believed there was a scriptural mandate to refuse medical aid, did not constrained him from refuting D.S. Warner’s views which  had just been published in the October, 1895 Gospel Trumpet edition, and which represented one of Warner’s last doctrinal statements. As you will read in the attached Gospel Trumpet article, Warner gave a clear warning to the church not to take the path that we nevertheless entered on, calling this path “fanatical and superstitious”, as you will read in his article below. Warner died in December, 1895 and by January, 1896, Byrum was in charge of the paper and declared Warner to be in error and announced that henceforth Byrum’s own views on the subject would be upheld as the standard.

I have attached the Gospel Trumpet issues for both October, 1895 and January, 1896 in their entirety as photos, so they can be read by zooming in.  I have also transcribed them for easier reading.  We will then proceed with the letters, to examine which of the two views, is supported by scripture.  It is noteworthy that within a few years Byrum himself reverted to the teachings of D.S. Warner on this subject and admonished others that they must make a public declaration that they had received “new light”, which was in fact simply the return to the teachings of D.S. Warner from the beginning. The highlighted sections of the Gospel Trumpet article by D.S. Warner include the following doctrinal statements from Warner:

 

D.S. Warner’s Last Doctrinal Statement on Medical Aid, below:


“If you do know any thing at hand that will heal you, be free to use it wish it if you wish.” -D.S. Warner

D.S. Warner, the founder of the reformation, wrote these Bible principles in the article above before any of the modern medical break-throughs had occurred, before sulfa drugs or penicillin; but Warner says if there is a remedy that is “well known” to bring a cure, you should avail yourself of it.  As opportunity increases, responsibility also increases, and today there are many more remedies that are “well known”, that have been thoroughly proven to routinely cure what otherwise could be fatal, such as insulin or penicillin.

The Bible says God “healeth all thy diseases”, and also says God “shall supply all your need”.  D.S. Warner points out that a position such as the one Byrum takes in the next section is identical to a farmer refusing to sow seed and harvest his crops, because the Bible says God is going to provide his needs.  Is someone going to be able to show that D.S. Warner is wrong in this? Or in any of the other principles he lays out in his article?  If so, there is only one way to do it:  you will have to find an Ordinance in the Bible that overrides every scripture and every other biblical principle, and would have to totally contradict the very revealed character of God Himself- and Ordinance that gives a direct command on this one point- and this is what Byrum seems to be trying to do, but he is wresting and twisting the scripture to make the scripture fit his doctrine: sort of reverse-engineering, where you start with your doctrine, and then you decide what the scripture has to mean to produce that doctrine.

An example of such an Ordinance would be the command that God directly gave Abraham to sacrifice Isaac: but that command, or Ordinance, was merely a test, as we all know.  And you will search in vain to find any other Ordinance that commands us to actually sacrifice our children, or ourselves to Divine Healing.  I hope the absurdity and the utter scriptural malpractice of trying to turn James 5:14 into such an Ordinance will be obvious. And that Byrum brushes away the use of herbs by saying, “we do not find a command in God’s Word to use herbs.” What? This reminds me of someone who found a copy of a preacher’s notes, and in the notes there was a part that said, “Argument weak. Yell!”.

This website sets out to show some of the many scriptures and principles that are ignored or violated in order to make this scripture fit Byrum’s doctrine on this.  And all for what purpose?  Because of an intense desire to spread the reformation message across the world; there was a need to be able to  “call fire” as Peter tried to do, in terms of miracles of divine healing.  We will see some of the boundaries in God’s Word that E.E. Byrum and, sadly, many still today have over-run.

E.E. Byrum’s Rebuttal to D.S. Warner’s last doctrinal statement on Medical Aid, below:


E.E. Byrum Refutes Warner: Jan, 1896

E.E. Byrum refutes D.S. Warner, 3 weeks after Warner’s death and thereby sets the course to prohibit medical aid that still holds 125 years later.  Byrum’s position is wholly unattainable and unsustainable and yet is the reason people will go to their deaths without ever being checked by a doctor, but will submit to dental surgery or C-Section with no compunctions. Byrum refers to people who ask about “herbs and teas”, and Byrum’s response is that if a person feels that herbs or teas may have some effect in changing their condition, then they will trust in them rather than in God. This is impossible to carry out because if you eliminate anything that could possibly present itself to your mind as having a positive effect, you would be left to only take actions that are harmful, just to make sure you didn’t do anything that you might trust in rather than God.  Is that God’s order for man? Is that how God sets up a life of Trust in Him? 

Byrum doesn’t seem to aware that he just condemned the apostle Paul- read the above condemnations from Byrum about doing anything at all that could help yourself, and notice that he just condemned the apostle Paul, who told Timothy what to take, and why he should take it.  Was Paul concerned that Timothy would fail to give the glory to God, and henceforth replace trust in God with trust in wine?  How does Byrum handle this contradiction? He just tells us not to “try to hide behind Timothy’s wine”.  But this happens to be scripture, which Byrum has brazenly contradicted and he is going to get away with it; because this article seals the fate of multitudes who will suffer and die trying to comply with Byrum’s doctrine.

C.W. Naylor said when a teaching takes hold in a group (like this article did) and it becomes doctrine, then it takes on the force of scripture, because the people become convinced that this is the proper interpretation of the Scripture, and it is very difficult to enlighten them with the Word, if the Word contradicts the doctrine.  You see I cannot get a response out of 3 dozen ministers on this subject, except for the one from Angela Gellenbeck, which is included here, and Angela says she is horrified by what I am presenting and just cannot believe that we could be wrong on this all this time.  Another minister asked me if I would obey an order from the ministry to desist and not spread this information among the group, because it is “very contrary to settled doctrine”.  You see what I mean?  I told the brother all I need is for him or for anyone to show me that I am in error and they will not need any meetings or any desist orders.  I have waited another 6 years without hearing another word from him.  

This same brother, along with other ministers, continue with their E.E. Byrum unscriptural doctrine and have carried it overseas to Germany and Austria where a young couple complied with these teachings and allowed their 13-year old daughter to die without seeking medical aid; and that young couple is sitting in separate prison cells as of this writing, their other children being taken from them. Meanwhile, the brother I am speaking of and all the others who have gone over to Germany and Austria and spread this “fanatical and superstitious” teaching, seem to not even consider putting a moratorium on the practice of child sacrifice long enough to address it as a group. 

Key to understanding the error E.E. Byrum makes here is that he attempts to convert James 5:13 “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him with oil in the name of the Lord”, into an ordinance, rather than an invitation.  Byrum, and those who followed after him in our movement, and in other groups with similar teachings, take this scripture to an absurd and irrational conclusion and in doing so they violate the very principles that are dearest to the heart of God: that no harm would be done to anyone in His name.  God speaks of those who cause (or allow) harm to a child as an act of religious expression, and He says if you don’t utterly cut off anyone who does that, I will come down and deal with that person Myself.  God says, I never spoke such a thing, because such a thing was never in my mind, and that is because nothing like that was ever in My heart.  We will deal with the boundaries God has set for acts of worship and devotion to Him, including this scriptural reference.

Has anyone ever heard an ordinance preached that if you have a merry heart, and you don’t sing psalms, that you are in violation of the Word of God?  The same scripture which gives the invitation to the sick to call for the elders, “Let him call…” also says if you are merry, “Let him sing psalms”. If the commandment to call for the elders is an ordinance, then isn’t the command to any who is merry to sing psalms also an ordinance? I heard a true story about a soldier was hiding in a cave behind enemy lines, and was being hunted by enemy soldiers, who were searching for him cave by cave.  The soldier feared for his life and began to pray to God for protection.  Presently the soldier saw a spider beginning to spin a web across the entrance to the cave.  The soldier thought, “I need something more than a spider web to protect me”.  Presently the enemy soldiers arrived at the cave, but one of the enemy soldiers said, “There’s no need to search this cave, there is a spider web across it.  There’s no way anyone could have gone into this cave”.  The soldier’s heart was filled with relief and joy at the miraculous deliverance.  So, if we interpret the command that anyone who is merry is commanded to sing psalms, the same way we teach that a sick person is commanded to call for the elders (and not to do anything else along with calling for the elders), then this soldier is required by an ordinance in the scripture to begin singing psalms, even though it will immediately cost him his life.

What do you think Jesus would say if someone came to Jesus and told Him, “There is a person in the last town we came through and we didn’t get around to him, but this person has something wrong and he is hoping you will come back to his town”.  And Jesus asks, “What’s wrong with him?” and they tell Jesus, “Well, it seems he has gotten something in his eye and we offered to pull it out but he says he’s not going to let anyone help him except You”. We know what Jesus would say, because in Matthew 7:5, He says if you’ve got something in your eye, get it out. In spite of the words of Christ Himself on what to do in this medical situation, we have heard testimony of parents who refused to take their child to a doctor to remove a foreign object from the child’s eye because they felt they were following church doctrine to trust the Lord.

Cover Letter to Ministers, 2016

July 4, 2016

Dear Brethren,

I have attached 2 letters that I would like you to read, which I wrote to Bro Ed Wilson 2 years apart: the first in September 2013, and the second in September 2015, in which I asked Bro. Ed about our stand that the scriptures that teach divine healing constitute a prohibition against medical aid.  Bro Ed had told me some 20 years ago that early writings of Evening Light reformers taught differently than we hold today regarding a prohibition against medical aid, so in my letter I asked Bro. Ed to expound on that statement. I met with Bro. Ed in September 2015 in Neosho, shortly after sending the second letter. At our meeting Bro. Ed expounded on the teachings of some of the early ministers of this reformation, in particular E.E. Byrum whose writings make it clear that they did not believe there was a scriptural prohibition against medical aid.

We also went over Bro. Ostis Wilson’s Q&A article (which is attached) which was published in Faith & Victory in the early 1980’s. Bro. Ed told me he could not defend some of Bro. Ostis’ statements in the article. I asked Bro Ed whether he agreed with the conclusions I have made, in particular the points regarding the scriptures that establish boundaries for acceptable acts of worship and devotion to God and Bro Ed affirmed that he was in agreement. At the conclusion of that meeting, I asked Bro Ed for permission to send these letters to other ministers and to quote him as I have done above. Bro Ed granted permission to both requests. The meeting occurred 9 months ago and I have not heard from Bro Ed with any revisions to anything he said in our meeting so I am now asking you to read the letters and the attached Q&A article to let me know whether you also agree with the observations and conclusions in them or whether you have answers or objections from scripture.

Arlan Sorrell

First Letter to Ed Wilson, 2013

Sep 14, 2013

Dear Bro. Ed,

For years I have wanted to visit with you about our stand that because the Lord has empowered ministers with the ability to lay hands on the sick and heal them, that that constitutes a restriction on anyone not healed in that manner from obtaining any other aid, no matter how readily available it may be. During the time you were at Guthrie, we were riding along one day and you happened to mention that some of the writings of DS Warner on this subject were different from the way we hold them today. But, you said, we made our decision and chose our path. I wanted to ask much more then, but we were discussing other important matters and I never got back to that subject with you.

The Scripture says “Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders…” That is a wonderful benefit, but where is the restriction implied in that blessing? Where does the scripture state or imply that a person is prohibited from doing whatever they can to help themselves physically?

Suppose I tell you, “Brother Ed, I have a Toyota Prius and any time you need a vehicle to get around, you just call me and use that Prius to get around”. Then I am driving down the road and I see you walking carrying a 16′ 2×4 on your way to build a house somewhere. So I pull up alongside and ask why you are walking and carrying that 2×4 and you say because it won’t fit into a Prius. Then I ask, “Don’t you have a pickup truck at home in your driveway”? And you say, “Yes, but you specifically said any time I need a vehicle to get around I am to call you and use your Prius” If that was how things were set up, then there was a mighty big restriction that came along with that blessing. Where do we see in New Testament scripture that the blessing of divine healing and the ability of ministers to move about and heal the sick where they go to spread the gospel implies that wherever the Word is heard, everybody who didn’t happen to be so healed is put on a restriction to the death line not to be helped or help themselves in any other way?

I have four recorded messages and teaching sessions from you on this subject from four major venues: Pacoima camp meeting, Monark camp meeting, Guthrie camp meeting and Neosho home congregation. You do actually address directly my very question in at least one of those sessions, which happened to be the one in Pacoima, and your answer is that it is wrong to violate our faith. Implied in that answer is that the only thing that is wrong in seeking medical aid is violating a person’s faith in doing so. If we substitute the word “conviction” for the word “faith”, it would seem that what you mean is a person violating what they have been taught and believe is where they get in trouble with their own conscience.

However, what the people are taught and what they believe, especially on this subject, is a function of the teaching of the ministry in whom the sheep have so much confidence that they will unquestioningly suffer the most frightful and gruesome physical torment and lay down their lives or their children’s lives in obedience to.

This seems to make it the responsibility of the ministry to get it right, especially in light of the Old Testament principle that enduring physical torment or inflicting it as an expression of devotion and sacrifice or observance of some required ritual was never commanded of God nor was it ever in his mind. And in the New Testament, Jesus himself lays down the principle that we are not at liberty to put God to the test or give Him an ultimatum by forcing Him to either perform a miracle or watch us die, and He called it “tempting” or “testing” God, regarding casting Himself down from the temple when there is a perfectly good set of steps leading to the top and back down. (I made up the part about the steps, but you get the idea that what is wrong here is that it is an unnecessary miracle.) We can also discuss that it would have been done for the wrong reasons, but the core fact here is that it was an unnecessary miracle, just like making bread out of stones would have been an unnecessary miracle, whereas He did perform that same miracle more than once when it was necessary because there was no other means of procuring the food.

The most common method I have observed of expounding to the people that the Lord requires that they eschew medical aid is to build up a good head of steam roaring down the track laid by the scriptures declaring that Jesus heals and will do so till the end of time, and then to use that momentum to make a mighty leap onto a completely different logical track, without acknowledging or perhaps even realizing that they have done so, and then to use the momentum from the scriptural “Jesus heals” track to propel the “medical aid prohibition” argument down a different track that is missing scriptural rails; which gives us a bumpy and uneven ride as we intermittently hit railroad ties of solid rules, and unregulated areas such as dental surgery and C-Section surgery, and where all we can tell people is to hang on to the rope that is represented by your own conviction on this path.

The scripture is clear about acts of sacrifice and devotion that involve sacrificing a child as God said He abhorred it and that it was not commanded of Him nor did He ever intend it nor was it ever in His heart. “…to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart” Jer 7:31. We don’t read that those parents were sadistic, bloodthirsty murderers, but that they were committing acts of devotion and sacrifice that they believed were required of them by a deity. Our present-day allowing a child to die when a remedy is readily available, for the sole reason that we believe that God requires it, seems to me to be similar to those acts in the Old Testament, especially if God says, “I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart” Where do we find that it was in the mind of God that any person at any time was ever intended to be worse off physically for having heard the Word about the wonderful blessing of divine healing by laying on of hands of the ministry?

I look forward to hearing from you, hopefully in person sometime soon.

Arlan Sorrell

2nd Letter to Ed Wilson, 2015

Sep 2, 2015

Dear Bro. Ed,

In my letter to you of September 14, 2013, which I have attached again here, I wrote that I would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns and questions about our stand that we are scripturally prohibited from seeking medical aid. During these past 2 years since I wrote that letter and while waiting for the opportunity to discuss it, I have continued to pray and study the scriptures that seem to pertain to the subject. This has resulted in my current letter which repeats some of the same questions and comments as in the letter of 2013, but which also lays out the scriptural framework, which I refer to as boundaries, that seems to apply to our relationship with God, since abstaining from medical aid is not a matter of moral duty to our fellow man, but rather is something that is considered a part of our relationship with and sacrifice to God.

When I was young I heard that Earl Nightengale had told a story in his syndicated radio broadcast in reference to the 1956 Typhoid outbreak at Monark Springs that resulted in several deaths. Nightengale told the drowning man story about the man caught at home with flood waters rising. The man is warned by authorities to get out, but he informs them that he is trusting God to save him and therefore refuses their advice to leave. Soon the water begins rising and the man is forced to the 2nd floor of the home. A boat comes to the window of the 2nd floor and rescuers urge the man to get in the boat and be saved. The man replies as he did to the first rescue attempt and tells the rescuers that his trust is in God alone and he refuses help. Next the water rises to the top of the house and the man is forced onto the roof. At this time a helicopter appears overhead and a rope is dropped to the man, but he refuses to climb aboard and shouts to the rescuers again that he is trusting God. The man drowns and when he meets God he asks God why He did not save him. God responds, “I sent people to you 3 different times to save you, but you turned them all away”.

I pondered that story when I was young and concluded that we agree in every respect with Earl Nightengale and all the rest of the world about what God would expect us to do if we were in a house with flood waters rising, and that the only reason we don’t also agree when it comes to accepting life-saving medical aid is that God requires us to shun the aid even if it is readily available and thoroughly proven to cure what is ailing us and even if refusing medical aid costs our life, as was evidently what Earl Nightengale felt had happened in 1956, and which moved him to hold the saints up to ridicule. But I never found anywhere in the scriptures where God had given an order to die rather than accept medical aid, nor any unfavorable reference to self-help or medical aid for that matter, and would like your help to enlighten me on where we get that authority especially in light of the scriptures which set the boundaries for acceptable religious expressions: those prohibiting testing God and the scriptures that clearly set out God’s attitude about causing death and attributing it to religious expression, and the scriptures which define that non-action is equivalent to action that causes what could have been prevented.

As you remember, I joined in the legal research in preparation for (redacted) trial around 1990, after the death of her son and as part of that research effort I visited the law library in Los Angeles and public libraries elsewhere, and I pulled microfilm of historical documents to help in her defense, and I had access to many if not all other documents that were compiled by you and whoever else was working on the case, but the defense seemed to revolve around the fact that Jesus heals, and that we are justified in withholding medical aid from ourselves and our children because Jesus heals. I don’t recall that the case was made in court, but it is made nevertheless from our pulpits that we are not only justified in abstaining from or withholding medical aid, but are required to do so by scripture, even if death results.

What I have found in scripture suggests that mankind has always reached out to a higher being and that God knew people might try atrocious things to acquire favor or power from God and that God therefore defined boundaries of acceptable acts of worship and sacrifice and devotion:

Boundary 1: Thou Shalt Not Tempt the Lord thy God: When “Trust” becomes Tempting God

Boundary 1: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God- This is a boundary prohibiting putting God to the test, by ultimatum to demand a display, to make a show that God can be made to perform on demand

Boundary 2: Omission is Commission

Omission is Commission: We are charged with committing what we had the power and opportunity and choice to prevent.

Boundary 3: Self-harm Not Commanded or Tolerated or Condoned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boundary 4: God Requires 2 or More Witnesses to Condemn to Death

Unanimity of Scripture

Signs Following

Asa and his Feet

 

Conclusion of 2nd Letter to Ed Wilson

Bro Ostis Wilson addressed the question of people seeking medical aid (ministers in particular) in one of his Q&A’s (attached) and it is remarkable that whereas on practically any other subject, Bro Ostis assembles an orchestra of scriptures starting many times in Genesis and ending in Revelation, on the subject of the prohibition against seeking medical aid, he doesn’t go back even to DS Warner, but only to the time of his own parents who were pioneer ministers in the reformation and Bro Ostis says they told him this is how it was practiced in their time and that God confirmed and sealed it by healing every sickness and disease in the book. So, using this type performance standard it easily follows that no one would seek medical aid of they were healed by the laying on of hands. That is also how Jesus did it, he out-performed the physicians as divine healing is meant to out-perform by supernatural power anything that can be performed on earth. But how does it follow that if a person is not so healed, as all were not even in the New Testament, that the sufferer is required to die?

We seem to believe that Luke did not use any of his knowledge of health or medical science for anyone’s benefit after he met Christ, even though he was referred to as “Luke the beloved physician” (Col 4:14). But we don’t see where anyone referred to Mathew as the “beloved publican”, or Rahab the “beloved harlot”, so it seems that Luke’s profession was not regarded with disdain. Luke was along with Paul on many of his trips which means Luke would have been on hand during many of Paul’s beatings and stonings and would doubtless have done what he could to help Paul recover (“Only Luke is with me” 2Tim4:11).

In trying to understand how we came to adopt the position we hold with regard to the prohibition against medical aid, I note that Willis M. Brown says in his book, How I Got Faith that if a person uses a hot compress, they do so because they are hoping for a change in their condition by so doing, and that if a person wants to develop miracle-working faith, they will do nothing at all that could possibly be the source of the miracle they are seeking to perform through faith, and I wonder if this kind of ardent desire to see miraculous power demonstrated according to Mark 16:18c (the faith-healing part of v18, after parts a and b, which refer to snake-handling and poison-drinking as performed by the people pictured above) led us to cross boundaries that God set out for the protection of those who might otherwise innocently bring harm to themselves or others while trying to gain God’s favor.

Elijah scorned the prophets of Baal for thinking they could gain favor of a deity by cutting themselves, and Elijah made the starkest possible contrast for all the people to see between the simplicity and harmlessness of serving the true God who sets clear boundaries, and the horrors of following human imaginations that have no boundaries. I am afraid we may have followed some human desires across some clear boundaries that God has set out since the beginning of time and I am wondering if this may be partly what you were referring to nearly 20 years ago when you mentioned as we were riding along in your truck one day, that some of the writings of DS Warner on this subject differ from the way we hold them today, and I earnestly desire to hear your opinion on the matter when we meet, Lord willing, this Sunday.

You are in my prayers,

Arlan Sorrell

Bro. Ostis Wilson’s Q&A Article

(Italicized notes in parenthesis are my comments)

Question: What should be the position of the Church of God and saints in general in regard to ministers and gospel workers who willingly submit themselves into the hands of doctors and go to hospitals or resort to medicines? Would it be thought conceivable that God would instruct such an one to submit to doctors, etc.?

Answer: Divine healing has been a fundamental, cardinal doctrine of the Church of God from its inception on the Day of Pentecost and throughout this dispensation of time down to now. In Act. 5:12 we read of many signs and wonders being wrought among the people by the hands of the apostles. Verse 15 tells of them bringing forth the sick and laying them on beds and couches in the street in order that the shadow of Peter might pass over them that they might be healed. Verse 16 tells of many people from the cities roundabout bringing their sick folks into Jerusalem, and they were every one healed. The Church started out this way, and everywhere the gospel of the kingdom has been preached, both then and all along through the ages of time until now, it has been accompanied by healing of the sick. The preaching of the gospel and divine healing have always gone hand in hand they are actually components one of another.

(The paragraph above does not address the question of a prohibition against medical aid or provide scriptural reference to a prohibition- only establishes that healing is provided in the plan of salvation.)

The doctrine of divine healing was taught and practiced by all the early ministers of this Evening Light Reformation, and is still taught and practiced by the true ministers of God today. My parents were both among the early pioneer ministers of the Evening Light Reformation, and I had first-hand knowledge from them as to how this doctrine was taught and practiced among them. They taught that saints should trust God with their bodies as well as their souls, and it was God’s will and plan to heal His people without the aid of doctors and medicines in answer to the prayer of faith. This has been the code that true saints of God have lived by throughout this age of time. God has set His seal to it, and has healed every kind of sickness and disease in the books, and has confirmed the preaching of this doctrine with signs following.

(The practice of prohibiting medical aid is referred to as a code rather than as a scriptural teaching, and it seems safe to say that if any scriptures existed to support the code, they would have been quoted. Bro Ostis does not mention the writings of the early ministers quoted by Bro Ed Wilson who would have pre-dated or have been contemporaries of Bro Ostis’ parents.)

It has always been considered substandard for saints in light to resort to medical remedies and treatment, and still is. There are too many among us today going to hospitals and dying there in the hands of the doctors. This is not according to God’s Word. Because of this, we are being robbed of victories and the manifestation of God’s power and glory in our midst. But when ministers do these things, what shall we say? What can we say in behalf of those who have persevered in their faith, died in the faith, and refused to accept deliverance from pain, sickness, and death by human aid in order to please God and hold their integrity with Him? Consider the young saints who have laid their lives on the line to trust God and be faithful to Him in times of severe and potentially fatal sickness young mothers and fathers trusting God with their families as well as their own lives, and have persevered and gone down to the bars of death trusting in the Lord. Then God came and healed them, raised them up, and now they sit in the service listening to someone preach who has been in the hospital and maybe had an operation, etc. What shall we say; what can we say to people like that in such a case? Folks, it cannot be that we would ever represent folks as being in good standing who do these things and lower the standard of truth in this way until they have properly cleared themselves.

 

(“It has always been considered…” This appears to be “measuring ourselves by ourselves and comparing ourselves among ourselves”, in the absence of scripture, which is forbidden by scripture and which the Apostle Paul says is unwise and that we dare not do it. This practice of comparing ourselves by ourselves also seems to be responsible for the gradual tightening of rules over time as someone demonstrates a purer form of “divine healing” by shunning medical help for setting bones or getting something removed from a child’s eye, this becomes the new standard. To use the reasoning in the paragraph above, for which no scriptural reference is given, how can such a person sit in service andhear someone preach who has had their broken bone set, or has had an object removed from their child’s eye? Where does this lead? And where does it end? This, I believe, is why God saw it necessary to set boundaries in the scripture for acceptable acts of devotion and sacrifice to Him- to curb over-zealousness that results in suffering and harm as a form of sacrifice to God and claiming that God requires it, when God says, “…which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind” Jeremiah 19:5.

Observe in this paragraph the level of force and authority brought to bear on anyone who does not “refuse to accept deliverance from pain, sickness and death by human aid in order to please God and hold their integrity with Him” Bro Ostis acknowledges in the scenario given that the person has the ability and choice to avoid sickness, pain and even death if they accept human aid, but he proceeds without quoting authorization from a single scripture to declare such a person to be stripped of his integrity before God, to have displeased God, and to have lost his good standing before God and His people, to have lowered the standard of truth, and to be required to basically do his first works over to properly clear himself.)

F.G. Smith, in his book What the Bible Teaches, on page 197 (chapter ten, “Divine Healing”), says, “This blessed truth is established in the Word of God.” Then he continues, “This doctrine has been ignored by many; but ‘what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ (Romans 3:3.) It is not what men believe or do not believe that is to settle the great facts of truth, but it is what the Word of God says.”

 

(Some have ignored the doctrine that Jesus heals but that is not our dilemma here in asking where the scripture states or implies a prohibition against medical aid. E.E. Byrum in 1892 in his book Divine Healing of Soul and Body, Ch 16 wrote that if you don’t have faith for healing and want to take medicine, take it. I believe that if there existed a scriptural requirement to choose death rather than touch medicine or receive medical aid, E.E. Byrum would not have made such a statement. Byrum says in Ch 15 of the same book that medicine is for people who don’t have faith for healing and he also states that the way you know whether or not you have faith for healing is whether or not you are healed, and that God does not get glory out of choosing to suffer rather than take medicine when there is not faith for healing and the glory that God does get out of suffering comes from healing people from it and not from their remaining in it. 

E.E. Byrum presents as a model for how divine healing is to be practiced the story of Dorothea Trudel who had such success in laying hands on the sick that it began to affect the local doctors’ business and they suspected she was using medicine for her cures, so they had her brought up on charges of practicing medicine without a license. In court she testified that she neither used medicine on anyone nor prevented anyone from using medicine themselves. Witnesses who had been healed backed up her story and she was acquitted and the doctors had to pay all legal costs.)

The healing which was to characterize the life of Jesus Christ was prophesied in Isaiah 35:3-6, Isaiah 53:4-5, and in many other Old Testament scriptures. These prophecies of Isaiah were declared to be fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus in Matthew 8:16-17 where it says, “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” And we also read in Matthew 4:24, “And his (Jesus’) fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy: and he healed them.” Jesus also delegated this power and authority to cast out devils, heal the sick, and preach the kingdom of God when He sent forth His twelve disciples (Matthew 10:1; Mark 6:12-13). He also delegated this same power and authority to seventy others when He sent them forth in Luke 10:1-9. In fact, Jesus delegated to the Church, His body, and especially its ministry, this power and authority to heal the sick and cast out devils, as well as other miraculous things. This was a permanent arrangement throughout this gospel age of time. The commission as given in Mark 16:15-18, states this: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;… And these signs shall follow them that believe;… they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Do we believe that the part of Jesus’ commission which says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” is still in effect today? Surely, we do. But what foundation do we have for believing this and not believe also that part of the same commission which says that they who believe “shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” is also in effect today?

Surely, the commission that Jesus gave shall stand in its entirety in all of its parts until the end of the world. Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.” In James 5:14-15, we read these instructions to the Church after it was set up and operating: “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;…” Yes, the doctrine of divine healing is well founded in the Holy Scriptures throughout. This is what God’s ministers are to preach and teach to the people. But if we are going to preach it, we must also practice it and demonstrate its work ability. The word of God says, “The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits.” II Timothy 2:6. The ministers are to be ensamples to the flock (I Peter 5:3); teach them what to do and then show them how to do it.

(More scriptures are given above stating that healing is contained in the plan of salvation, but none containing a prohibition against medical aid. To say that the above-quoted scriptures which refer to blessings and healing provide the basis for teaching that a person must die rather than accept life-saving medical aid, would be the same as if God had promised Abraham that He would give Isaac healing and good health and Abraham had taken that to mean that God required him to sacrifice Isaac on a mountain. Abraham did not head to the mountain with his knife based on a message from God about healing.

I questioned Bro Ed Wilson on this point, going over each bullet point in the section under Boundary 2: Omission is Commission, and asked Bro Ed how Bro Ostis could use the scriptures regarding healing as a substitute for a clear commandment requiring death, such as God gave Abraham, if that was indeedwhat God had in mind. Bro Ed responded that he could not defend Bro Ostis’ use of the above scriptures as such a substitute, and he also agreed with the statement on Pg 6 of the 2nd letter under God Requires 2 or more Witnesses to Condemn to Death that at least two clear New Testament scriptures are requireddirectly stating that death is required even if a remedy is readily at hand.)

This doctrine taught so general and generously throughout the New Testament is being grossly corrupted in our day. We have a parallel of this in the corrupting of the gospel in regard to salvation in the New Testament. Paul was preaching the pure gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ only without any human works attached to it. The Judaizers in Paul’s day accepted Christ as the Messiah, but they connected to that circumcision and the works of the law, without which they said people could not be saved. This was a corruption of the pure gospel of salvation which Paul was preaching, and it was in this area that he had his greatest conflicts. In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul declared himself to be not of the number which corrupted the Word of God.

 

We have the same principle at work here in our day in corrupting the Word of God with regard to the doctrine of healing. It is held that God gave us physicians and gave them skill, knowledge, and understanding of the human body to be able to help us in our sicknesses. Oh, of course, we say, they have their limits, but they do what they can do and then God does the actual healing. Is this not the same corrupting principle that Paul encountered in his day regarding salvation? But I say, if God has to do the real healing in the final analysis of the case, why not let Him do it all in the first place and not get any human works mixed in with it? Let God get all the glory and we get all the inspiration and blessing that comes with this work of God upon us. This is God’s plan and purpose for bringing about a closer relationship between His children and Himself.

(Some Judaizers corrupted the Word of God by placing commandments on converts which were not authorized by scripture. The proper analogy here seems to be anyone in authority placing commandments on people which are not authorized by scripture, and making it a requirement for good-standing with God. The doctors today are no more involved in this scriptural scenario than were the people who performed the circumcisions in Paul’s day. It was not the people who performed circumcisions that Paul was addressing- it was the people imposing commandments that God’s Word did not authorize, and the analogy today is not the doctors, but anyone who imposes commandments that God’s Word does not authorize today.

Note that in the case of the Judaizers, they were requir ing something that had until recently actually beenrequired by scripture ; as compared with the prohibition against medical aid which doesn’t seem to have existed anywhere at any time.)

End of Q&A Article

1st Follow-Up Letter to Ministers, 2017

April 5, 2017

 

Dear Brethren,

Nine months ago, I sent copies of my correspondence with Bro. Ed Wilson regarding our prohibition against medical aid, which is attached again here, to 3 dozen ministers, all of whom were listed on churchofgodeveninglight.com website as pastors or leaders of congregations or were well known to me as active ministers in high standing among the ministry. Two ministers who received these stated their agreement with the points made in the letters, and several others indicated that they would respond after having time to read and consider them, but none have.

Six months after sending the letters to the ministers, I contacted Bro. Ed Wilson assuming some ministers may have contacted him instead of myself, as Bro. Ed was prominently mentioned in the letters and since the letters were written to him in the first place. Bro. Ed told me no one had contacted him, and he asked what kind of response I was expecting. I told him that I have received requests for permission to share the letters with some who are facing possibly life-threatening situations, and that I have granted permission when it was requested, but that I have endeavored to go through the pastors and not around them, in an effort to gain from the pastors either their concurrence or scriptural reasons to the contrary, before the letters became broadly disseminated.

It is my hope that any pastor who was not on the mailing list, but who may subsequently receive these letters, or whose congregation members may receive them, will feel they have been adequately represented by the 3 dozen or so prominent ministers who have received them and who have been given ample time to respond to any error they feel may be contained in them.

 

Arlan Sorrell

2nd Follow-Up Letter to Ministers & Website Announcement, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear Brethren,

I believe that the scriptures clearly teach as described in my letters to you, containing 18 pages of scriptures and observations, representing decades of study on my part, starting with my research in defense of our doctrine prohibiting medical aid in preparation for the murder trial of (redacted), 28 years ago, and proceeding through several years of careful vetting in consultation with Bro. Ed Wilson:

 

In spite of assurances from numerous brethren that they will consider what I have written and respond, all I have received by way of communication (except for the 2 ministers who have concurred with me) are questions about my belief in divine healing and references to my questioning our stand on divine healing. I am asked:

 

I want to say that I believe there never was a day of miracles- only a God of miracles and that the God of miracles still sits on His throne today, but that human sacrifice has no more to do with divine healing than drowning has to do with baptism. I have filtered the messages on churchofgodpreaching.com for “Divine Healing” and have studiously listened to them in the absence of any communication from the brethren but I find nothing that invalidates any of the prohibitions or “boundaries” that the scriptures have set out to protect a sincere and zealous people from straying into self-inflicted harm.

Whether it is done intentionally or not, equating my concerns about human sacrifice with divine healing has the effect of minimizing, trivializing and marginalizing my concerns and I have therefore secured a website to help clarify what the subject matter is so that there is no longer any confusion that the discussion has anything to do with divine healing, which is never in the whole Bible, ever referred to in the negative as something that can have a negative effect such as would have been the case if some of the children of Israel died because they had the blood over the doorpost. That is just how erroneous and false and fanatical and superstitious is this sub-religion we have created to worship “divine healing” by offering human sacrifice. There is a reason in the New Testament it is referred to as a “Living Sacrifice”.

I believe we are “binding heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and laying them on men’s shoulders”; but that we will not lift one finger to show scriptural authority for doing so, because we seek the comfort of each other’s approval and of our doctrines more than we seek the comfort of the scriptures, even after we are shown to be in direct violation of those scriptures and out of harmony with the faith once delivered to the saints.

The website is HumanSacrificeIsWrong.com and the purpose of the website will be to draw a clear distinction between biblical divine healing and human sacrifice, and will seek to shine the light of truth on any error or false doctrine on this subject found in messages or articles posted on our websites.

Arlan Sorrell

Response from Angela Gellenbeck

 On Apr 14, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Angela Gellenbeck <email redacted> wrote: 

Dear Bro. Arlan, 

I do admit my fault this day! I am so sorry I have let this slip by. I didn’t realize it had been this long. Neither did I realize the implications of not answering in time. I do have questions and things that bother me about some of your points, but taking the time and effort to articulate them is where my fault lies. 

It’s really hard for me to question the beliefs and practices of my grandparents and parents and call them wicked, after being taught all my life that God led them and blessed their decisions. My grandparents, Erle and Vera Forbes, members of Bro. George Harmon’s congregation, felt that they should not seek medical intervention for their own bodies or for their children. They did have a daughter who died, but had other children who were healed of serious illnesses. My parents felt that they should not seek medical intervention when their oldest son had the measles. They did lose him, but the other son who was also sick, was healed. I was brought up hearing these things with never a thought that what they did was human sacrifice. I was taught that it wasn’t a conviction unless you were willing to die for it. I’m seeking to be open to better understanding, but I’ll have to admit, the things you propose terrify me and trouble my mind greatly. I have hardly known what to say or answer. 

Bro. Arlan, Dan and I have sought to be very balanced in what we have believed and taught our children. As things have come up through the years, we have taken our questions to the Lord to be very sure that what we were doing was His will. When I was told I would die from a rupturing ectopic pregnancy unless I had surgery, I searched my heart and determined that I was refusing surgery, not because the saints expected it of me (because I believed that if I had the surgery, they would love me still); but I felt in my heart that Jesus had given His life to save my soul and heal my body, and that it would be unbelief for me to withhold my body from His control and put myself in man’s hands for surgery. That time, the Lord healed me and spared me to raise my little children. And gave me another child later after the nurse said that would be impossible if I did not have surgery! 

Another time, I was injured and had what seemed to be a concussion. Again, I took it to the Lord and asked if I should be examined or stay at home. I felt that the Lord impressed the scripture upon me that says, “Some trust in horses and some in chariots, but we will remember the name of the Lord our God (Psalm 20:7). So I remained at home, and God took care of it. 

When Dan began to be so very sick, he felt that if he could find out what was wrong, he could know better how to care for his body. He did go and have tests, which revealed that he did indeed have Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as he suspected from personal research. He seriously prayed about surgery, synthetic hormone treatment, and natural hormone treatment, and drew his own conclusion that he would be better off to go off of sugar and try to find out the best diet he could, and trust the Lord with the rest. He has not been healed, but further research showed that it would have been dangerous to use the natural hormone, as possible side effects would have been cardiac arrest since he had a pre-existing enlarged heart (revealed in one of his tests).The endocrinologist never told him of that danger. 

In his studies online, he read how many people who undergo surgery and take synthetic hormone for the rest of their life experience so many horrors from the side affects of the medicines, while the torture from the disease was not abated although they were under medical care. Many are suicidal. Dan has outlived, by nearly four years, the estimated time of survival without surgery as predicted by the endocrinologist. He does has physical pain and mental torture, which we daily take to the Lord in prayer, but we feel that it is not as bad as it could be. We are thankful for this. 

I said that we have tried to be balanced. We do not subscribe to the idea that one should never be examined, have a bone set or receive nursing care. (I believe the example you cited of trying to have something done for a pre-existing affliction when in the emergency room from an accident reveals a lack of spiritual understanding and some weaknesses and inconsistencies. God truly is the judge of that and the condition of that individual between that time and the time of her death. We all have personal weaknesses that He must deal with!) We know of saints who feel you should do nothing—nothing—no vitamins, no herbs, no increased water intake, no diet change. Eat all the sugar and junk you want and ignore all medical advice. We feel this is wrong. We believe that God did give us the herbs to be of service. We believe that instead of making “no tea, no coffee, no cola” as a rule, the saints would be better off to apply the principle of our bodies being the temple of God to all matters of health and diet, and that there are principles in the Bible that would also limit the intake of sugars, fats, etc., which are harmful to the body, when used beyond certain limits (in addition to the addictive substances mentioned earlier). We take seriously the principle of keeping the body under, or not allowing the body to be under the power of anything—temperance and self-control. 

So, while there seem to be no chapter and verses to quote for these things, there are definite Bible principles to live by. I have believed that while God did give us herbs to be of service, the New Testament put ranges on this idea when Paul listed “witchcraft” as a work of the flesh, and “sorcerers” are in the list of those who would go into the lake of fire in Revelation. This word is the Greek word for pharmacy, which refers to drugs and potions. My question has been: when does an herb of service become a drug that has to do with sorcery? We need the Holy Spirit to tell us where we must not go here. Those scriptures have had a bearing on me, when I considered the question of medical help. However, I realize that ancient medicine did have more to do with superstition and witchcraft, while modern medicine seems to not fall under that connotation any more. So while that particular scripture may not still apply here, I admit it would be hard for me to believe completely differently after that has been my understanding so many years! 

What did the early church do in regard to these things? What kind of physician was Luke? Obviously, he was not of the witchcraft or sorcerer kind. I have read that the pagan god of healing, Asclepius, was denounced by the early church, and they would not go to the places—temples—hospitals, if you will—erected for the purpose of healing the sick. I still have more research to do on that. I have read that his symbol was the snake curled around the pole, which symbol is still used as a medical emblem today. These two things—the avoidance by the early church of the god of healing and his “hospitals”; and his symbolism still in use—do influence my thinking and teaching about the use of medical help. If I catch a hint that something is even close to idolatry, then I have Scripture—chapter and verse. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me…” 

Another thing which influences me is the reality that when you are in the hospital, you are truly not your own. You either sign your name to accepting treatment that they deem necessary, or you are going to have to leave. I personally have a problem with that concept. A common, unsaid idea in hospitals is that the doctor is upheld as God. Giving glory to God for anything greatly offends or even angers the medical team, in most instances. If this path is the one we should recommend to folks, with the idea that if you don’t go this way, you are committing a sin of omission, it is fraught with spiritual dangers and problems. Surely there is a safer path. 

Now, I have a question about your statements concerning the faith and devotion of the saints not requiring or not causing bodily harm. 

•”Boundary 3: Nobody gets hurt in the worship of the true God” 

What about persecution and martyrdom? I guess I have equated, in my mind, suffering according to the will of God (I Peter 4:19), or doing well, and suffering for it, for conscience’s sake (I Peter 2:19), as the persecuted church experiences, with suffering or losing life because, for conviction’s sake, one refused medical treatment. Am I so wrong? Is not this included in suffering for Christ’s sake, or bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, or suffering according to the will of God? How far does your thought go? If living for Christ causes me any pain, suffering, or death, are you saying that God didn’t command it, nor came it into His mind? Do the martyrs suffer unnecessarily? 

Another concern on the thought about suffering harm: While there are brave-hearted attempts in the medical field to save life, there are also enormous risks involved. A case could be made that going in for surgery or chemo in the attempt to save life, many times involves much harm. Even suffering. Great suffering, I have observed. Whose “cause” is that for? If we as ministers give indiscriminate encouragement to everyone to resort to medical aid when in life-threatening conditions, and a medical mistake is made, whose responsibility is it then? It is a fearful thing to me to draw a line for allowance, and then see the soul under my care be given a double dose of blood thinner, have his/her esophagus burned closed by radiation treatments, acquire a life-threatening infection simply by being in the hospital, suffer neglect or injury by incompetent medical personnel, have the placenta pulled in pieces by an impatient doctor, causing excruciating pain and abnormal hemorrhage—all things I have personally seen—I just can’t do it! I have a friend who went to the farthest extent, medically, to save her ten-year-old daughter’s life when she developed a brain tumor. She has since shared that she would not submit her daughter to such suffering, had she the chance to do things over. Her daughter did not survive. 

I am concerned lest these letters you have written will be sent out with the implication that since no one responded with any opposite opinion, we all agree with each point you have raised. (Yes, we do have a real problem communicating our doctrinal questions/responses. I certainly should have done better.) I didn’t realize that would happen if I were slow to respond. Brother, I will entreat you to be careful here! While I believe it is wrong to establish lines which the Scriptures have not established in the matter of prohibition of accepting medical aid, I also believe it is wrong to establish lines of allowance which Scripture has not established. Both are dangerous. You have pointed out the dangers of the one side. I believe there are dangers in the other as well. 

I believe, instead of establishing prohibition or permission, the New Testament way would be to extend person liberty for the Holy Spirit to be the one to direct each individual on what to do in each situation. Actually, I see that being the way that is practiced among us, more often than the stiff prohibition. There are many instances where individuals are receiving medical help, and they are not cast out as erring from the faith by the body of ministers, but are lovingly helped and supported by the saints and encouraged to trust God as much as they possibly can. That is why I cited our personal journey; we didn’t do what we did simply because of a “code” forced upon us from the saints; rather, we asked God’s direction on each decision. There are guiding principles from God’s word, serious ones, which influenced us as well. I know of some who do feel strongly that prohibition needs to be the standard of the church. They greatly fear the concept of personal Christian liberty. In that way, I guess I differ, while I believe I understand their position and still value our fellowship. 

These are dangerous waters to navigate; the ones in the 1890’s and 1940’s did not have the many detailed decisions that we have today. I am stymied myself at the many situations which we face. Pleading with God for mercy, wisdom, and long-suffering; realizing I don’t have all the answers pre-determined, I, nevertheless, feel a great caution at just letting these questions be sent out among us with the supposition that all the ministers are in agreement. I do trust that those who have questions would go ahead and voice them. I for one feel there is reason for great caution. You may share my response with others. I am open for communication. 

Sis. Angela Gellenbeck 

Response to Angela Gellenbeck

June 29, 2022

Dear Sis. Angela,

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to write your response to my letters to the ministers regarding medical aid. In a few days, it will be 6 years since I sent those letters to some 3 dozen prominent ministers, and although a number of them promised responses, to this day you are still the only one who has actually given me a response and for that I have the greatest appreciation and respect for you doing so. I would like to respond to some of your points in this way:

Your parents and grandparents, as well as you and Bro. Dan, and Sarah and myself and all the rest of us have believed and practiced what we were taught on this subject.  Had any of us done differently we would have done so against our convictions of what God required us to do.  In my first letter I address this by quoting Bro. Ed Wilson, who was asked by a person in attendance in a teaching service in Pacoima, “what is wrong with seeking medical aid?”  Bro. Ed replied that when we violate our faith is when we get in trouble with God. As I stated in the first letter, our conviction on this subject comes from what we are taught, and it is the teaching that is being examined in the light of the scriptures, not the motives of the adherents to those teachings.

You question the statement in Boundary 3 that God does not require or tolerate harm in our practices of worship and devotion to God.  But then you state that you don’t understand the statement that “no harm will come to believers”.  The Boundary 3 statement does not say no harm would come to believers.  Jesus said some of you will be killed.  The boundary statement is referring only to what God requires or tolerates as acts of sacrifice or devotion to Him, and that omitting to save life when it is within our power to do so is the same as killing life.  Jesus asked, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to save life or to destroy it?”, because that is the choice we have to make.

The statements by DS Warner in 1895 contained in the 2nd follow-up letter to the ministers are direct quotes from Bro Warner in the Gospel Trumpet October, 1895 issue.  A person can obtain a digital copy of the newspaper and read his statements for themselves. I’ll repeat them here:

The reformers who pioneered our movement called it the Last Reformation, and we promised the world that never again would traditions or creeds or doctrines be placed in higher regard than the Word of God; that we would never refuse to shine the light of God’s Word on our most cherished traditions or beliefs.

Arlan Sorrell

Conclusion

The church of God Evening Light Reformation was begun as an effort to get “Back to the Blessed Old Bible”. We told the world that the light of God’s Word would always light our path and that we would stand alone on the Word of God, from “sects and creeds set free”, that the “Bible is our Rule of Faith” and many similar promises of integrity to the Word of God.  

It has been more than 6 years since I distributed the letters to Ed Wilson to the rest of the ministry, asking them in good faith to please let me know if they find any error in anything in the letters.  I believe it is now time for the ministry to be accountable to our vows to uphold God’s Word and to stop hiding behind the excuse that “a lot of people are already seeking medical aid” as if that somehow allows us to save face as a movement by continuing to preach against medical aid, including a recent quote from the pulpit from a minister (who has received all this material) that, “You can trust God, or you can trust medicine, but you can’t trust both”.  Or a from another minister, “You can say what you want, but I know God healed me”.  You see the inference? That some are casting doubt on whether Christ came with “healing in His wings”.  The minister who made this remark from a camp meeting pulpit knows full well that I am simply focusing on a prohibition against medical aid, which D.S. Warner called “fanatical and superstitious”.  This minister also told me privately that he does not actually know what he believes on this subject.  As a side note, I invited this particular minister to join me as co-editor of this website, and told him that he could have his own column to examine and comment on anything I put forth.  He declined.  

I believe it is time for the ministry to give answers from scripture as to whether D.S. Warner was in error, or whether E.E. Byrum, and subsequently the rest of the movement, have been teaching error on this subject.  I have heard of people who were raised in this Evening Light movement, but who did not profess salvation, who refused life saving medical aid because of their deep-seated teaching and conviction that accepting medical aid would put their soul in jeopardy. Others, on the other hand, who have received this information while facing a health crisis, have later reported that, “This could not have come at a better time, or have been more helpful”.  

I am now bypassing the ministry in the effort to help others for whom, “this could not have come at a better time, or be more helpful”.  The apostle Paul said, “Wherefore, I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

I believe the ministry should follow the requirement that E.E. Byrum later put on himself and others, to publicly state that we have received new light on this subject, and until that happens, I will do my best to shine the light of God’s Word in whatever way is available to me; and I ask that you join me in disseminating this information, or communicate with me any error you find in anything contained on this website, and I will gladly address it on the website.

Arlan Sorrell

2016 Ministers Distribution List

CONGREGATION LAST NAME FIRST NAME EMAIL  (emails redacted to protect privacy)
Dayton Abbot  Larry  
Hayden Adams  Ladawna  
Web City Adams  Danny  
Sapulpa Bell James  
Pacoima Bowman Adriel  
Albequerque Brown Aaron  
OKC Busbee Maxine  
Green Bank Clevenger Marty  
Neosho Cole Butch  
Guthrie Corteway Marsha  
Dayton Doolittle Clint  
Guthrie Doolittle Dan  
Baton Rouge Doolittle Melvin  
4-Corners Eck Ivan  
Chiliwack Elwell Ken  
Gladstone Elwell Don  
Tulsa Fuselier Kevin  
Jct City Gellenbeck Angela  
Guthrie Gellenbeck Phillip  
Wichita Gracey Emmanuel  
Dallas Johnson Darrell  
Tulsa Lowe Charles  
Birmingham Martens Brandon  
Pacoima Phillips Paul  
Fresno Rich Sherry  
OKC Shaffer Carl  
Monroe Smith Rodney  
Springfield Smith Michael  
OKC Wall Doug  
Sapulpa Williams Curtis  
Loranger Williamson Michael  
Enid Wilson Bob  
Shawnee Wilson Ed