|
 Dear
Bro. Turner:
Have
we "caused division" with anti-class brethren over an
expedient? When (if ever) should "individual scruples"
be ignored for the good of the majority? T.L.S.
Reply:
Those
who promote the class method of teaching act upon what they
believe to be divine authority. They believe such specific
methods of teaching are authorized in the generic command to
"teach," in the same way travel via plane is
authorized in the generic "go". (Neither
"teach" nor "go" can logically authorize a
method of organization.) The expediency involved is, to them,
that of finding the best method of doing God’s will.
There
probably have been unwarranted divisions caused by adamant
attitudes and determination to either have classes, for classes
sake; or to keep them out for no better reason. If both parties
consider the matter one of expediency or judgement rather than
one of faith, then qualified and accepted elders can decide the
outcome and brethren will submit to them (1TI.5:12-13), and to
one-another (EPH.5:21), for the Lord’s sake, and for peace.
With or without elders, majority opinion should be considered.
When
matters of indifference are (by former training) to some a
violation of conscience (ROM.14:), those with
"scruples" are to be received — treated as brothers
— though they will not attend the classes. The same passage
teaches that they are to receive as brothers those who have
classes. "Let not-him that eateth despise him
|
|
that eateth not; and let not him which eateth
not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him" (vs.
3). Note: the "meat" and "days" of ROM.14:
were things planted in the conscience of some by training other
than from NT sources. They did not claim NT authority for their
ideas.
Should
such "scruples" determine the course of a
congregation? ROM.14:22 says, "Hast thou faith? Have it to
thyself before God". We should not try to force a brother
to act contrary to his conscience, nor should we try to force a
congregation to act on his level of "scruples". Only
in collective work (where brethren must act as a team) must an
arrangement be found whereby each could "keep faith"
(conscience) while respecting the other. (The "no
class" man could stay at home until "worship"
time) Only when each party respects the convictions of the
other, can there be a harmonious relationship. Instead of
seeking the "good of the majority" should we not seek
the glory of Christ and His cause? This is the basis for unity.
"Parties"
(in the sect sense) usually form with a minimum of individual
conviction, and a maximum of allegiance to persons and
prejudices. But should we grant an honest, objective endeavor on
the part of all to learn God’s will on some subject; and
should this result in two groups, each convinced that theirs was
the only divinely authorized course, we still should have no
bitterness and personal animosities. Let them separate, with an
equitable division of the property they once held in common. And
let each continue to seek truth.
[Previous
Article]
[Next
Article]
|
