Some Old Saws — Same Old Saws

A saw is not always a tool with which to cut something. Webster says it is a proverb, or a trite saying. We are being treated to several old saws today. Lets have a look at some of them.

These are perilous times for conservative brethren. Unless some changes in attitude occur, division is inevitable among the conservative churches. It will likely take a while for it to occur, but all the elements of division are now present: misrepresentation, accusation, polarization and separation. This all started with the publication of erroneous views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It has moved from that to widespread discussion of what is generally called “fellowship.” Romans 14 is being misused in an effort to foist upon the brethren generally an attitude of tolerance known as “unity in diversity,” You believe it your way and I’ll believe it mine, and we’ll get along just fine. A brother recently described the situation in the congregation where he worships. He said, “We have people here who are institutional, some who are anti-institutional, and some who are liberal on the marriage issue. We have agreed not to do anything that violates anyone’s conscience, and we will not preach on these things or try to convert each other.” I will guarantee you that we could get along with the devil with that philosophy! What ever happened to “earnestly contending for the faith”(Jude 3), and preaching the whole counsel of God? (Acts 20:27).

The present condition among the conservative brethren bears remarkable resemblance to previous episodes of innovation. Those who are trying to sell the unity in diversity bill of goods are using the same old saws we always hear at such a time as this.

“We always have disagreements on many things, but we don’t break ‘fellowship’ over them.”Then a list is given: “the woman’s covering, the war question, Sunday night Lord’s supper, etc.” The problem with this approach is that it puts all our disagreements in the same basket as if they all are of the same nature. I think we all know that is not correct. The main issue today is an effort to sell the idea that we should continue to use or “fellowship” those who teach error on the marriage, divorce and remarriage issue. Now, if the old saw, “we disagree on many things and continue to have fellowship” is a valid argument, then error on marriage, divorce and remarriage belongs in the same basket with the woman’s covering, the war question, and Sunday night communion. I think we all know that to be false.The long-term consequences of these issues are quite different. If we accept those who teach error on marriage, divorce and remarriage, to be consistent, we must accept those who practice what they preach. That will fill our pews with people in adulterous marriages. The most glaring absurdity of the present controversy is that most of the brethren who are trying to sell us on the continued acceptance of those who teach the Hailey position on marriage, divorce and remarriage openly say that they believe the position is erroneous, and they would not fellowship those who practice it, yet they say we should continue to “fellowship” those who teach it.Furthermore, all disagreements among brethren don’t receive the same treatment. Today there are brethren who are so bent on selling “unity in diversity,” that they are going all over the USA and some foreign countries peaching it. It has divided churches already, and has fomented a state of tension throughout the brotherhood. Those who are opposing this effort are being demonized as “brotherhood watchdogs,” “dishonest,” and other false and uncomplimentary labels designed to prejudice the brethren against them. I dare say if these brethren were treating the war question, the woman’s covering, or Sunday night Lord’s supper the same way they are treating “unity in diversity” they would receive the same opposition they receive now on this issue. For instance, if they were going all over the USA and some foreign countries preaching on these issues and creating strife and division over them, they would receive the same opposition they now are receiving. If all issues upon which we disagree are of the same nature, then they should all be treated the same way.

“Some brethren are trying to be brotherhood watchdogs and regulators.”We heard this over and over in the institutional controversy. Some of the same brethren who are throwing this around today were the objects of it 40 or 50 years ago in the struggle over institutionalism and congregational cooperation. They have borrowed this from the liberals of 40 years ago, and things borrowed should be returned.Is it wrong to try to regulate the brotherhood if we are trying to regulate it with the gospel? Are we not told to earnestly contend for the faith? (Jude 3), and are we not supposed to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine”? (1 Tim 1:3). Doesn’t Paul say “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”? (Gal 6:1). Are we not brethren? Are we not to “watch,” “remember” and “warn” with tears? (Acts 20:31). Was not Timothy told to “watch thou in all things…”? (2 Tim 4:5). Brotherhood watchdogs are in pretty good company! “Brethren are ignoring congregational autonomy and independence.”I fear that many are mouthing the expression “congregational autonomy and independence” because they know they are supposed to say it, but they really don’t know what it means or how it is to be applied. It definitely does not mean that each congregation has an iron curtain around it that shields it from being questioned when it teaches or practices false doctrines. Some brethren think this means that a congregation’s activities and teaching are its own business and regardless of how far they stray from the truth, no outsider has the right to say a word about it. It is axiomatic that a false doctrine taught anywhere is a potential threat to brethren everywhere. History proves this. This being the case it is the duty of preachers and elders to forewarn the brethren of lurking dangers.Such concepts as this come from brethren who say the most about love. How can I claim to love brethren when I stand by and say nothing when they are in soul-damning error, regardless of where they are, in the same congregation or across the sea? I fear some brethren don’t know the meaning of love or autonomy. James said “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20). The Book of James is addressed to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad” not to a single congregation. Is James not telling brethren to be brotherhood watchdogs or regulators? Those who accuse others of being brotherhood regulators are themselves trying to regulate the brotherhood. Those brethren who are preaching their unity and diversity doctrine to churches wherever they have the opportunity, are trying to regulate the brotherhood. So the pot is calling the kettle black.Congregational autonomy means that each church is to make its own decisions in matters of judgment and expediency. They have no autonomy where the truth is concerned; “The word of God is not bound” (2 Tim 2:9), but should have free course (2 Th 3:1). They have no license to teach or practice error, and when they do so they are “fair game” for truthful criticism. No brother is making a decision for a congregation in matters of judgment and expediency by calling their attention to the truth, or seeking to correct their errors with the truth.

Some brethren claim it is a violation of a congregation’s autonomy to send its bulletin or other written materials to members of another congregation. Again it should be said that to do such does not make a decision for another church; it is only supplying information. If such literature contains error it should not be sent anywhere, but if it contains the truth of the gospel, it should be sent everywhere (Mk. 16:15,16).

“We need to stop fighting among ourselves and preach the gospel to the world.”This old saw is as old as the hills. It was the hue and cry in the missionary society and instrumental music apostasy. It was the hue and cry in the institutional apostasy from those who wanted to ride the fence and refuse to deal with the issues. Now when brethren cease to oppose error from within, the die is cast for another apostasy. Wonder why the apostles didn’t buy this bill of goods. Their letters are filled with “fusses” among the brethren. There was the great controversy among the brethren of the first century over circumcision, eating of meats, and partaking of meats offered to idols, etc.This objection contains a fallacy, namely, that we can’t do both; that is, oppose error from within and preach the gospel to the world without at the same time. The apostles did. They gave place to error “not for an hour” (Gal 2:5) and preached the gospel to every creature under heaven.(Col 1:23).Usually, those who make this objection are using it to justify their not joining the battle. They are conscientious objectors in the army of the Lord. They are non-combatant soldiers. They don’t seem to realize that we have to fight for the ground we occupy with blood, sweat and tears. This has always been the case. “For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears” (2 Cor. 7:5). Paul was in perils among false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26). The letters to the seven churches of Asia were largely about false doctrines within the church. It is quite foolish to say that the Lord should have just ignored these and preached the good news of the gospel. These non-combatant brethren have been reading the wrong book, or wrongly reading the right book!

“It’s just a preacher/paper fight.”This too is an hackneyed argument designed to make brethren feel justified in ignoring the issues being discussed. It is my considered judgment based upon many years of observance that papers are not all that important to those who edit and publish them, otherwise they wouldn’t come and go as they do. Just stop and think of the number of papers that have come and gone in your life time. If they were all that important to those who edit and publish them, why don’t they continue? Why do they have such a short life? It is my conviction that most paper editors use them as a means of proclaiming what they conceive of as the truth and discussing issues that trouble the brethren from time to time.It is prejudicial and wrong to charge that editors generate issues as a means of advancing their paper or personal influence over others. I think I may have thought this of a paper or two, but it is rare, and it is wrong to characterize most papers in that way.I shudder to think where the church would be today had it not been for the so-called “paper fights.” Had some brethren not had the foresight to see where the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation were leading the church in the 1940’s and started the Gospel Guardian to counteract it, most, if not all, congregations would be today where the ultra liberal churches are with their institutions, church-furnished recreation, family life centers, etc. The conservative brethren owe a dept of gratitude to the “paper fights” of the 1940’s and forward.

It is true that in the heat of battle brethren sometimes lose their focus on issues and became personal and heated and manifest a bad attitude, but if brethren are not mature enough to strain out such extraneous matter and absorb the truth underneath, that is a sad commentary on them. It appears that this charge too is just a kind of a self-righteous shield thrown up as a means of making brethren feel justified in not taking part in the battle for truth.

There is a difference between dealing with persons and dealing in personalities. It is not wrong to attach a man’s name to the doctrine he teaches. If so, then Paul was wrong for he constantly did such. He spoke of Hymanaeus and Alexander, “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:19-20). (Alexander the coppersmith,) “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works.” (2 Tim 4:14). Paul exposed Peter’s hypocrisy before the whole church at Antioch, and we are told about it in great detail in the scriptures. If a person does not want his name attached to the doctrine he teaches then he should cease teaching the doctrine. It is the height of cowardice to want to be free to teach anonymously. I can’t imagine a brother not wanting his name identified with the truth. The fact that he is offended when his name is attached to what he teaches makes me suspicious of his motive. Why would a brother be ashamed to be identified with the truth? (Rom. 1:16). We are warned of false teachers who creep in unawares. “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal 2:4; Jude 4). It is our solemn duty to see that this doesn’t happen. Identifying those who teach false doctrines is a sure way of preventing it.

“They are trying to tell us whom we can fellowship.”This definitely is not the case. Those who are opposing “fellowshipping” those who teach false doctrines are not personally telling anyone whom they can “fellowship.” That’s like the alien who says, “Are you telling me I’ve got to be baptized to be saved?” My answer is, “no; I am telling you that the Lord tells you that you have to be baptized to be saved.” The brethren who are teaching against the “fellowshipping” of those who are teaching error or not personally telling anyone whom they can “fellowship.” They are telling us whom the Lord says we can scripturally “fellowship.” Do the persons making this objection ever draw the line of “fellowship” on anybody for anything? If they do, are they telling people whom they can fellowship? ConclusionThe present condition does not have to persist. The way to change it is to swallow human pride, and put all issues on the table and discuss them with open minds and open Bibles. The brethren who are advancing this unity in diversity concept need to find the courage to publicly debate their doctrine. So far they have refused thus to do. They say they are willing, but when it comes to signing propositions they find a way to avoid it. The best way to avoid division is to clarify the issues in brotherly public discussions, oral or written. It is absurd to avoid public discussions by insisting that one’s opponent sign a proposition he doesn’t believe. The growing tension we see building among us needs to stop. We need to treat each other as brethren, and disagree without being disagreeable. This tension was very obvious at the 2000 FC lectures. Several of the speakers felt they had to take a left-handed swipe at those who are opposing the unity in diversity concept. This was buzzing all over the campus among those who had heard the lectures. This does not bode well for the future of the conservative churches. This atmosphere will be taken back home and escalated as time goes by. Lines already are being drawn, churches dividing, and meetings are being cancelled. So, here we go again!