|
 In Jn. 8:32 Jesus answered the charge of the Jews by saying "you shall know
the truth and the truth shall make you free". In this He answers for us two critically important issues. First,
the source of man’s salvation is truth and we understand that to be truth from God. We understand the truth from
God to be the revealed, inspired word which He has given. Second, Jesus said you shall know the truth. This shows clearly that
it is possible for men to understand God’s revelation. Whatever else might be said in any discussion by any person,
Jesus’ statement remains as the direction for salvation. We are met today because differences have been raised
with regard either to our knowledge of truth or with our application of that knowledge. I have prayed to God and
I continue to pray that only good will come from this discussion.
I must say that I approach this discussion with mixed feelings. My presence is
an indication of a sincere hope that out of these discussions can come clarifications and understandings that will
reduce or even remove the divisions and the suspicions that exist among us. I truly pray for that. My fear is that
even from this discussion statements might be lifted out of context or conclusions might be unfairly inferred which
would further the separations among us and would even add fuel to the fire of identifying brethren as false teachers
because of some difference in interpretation of a passage or because of a difference in judgement on the application
of a passage.
I say this because I have had things happen to me that have demonstrated both.
Quotations have been taken out of context and have been used to teach the exact opposite of what I was saying in
the very context from which the quotation was taken. Additionally, arguments have been made based on where someone
believes a teaching might lead and then by implication assigning to me those consequences. The unfair device of
"guilt by association" has also been employed. Brethren, what is said or done to me is of little significance.
You probably are aware that I have done practically nothing in an attempt to correct what I consider to be erroneous
statements and charges that have been made about me and about my teaching. I did not want to give additional occasion
for people to "stir up" brethren. I mention these things not for the purpose of self justification but
to illustrate the fears that I have. Multiple cases could be shown where the same treatment has been given to other
brethren but I refrain from citing any of those. In the course of this discussion I will allude to some specific
cases in my own experience and I do so only for the purpose of clearly showing what I believe is a major source
for confusion and division among brethren.
For generations there have been significant differences among honest and sincere
brethren over some doctrinal and moral questions including questions on marriage, divorce and remarriage. I do
not believe that these differences should be ignored or that error should be sanctioned. I am simply stating as
a fact that significant differences have existed among brethren for many years. In recent years some have been
predicting a major division among brethren over the divorce and remarriage question. It is both interesting and
tragic that through the devices mentioned above (misrepresentations and presumptions) we now have a division among
brethren who agree on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Separations have been effected among brethren who believe
the same thing, teach the same thing and practice the same thing with regard to divorce and remarriage. Like the
others of you in this discussion, I believe the only grounds for divorce and remarriage is fornication. Further,
I believe that only the innocent party has a right to remarry and that this general law of God applies to all.
Not only have I consistently taught this but on several occasions I have been involved in the application of this
same principle in local congregations. I believe this to be the conviction of all who are in this discussion.
The topics we are discussing on fellowship, Romans 14 and false teacher have all
been cast against the backdrop of divorce and remarriage, Tragically, though we preach, teach and practice the
same thing on divorce and remarriage, a division exist. What has been the source? All of us believe in the authority
of Scripture, in the revealed pattern and in the same methodology of interpretation. Why then a separation? Understanding
God’s severe condemnation of division and those who cause division it behooves each of us to give his best efforts
to find the truth of God and to apply it in the proper way.
FALSE PROPHETS; FALSE APOSTLES, FALSE TEACHERS
My specific topic deals with false teachers. It is both interesting and significant
that God uses this term in a very discriminating fashion. As a matter of fact it was never used in the Old Testament.
False teaching was certainly condemned. False prophets were described and condemned. In the New Testament there
is equal discrimination shown. The terms false prophets, false apostles and false teachers are all used in the
New Testament. In every case where God used the terms it dealt with more than just the fact that something taught
was in error. In every case in Scripture where God used these terms the teacher himself was a false person. The
false prophets of Matthew 7:15 were ravening wolves who came in sheep’s clothing The false apostles of 2 Cor. 11:13
were "deceitful workers". They "fashioned themselves into apostles of Christ". It is obvious
they knew they were not apostles of Christ but they deceitfully portrayed themselves as such.
The only occasion in Scripture that uses the term "false teachers" (2
Pet. 2:1) does so with an exhaustive list of character flaws for those teachers. They were dishonest and immoral.
Consider terms such as "lascivious doings...covetousness...feigned words...make merchandise of you...despised
dominion...daring, self willed...creatures without reason...ignorant...suffering wrong as the hire of wrong doing...reveling
in their deceivings...eyes full of adultery...cannot cease from sin; enticing unsteadfast souls...a heart exercised
in covetousness...children of cursing..followed the way of Baalim...love the hire of wrongdoing...they entice in
the lusts of the flesh by lasciviousness...bondservants of corruption".
The certain men who "crept in privily" in Jude’s description were "ungodly
men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ". Those
who were deemed as anti-Christs in John’s epistles were identified as "deceivers" and "liars".
They denied the Father and the Son. It is in this context that John says "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth
not in the teaching of Christ hath not God" (2 Jn. 9). In all of these cases the teacher was false and what
he taught was false.
Are we to conclude today that a person cannot be identified as a false teacher
unless he is immoral? Absolutely
not! Just as we
must take into consideration the specific usage of the word in Scripture and we must also consider the common usage
and understanding that prevails among brethren today. This does not mean that the common usage of brethren has
the same authoritative force as Scripture. Obviously, Scripture is the revealed truth from God. But if we are to
deal with our beliefs and practices it demands that we give consideration to the common understanding and usage
of the day.
All of us recognize that the standard for our beliefs and practices is the teaching
of God’s Word. Equally we are aware that popular religious practices have corrupted the teaching of Scripture to
the point that we do not recognize those in denominational bodies as brethren. Many of those people we would deem
to be honest and sincere but the teaching they are following has been corrupted to the point that they have not
done the things that the Bible teaches to make them Christians. When we refer to denominational teachings and to
those who preach those doctrines we commonly describe them as false teachers.
Likewise, past divisions have been caused among those we recognize as our brethren
that have forced separations and have resulted in a general breaking of fellowship. This certainly has been the
case with the Missionary Society, the use of instruments of music in worship and, in more recent years, the cooperation
question. The teachings on these topics have led brethren into practices where our consciences would be compromised
and consequently divisions occurred. Most of us have used the label of "false" in describing those doctrines
and in describing those teachers who have advocated those views. Again, honesty and integrity were not the only
criteria.
I believe this brings us to a critical point in this discussion. Whom are we to
label as a false teacher? Is it only the person who is immoral? Absolutely not! We must consider passages such
as Gal. 1:9, "If any man preaches unto you any gospel other than the one which you received let him be anathema".
In Rom. 16:17 Paul commands that we mark those "causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary
to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them". These people "serve their own belly and by
their smooth and fair speech beguile the hearts of the innocent" (v.18). Teaching that varies from the doctrine
of Christ is certainly to be labeled as "false". People who by their teaching cause divisions and give
occasions of stumbling are to be marked and avoided. I believe these conditions can exist when the character of
the teacher of error is not in question.
Does this mean that if any brother in Christ lets it be known that he has a conviction
that we consider to be error that we are justified in labeling him as a false teacher? Obviously, by definition,
what he teaches is false. But the term "false teacher" is used in a sparing way in Scripture and has
taken on special significance among our brethren. In the Scriptures we cited earlier, when God used the term he
described people who were personally "false". If God was discriminating in His use of the terms "false
prophet, false apostle, false teacher" surely it behooves us to be warned against a casual use of the term.
Again, let me repeat, I am not saying that false teaching can be condoned or endorsed.
The question is, at what point would we be justified in identifying a brother as a false teacher? I believe there
are three possibilities in answer. (1) We can label every person as a false teacher who varies from our view of
Scripture in any way or (2) we can label none as false teachers regardless of their views and practices, or (3) we can use that term
to describe those who, in our judgment, have reached a point where we cannot fellowship them. Every variation from
the truth of God is certainly "false teaching". Are we justified in labeling a brother as "false
teacher" in every case where he varies? This is the basic issue in our discussion.
The Scriptures show us that some terms take on a special meaning beyond the literal.
Consider, for example, the word ecclesia-"church". Technically, the term can be used to refer to any assembly, group or
gathering of people. In Acts 19 it is used to describe the "lawful assembly" and also to describe a "rioting
mob". Except by illustration, how many of us would use the word "church" today when referring to
a riotous mob? The term church has taken a special significance for religious bodies. An indiscriminate use of
the word would not give accurate communication.
The Scriptures themselves employ a special meaning for a term beyond it’s literal
meaning. Consider the word "elder". The word obviously means a person of age and maturity. It is used
in this manner in 1 Tim. 5 referring to all of the male brethren who were advanced in age. The word is also used
to describe the work of the bishops or pastors and certainly has a unique significance among brethren. Every older
brother is an elder in that literal sense but not every older brother is an "elder" in the sense of Titus
1 and 1 Timothy 3. It is true that every person who teaches something that is error is a "false teacher"
on that point. Does this justify our assigning the label of "false teacher" to that person and indiscriminately
calling him a false teacher? This question demands an answer? Which of the three options is valid?
One veteran preacher and writer who formerly edited a journal among our brethren
wrote in another journal in June of 1997, "Anyone, without regard for age, experience, scholarship, wealth,
relationship, friendship, religious fervor, who does not teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, is a false teacher". This statement occurs in an article condemning what that writer sees as some who
he thinks defend people who teach a false doctrine on divorce and remarriage. Let me hurriedly and emphatically
say, no one is justified in defending false doctrine. No one is justified in defending a person who teaches error
if that defense implies that he is defending that false doctrine. To do so is wrong. However, we should be careful
with the reasoning of our brother who would label as a "false teacher" anyone "who does not teach
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". If that premise is accepted the consequences are endless.
It would demand our marking as a false teacher every person who does not know all of the truth or who teaches anything
that we feel falls short of or goes beyond the truth of God. Taken literally, this brother’s statement would demand
that we have a full and accurate understanding of all truth that God has revealed. None of us would be presumptuous
enough to claim such.
Not only would the issue in this matter be whether a person understands everything
God has revealed but the brother’s statement would demand that we identify as a false teacher any person who holds
a view that we believe to be error. I question whether any of us know any Christian with whom we have total agreement
on every single point of doctrine. That level of agreement does not exist even among the ones who are in this discussion.
Obviously, some of you have differences with me on an interpretation and an application of Scripture. But the fact
is you also have differences among yourselves. Some of you have labeled me as a false teacher. Do you label each
other as false teachers? I know there are differences among you even on the subject of divorce and remarriage.
If the author’s view is correct, that anyone who teaches something other than the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, is to be identified as a false teacher then who is there that you know that would not fit that label?
Are we then to ignore doctrinal differences and maintain fellowship without regard
to differences? Of course not! If we practice things that we believe to be error we would certainly be condemned
before God (Rom. 14:23). Likewise, we cannot give endorsement to the teaching of error (1 Tim. 6:3-5: 1 Tim. 1:3,
4:1-6; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; Titus 2:1). If our behavior implies that we are endorsing or condoning error we are wrong.
That brings us to the third possibility on our question of false teacher and false
teaching. Must we divide over every single difference among us? Is it possible for a Christian to participate with
other Christians in some activities without approving and condoning everything the other person believes and practices?
The Scriptures show that under certain conditions this may occur. Brethren at Corinth and at Rome had different
convictions as to the law of God. Whether we call it law or liberty or indifference to them there was a doctrinal
issue on the eating of meats . These brethren were not taught that they should mark and avoid each other. On the
contrary they were to continue to accept each other. Certainly they were not taught to condone what they thought
to be sinful. If a brother believed that the eating of meat was a sin he was obligated to refrain from eating.
If he did eat and thereby defile his conscience he would be sinning. On the other hand the apostle taught that
the man who had the understanding was at liberty to eat the meat without sin unless by his eating he would lead
the other brother to eat in violation of his conscience. Regardless of what else might be said about 1 Cor. 8 and
10 and Rom. 14 it is clear they were taught that under these circumstances brethren were to continue to accept
each other in the local congregation but to keep their individual consciences with regard to the eating of the
meats. Does this mean that we are to accept into fellowship every brother regardless of his beliefs and practices?
Of course not! But it does show that acceptance in a local congregation is not conditioned on every single person
in that group having reached the same level of maturity and all understanding every single passage the same.
In order to show they sanction this same principle I’m going to mention teachings
of other brethren including some of you who have been critical of me. Please do not infer that I am elevating their
understandings to the level of the authority of Scripture. I am simply trying to show that we have had a common
understanding and practice of this principle for many years. Likewise, I am trying to show that those who have
been critical of my views and practice have in reality been practicing the same principles.
In 1809 in his Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell argued that the church
will always consist of little children and young men as well as fathers. He concluded
That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge
or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither
should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge: but that on
the contrary their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition
by nature-and practice; and of the way of salvation thro’ Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their
faith in, and obedience to him, in all things according to this word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify
them for admission into his church (p. 17).
One current brother who has publicly been critical of some of my views cited this
same statement from Campbell illustrating that there are conditions where brethren might differ in belief and practice
and yet continue in fellowship. That same writer, after citing multiple issues where brethren have tolerated differences
(including having a Christmas tree at home, singing with an instrument in worship at home, a woman speaking in
a Bible class, partaking of the Lord’s Supper in evening services and also whether the innocent party in a divorce
for fornication must initiate the divorce to have the right to remarry) concluded by saying "They are cited
as demonstrating that this position is not new but has been the general practice of the church through the years.
Those who are advocating the position that one cannot extend fellowship to anyone with a wrong belief are charting
new ground and no one knows for certain where it will take us, although were we think it will lead is to fragmented,
factional groups".
Another brother who has been equally critical of my views and who has written numerous
articles warning against any acceptance of people who differ over divorce and remarriage, wrote an article showing
that there are certain kinds of questions even about divorce and remarriage where brethren might differ and yet
continue in fellowship. After citing some 21 questions on divorce that should not divide us he rightly concluded
We are united by Scripture on the day, the elements, and the meaning of
the Lord’s supper, but continue to discuss such things as the time of day and whether it can be provided more than
once on the Lord’s Day. By the same token, we can be united on the Bible principles laid down in passages such
as Matthew 19:9 while continuing to discuss some difficult points of application without dividing. To bear with
such differences does not mean we must tolerate sprinkling, women elders, a Tuesday Lord’s supper, or theories
that flagrantly violate the doctrine of Christ on marriage!
Within the past few months another writer, in an article warning about accepting
and condoning people who teach error on divorce and remarriage said,
I recognize that we are all wrong on some things. I recognize and urge
that we exercise patience and show love one to another and that we not rashly label, eat and devour one another.
(Gal. 5:14) We are all in a process of growth, and correction.
Many other cases such as these could be cited. I have cited these only for the
purpose of showing that there has been a common view and practice among brethren where we accept one another and
continue to fellowship in a local congregation when certain kinds of doctrinal differences exist. Again, let me emphatically state, this is not to imply
that we can tolerate all differences. I fully agree with the writer who said this does not mean that "we must
tolerate sprinkling, women elders, a Tuesday Lord’s Supper or theories that flagrantly violate the doctrine of
Christ on marriage." But, who decides which "difficult points" on marriage do not demand division?
What list is to govern every church?
I have cited these to illustrate the Biblical principal that is stated in 1 Cor.
8 & 10 and Romans 14. Those passages show that congregational participation does not demand absolute agreement
on every single point of doctrine.
WHERE SHOULD LINES BE DRAWN?
Where then must lines of fellowship be drawn? Do we draw no lines? Do we draw a
line on every disagreement? Or do we draw lines of fellowship when participating together would cause us to violate
our own consciences or when it would imply that we are endorsing something we know to be error? The Corinthian
church could not continue the fellowship with the incestuous brother because it would imply they were endorsing
his behavior. The brethren at Corinth were taught to continue in fellowship when differences existed over meats
sacrificed to idols. What can we conclude? We must conclude that there are some types of doctrinal issues and practices
that would force a separation among brethren. Likewise, we can conclude there are some questions about doctrine
where brethren might believe and practice differently without compromising each other. It is apparent that the
quotations that I have cited from some of my critics show that in reality this is a common view among us. It is
on this basis that brethren in a local congregation have had differences over doctrinal issues such as the covering
and the war question but have not divided. It is insufficient and presumptious to say those things do not matter
to God. The point is that there are differences among brethren as to what we believe does matter to God yet there can be an area for individual conviction and individual
practice that does not shame or compromise the other brother. In these cases we have continued to fellowship.
FELLOWSHIP DEMANDS JUDGMENT
What then is the point? Specifically this: we are not obligated to divide over
every difference.
Some differences
will demand a separation. Whether we like the terminology or the concept or not, all of us make judgments regarding
whom we might fellowship. We are forced to make individual judgments. I decide whether I can associate with a particular
group of brethren. If they take money from the treasury to support human organizations or if they use instruments
of music in their worship I could not in good conscience associate myself with them. On the other hand, if I know
there are members in the congregation who believe it to be scriptural for a Christian to participate as a combatant
in carnal warfare I am not compromised by my association even though I am a pacifist. Our eating the Lord’s Supper
together does not necessarily imply an endorsement of each other’s view on the war question anymore than the two
brothers in Rome communing together would imply their agreement on the eating of meats. Like it or not, we are
forced to make judgments with regard to our fellowship. This does not mean that my judgment will always be wise
or that it will always be acceptable to God. Neither does it mean that if someone else forms a different judgment
that he is necessarily wrong before God.
Likewise, congregations must make group judgments just as individual Christians
must make their individual judgments. A local church decides whether it will extend fellowship to a brother or
not. After the extension of fellowship that same local church will decide whether that fellowship is going to be
continued. Yes, there are Bible principles that govern us. Our judgments should be made on the basis of doctrinal
direction and should be made in the spirit that the Scriptures teach. But although we are guided by the Scriptures
in doing this, local churches will be making their group judgments. For example, the Bible condemns the factious
man. When is a person to be considered factious? As we have seen from 1 Cor. 8 & 10 and Romans 14, it is not
simply on the grounds that brethren differ whether we call it a matter of conviction or a matter of indifference.
The brethren in Corinth and Rome had a situation where differences existed but fellowship was to continue. However,
if a brother is sowing discord and causing division, Rom. 16 teaches us to mark and avoid him. In 2 Thess. 3 Paul
taught the brethren at Thessalonica that they were to withdraw from the disorderly who were identified as busy
bodies who would not work and expected the brethren to support them. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul said the incestuous brother
should be put away from among them. In 2 Cor. 12 Paul says there were some who had not repented of their fornication
and that if they did not do so before he returned his dealing with them would be with a rod.
In all of these cases a local church is making a judgment. Here’s a brother who
believes something different than I do but is he factious? Is he sowing discord among brethren? Is his behavior
bringing shame and reproach on the congregation? Local churches are forced to make this type of judgment call.
When a brother is deemed to be guilty how soon do you "mark and avoid"? Again, the time that is given
to teaching, reproving and pleading is a judgment decision. Some cases, such as flagrant immoral behavior, would
usually call for action more quickly than would a doctrinal issue where study, prayer and teaching might be more
lengthy. In all of this we see that judgment is going to be rendered. These are judgments that brethren make based
on their understanding of Scripture. Hopefully, the judgments would be proper but again they are human judgments.
If indeed an individual brother or a local church must make a judgment decision
regarding accepting or participating with a brother is it not possible that some might draw a line at a different
place than others will? One congregation might have numerous members with strong convictions that an artificial
covering for the woman’s head is a requirement by God. That local church might deem someone unacceptable as their
preacher if he does not hold this view or because of the manner in which they feel he would handle the question.
Another church might have no problem in accepting that same man as their preacher. Are we saying the Bible teaches
different things to different churches? Are we saying that somehow every local congregation must make the same
decision with regard to every preacher? If we say the latter have we not perceived the "brotherhood"in
a sectarian, denominational manner? Surely, we recognize the Lord’s teaching on the independence and separation
of local churches. This does not mean that the judgment decisions made by each church will be wise or even right.
What it shows is that Christianity is an individual religion and that the Bible teaches congregational independence.
There is no human organization or human force that is to exercise judgement and control over the churches. Colleges,
papers, preachers or close knit groups of preachers are not elevated by God to a position as judges for the brotherhood.
As opportunities afford an individual not only can but should teach what he believes to be the truth. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with a person pointing out errors in other people. The fact remains that each individual
and every congregation is required to make judgments and their judgments might differ..
Let me use a semi-hypothetical case in hopes of illustrating a point. Suppose I
learn that some brother in a distant state is teaching that anytime communion is served it must be served to everyone
in the assembly. I would have several options in dealing with this in a local congregation where I attend or where
I preach. I would make a judgment decision as to my addressing or not addressing this issue. If I deemed it wise
to discuss this view with the local church I would make a further judgement as to whether I needed to identify
the person who is teaching this. My judgment might be that this is a non-issue and at the time needs no public
attention and therefore I would choose to say nothing publicly. On the other hand, I might decide the brethren
need to know that this question exists and in order to avoid problems, I might teach on the topic. Again, it could
be that I know people in the congregation have ties to that other preacher. I might feel it wise to identify him
by name as I deal with the issue. In any case I am making judgment decisions.
Suppose in the scenario I have described my judgment is that I should teach on
the doctrine but not call by name the brother who I have heard believes and teaches this doctrine. Suppose another
brother in the same town in which I live has heard the same thing and his judgment is that he should publicly identify
this teacher and warn people not to have association with him less they be taught error. He has a perfect right
to make that judgment. The fact that each of us has a right to make a judgment does not mean that each of us will
make the best judgment. Neither does it mean that either judgment is wrong, or even bad.
Suppose further that this other local brother learns that I believe the same things
he does with regard to the practice of the communion and that I preach the same thing that he does but that I did
not publicly castigate the brother who taught this and I did not tell people that they must refuse fellowship with
him. Of course he has the right to teach what he believes and that includes the right to be critical of me, but
would this justify his inferring that our difference in judgment is because he thinks me wrong on some interpretation
of a passage of Scripture? Would this justify his publicizing to brethren at large that I have now become a "false
teacher" because I did not handle that brother in the same manner that he did?
I wish the above illustration did not have flesh and bones. I fear that the parallel
between that and what has occurred among brethren regarding divorce and remarriage is frighteningly real. The division
that is being discussed by this group today is not from doctrinal differences on marriage, divorce and remarriage.
It has come because some have judged the judgment of others, particularly in one high profile case, and have charged
that these differences of judgments are based on doctrinal differences of fellowship. In reality we all believe
and practice the same principles on marriage, divorce and remarriage and employ the same principles on fellowship.
We have made similar but not identical judgments on this particular case. Right or wrong it has been a decision
of judgment and not a forfeiting of basic Biblical principles or teaching.
I illustrate with my own case. For more than 30 years I have preached a series
of lessons regarding local congregational fellowship in which I use Rom. 14. I have never applied Rom. 14 to the
questions of divorce and remarriage and I do not do so now. In 1993 a local congregation asked me to speak on fellowship
in a series following three or four lessons on divorce and remarriage. In the opening of my sermon I made it explicitly
clear that I agreed with the views on divorce and remarriage that had been expressed by the previous speakers.
Further, I specifically stated that as I discussed fellowship that evening I was not applying it to the divorce
question. Further, I said that nothing should be used to imply that I was seeking to broaden our fellowship on
divorce and remarriage or on any other doctrinal issue. A partial quotation from that very disclaimer has been
used publicly to charge me with exactly the opposite. It has been inferred that I have preached broadly on fellowship
and have applied it to divorce and remarriage. Another brother took this report and wrote in his journal that I
had accepted the unity in diversity approach and that I accept people who are divorced for reasons other than fornication
and he surmised that I had done this in order to find ways to fellowship some of my in-laws who are associated
with the institutional brethren. Not only is his charge of my motives wrong but it is absolutely untrue that I
accept people with divorces for reasons other than fornication.
Others have taken my same lesson and although they have paid lip service to the
fact that I believe the same as they do on divorce and remarriage they have argued that my views on fellowship
will lead to a general acceptance of doctrinal error. Please be aware that this is their judgment of where they
think my views might lead. I emphatically deny that my views will lead in this direction. We could argue about
this but both of us would be arguing on the basis of our human judgment.
I teach from Rom. 14 that the brother who thought it was sin to eat meats held
that as a matter of his faith. He believed that he was sinning if he ate the meat. (I am fully aware that Paul
later explains that the meats are not wrong within themselves). Other brethren at Rome felt it was legitimate to
eat the meat. Paul told them that each was responsible to keep his conscience. That does not mean that the Bible
teaches different doctrines to different people. Even though the non-meat eater misunderstood the law he was still
obligated to keep his conscience.
I believe there are some practices among brethren today that are parallel to the situation in Rom. 14.
In matters where the practice is individual (not congregational), where it does not compromise the other brethren,
where it does not imply endorsement of error, and where it does not bring shame and reproach on the group, brethren
might have differences and yet continue to practice together. I believe this addresses issues like the covering
question and the war question as well as many others. I do not include in this the fellowshipping of fornicators,
drunkards, homosexuals, thieves, and etc. This principle does not deal with matters such as instrumental music
in worship or congregational support of human organizations because those are group actions and would automatically
compromise the conscience of anyone who is opposed.
Another brother who has never had any discussion of these matters with me has charged
that I have helped to develop a "new hermeneutic". This is ludicrous. The fact that I do not agree with
his explanation of a passage of Scripture does not mean that I have developed some new method of interpretation.
As firmly as any of you, I believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, in the authority of the patterns we
find in Scripture and that our tested concept of direct statement, apostolic example and necessary inference is
the proper method by which Scripture is interpreted. I continue to teach this widely.
Back to the situation that has developed almost into a brotherhood test case. When
some other brethren did not form the same judgment and continued associating with the questioned brother, as most
had done previously, some began to accuse them of either being soft on divorce and remarriage or wrong on fellowship
or both. Remember please, these same brethren have argued that we may not all believe the exact same thing about
every passage of Scripture. They have likewise accepted each other in spite of differences in conviction over some
matters pertaining to divorce and remarriage. It appears to me they took a particular case and concluded that brethren
should not continue fellowship with this particular preacher and they condemn as unfaithful to God anyone who does
not follow the same judgment. Let me say again, if we endorse error we are wrong. If associating with a brother
who holds an erroneous position implies an endorsement of that error we are wrong. This brings us back to the original
premise that a judgment must be made by an individual and a congregation. If someone feels poor judgment is used
and feels that the association does imply endorsement he would be at perfect liberty to point this out and to argue
for it. My objection is to the spirit and attitude that seems to prevail that when certain people form their judgment
it is the responsibility of the entire brotherhood to follow that judgment. Surely, we can see the wisdom of God
in the independence of local congregations when we consider such thinking.
As I have indicated previously individual Christians and local congregations are
at liberty to make judgment calls. Obviously, both individuals and congregations could make decisions that are
displeasing to God. Other brethren have a right to express their disapproval of those judgments. I consider it
patently unfair and unchristian to imply that someone interprets Scripture differently or has developed a new hermeneutic
simply because he differs in judgment on a particular case..
Brethren, when we take the approach that anyone who does not follow the same judgment
that I make is necessarily a false teacher and is unfaithful to God, what have we done? We have elevated our judgment
as the law of God. God forbade the Jews to work on the Sabbath. Over time some decided, that is, they made a judgment
as to how far a person could walk on the Sabbath without violating God’s law. They made their judgment equivalent
to the law of God. God condemned this. Our judgments are not the law of God.
CONCLUSION
I consider it a tragedy that this division exists among us. I readily agree that
the world’s loose attitude on divorce constitutes a major danger for brethren. I wholeheartedly support the teaching
of God’s principle of one man for one woman for life. I wholeheartedly support the warnings to brethren and the
careful exposition of text to expose error. All of this can be done while dealing fairly with each other. What
a tragedy it is when people who share the respect for God’s Word and God’s authority and who believe, teach and
practice the same things on divorce and remarriage are pictured as loose thinkers who are endangering the souls
of brethren. Certainly God condemns fornication and adultery. We must also. But brethren, God equally condemns
division and the sowing of discord among brethren. The label "false teacher" is a legitimate Bible term
but it means more than simply a disagreement on the interpretation of some text. You have differences among yourselves
over divorce and remarriage but exercise your judgment to continue in fellowship. Please recognize the rights and
responsibilities of others to do the same.
Prayerfully, from the bottom of my heart, my appeal is for level heads, brotherly
treatment and for a united front against Satan’s forces. May God bless us all.
|
