Note: this is a mirror site used by permission of Gospel Themes Press Links found below will direct the user to the main Home site for Gospel Themes Press. The Index has been added by the webmaster of The Fountain Gateway. All Scripture Links are added and courtesy of Blue Letter Bible - webmaster Mark K. Doty

Differences exist between contentiousness (which is clearly condemned) and contending for the faith. Many times brethren divide from each other over doctrinal points without serious study taking place before the division. This chapter gives scriptural procedures for dealing with brethren with whom we differ. Unfortunately, our record has not been good at conducting ourselves properly in the midst of differences.

Copyright 2004 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson Chapter 6 from the book Fellowship with God and His People The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism. See Rights Notice below.

Rights Notice

These electronically-transmitted pages are copyrighted © 2005 and belong to Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. All rights reserved. You are free to download this electronic material for personal use, to make copies to share with others, or to mirror on your local web site, with the following restrictions:

The material must remain intact and unmodified from the form supplied here, including header and footer and their graphics, copyright notice, the URL and postal addresses. You may not charge for this material. If you have any questions about using this material, please contact the publisher at gtp@gospelthemes.com. Copyright All Old Testament scripture quotations are taken from The New American Standard Bible, © 1960-1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All New Testament scripture quotations are taken from The American Standard Version New Testament, © 1901, 1929 Thomas Nelson and Sons. All rights reserved.

Chapter 6, "Dealing with Doctrinal Differences," comes from the book Fellowship with God and His People: The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism by Samuel G. Dawson © 2004 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. Used by permission of publisher.

ISBN 978-0-938855-58-3

Publisher Gospel Themes Press 2028 South Austin Street Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960 USA

Gospel Themes Press
2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960

Hard copies can be purchased in booklet form directly from Gospel Themes Press. Click here to Place an Order.

Dealing with Doctrinal Differences

 

Samuel G. Dawson

As previous chapters in Fellowship with God and His People have shown, Christians in a local congregation do not have to agree on everything in the Bible in order to be in fellowship with each other. Practically speaking, they never will, try as though they might. This chapter discusses how brethren should conduct themselves when their doctrinal differences come to the fore. In I Tim. 3.14-15, Paul instructs Timothy:

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This chapter deals with how Christians ought to behave themselves in God's family in view of doctrinal differences. We will not contemplate matters of sin, nor consider doctrinal differences with non-Christians, though many of the principles would also apply.

Indeed, doctrinal differences do occur, and many times our record has not been good at conducting ourselves properly in the midst of differences. Brethren divide from each other over doctrinal points, many times without serious study taking place before the division. Preachers, teachers, elders, and other teachers are sometimes abused over matters of private study and belief that they may not even have taught. Preachers and other Christians appreciate the need to stand for the truth and contend for the faith, for the Scriptures plainly teach such. However, sometimes preachers and other Christians mistake contentiousness (which is clearly condemned) for contending for the faith. This chapter explores the differences between the two, and proposes scriptural procedures for dealing with brethren we differ with.

For the first part of this chapter, we deal with a number of seemingly unrelated topics, that by the conclusion of the chapter will be seen as clearly related. These principles are also fundamental to our goal of knowing how to conduct ourselves in the house of God.

We Naturally Expect Lions and Lambs to Have Problems

Just realizing that we can expect differences is helpful in achieving scriptural methods of dealing with brethren in the midst of them. Brethren having doctrinal differences is not an unusual, weird, or unique circumstance. Once we understand that differences are common, the next step is to learn how to conduct ourselves properly in the midst of them.

In Isa. 2.1-4, Isaiah prophesied concerning the Messiah's kingdom, that Christians now comprise:

Now it will come about that in the last days, The mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, And that we may walk in His paths, for the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.

This passage shows that in contrast to the Old Testament kingdom of Israel that was national in scope, the Messiah's kingdom was prophesied to be, and is, an international or multinational kingdom. People from all nations are in it.

Similarly, in Isa. 19.23-25, Isaiah prophesied concerning the Messiah's kingdom:

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.

These words were never true during the days of the physical nation of Israel. One can easily imagine how these words sounded to the physical Israelites in Isaiah's day. The very idea of Jews, Egyptians, and Assyrians, who were normally enemies, functioning together in the Messiah's kingdom, would have been altogether incomprehensible. Isaiah's proposition was that people of widely different backgrounds would be thrown together to serve God together under the rule of the Messiah.

Isaiah 11.6-10, perhaps the most familiar of messianic passages in Isaiah, showed how these people would get along with each other:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Then it will come about in that day that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a signal for the peoples; and His resting place will be glorious.

Premillennialists (those who do not believe Christ is presently ruling, but will return to earth before a literal thousand-year reign) view these verses as unfulfilled. They view them as prophecies that will be fulfilled when the Messiah sets up His kingdom on the earth. However, even if premillennialism were true, with our widely different backgrounds, the qualities we would need in the future to get along are the same ones we need now. The apostle Paul quotes verse 10 in Rom. 15.12 as fulfilled. In the midst of discussing relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians, he cites this very prophecy to show “the nations” in the day of the Messiah (1) would not hurt nor destroy (2) in all God's holy mountain, (3) because of the knowledge of Jehovah. Thus, Isaiah spoke of things fulfilled in the body of Christ, and he assuredly did not speak of literal wolves and lambs lying down together as a result of hearing the gospel of Christ!

Basically, Isaiah foretold that the Messiah's kingdom, i.e., the body of Christ, would be composed of people of widely different backgrounds, people who historically had not gotten along together. Consequently, when people with widely different doctrinal positions come into the kingdom as a result of their obedience to the gospel, they must learn from the “knowledge of Jehovah” not to “hurt nor destroy” in all of God's holy mountain (the kingdom of God in which Christians are now citizens, Heb. 12.22). This chapter teaches us how.

I encountered a good illustration of a lion and lamb lying down together in the kingdom of God when I preached in a small town in Idaho. Early in the week I met a young Christian who had a very violent past, and had participated in the racial riots in the Watts area of Los Angeles in the Nineteen Seventies. He described the weapons he and others in his motorcycle gang had used to assault the law enforcement officers in that area.

Later in the week when a number of the men of the congregation gathered in a private home for a bachelor's party, I asked that young Christian to relate some of the tales that he had told me earlier in the week. As he did so, one of the men sitting on the same couch with him was noticeably disturbed, so I stopped the storyteller, to ascertain what the problem was. He mentioned although he was then a law-enforcement officer in Northern Idaho, he had been a deputy sheriff in the Watts area at about the same time the other fellow had been there. These two men discussed the details of when they had been in the Watts riots, and soon found out they may well have been on opposing sides in some of the same conflicts. However, as a result of the knowledge of Jehovah, these men who were once natural enemies, nearly to the point of taking each other's lives, had obeyed the gospel of Christ and were now serving Christ together in the same local congregation.

On another occasion, I met two Christians who started a congregation in New Jersey. One, a Cajun-sounding man from east Texas who was an executive with a large petroleum company; the other, a biology teacher at Rutgers University, was an environmental activist in the Sierra Club. These were two men who, without the knowledge of Jehovah, would have had little in common, yet they served Christ together in that community.

This concept of Christians with widely different backgrounds having to “lie down together” in the kingdom of Christ, is also contemplated in many New Testament passages. In Gal. 3.26-29, Paul says:

For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

Paul shows that groups such as Jews and Greeks, servants and masters, and men and women, enjoy a relationship in Christ that historically they were not accustomed to. The failure of the Galatian Christians to realize this goal caused Paul to exhort them in Gal. 5.15:

But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Biting and devouring was customary for wolves and lambs, but not for citizens in the Messiah's kingdom, who were not to hurt nor destroy in all God's holy mountain. Likewise, in I Cor. 3.3, Paul said to his carnally-minded brethren:

…for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men?

These young Christians were involved in worldly strife because they still conducted themselves toward brethren they differed with according to a worldly philosophy. They still thought in terms of wolves, lions, lambs, and kids, rather than in terms of citizens united in the Messiah's kingdom, as a result of the knowledge of Jehovah.

So how do we deal with brethren we differ with? What is our record? There are over three hundred prophecies about the Messiah (where He would be born, when, the fact He would be born of a virgin, He would perform miracles, teach in parables, be rejected by physical Israel, be crucified, be raised from the dead, etc.). Most realize that if Jesus did not fulfill every one of them, he was an impostor, and not the Christ of God. Similarly, there are many prophecies made about the Messiah's people (Christians), and specifically ones concerning how they are to treat each other in the body of Christ. Do we also realize that if we don't measure up to those prophecies, that is just how far we are from being the Messiah's prophesied people? Can it be that we are impostors?

Much of this material was developed several years ago when a small college-town church with a lot of doctrinal differences contacted me. Since I had a part in the beginning of the congregation a dozen years before, and although I knew only one family there when they contacted me, they thought I might be able to help. This congregation was somewhat unusual in that it was composed of young college students and instructors who nearly all had become Christians somewhere else. They had left home and were now thrust together with brethren with quite different backgrounds. They sent me a tape recording of a meeting of the men of the congregation to present their problems to me. The tape began by their going around the room and identifying themselves so I might recognize their voices as they spoke during the meeting.

Next, those men listed sixteen major doctrinal topics that agitated them. Then they gave the startling admission that although they didn't believe any of those doctrinal issues was their real problem, they didn't know what their real problem was. They requested I listen to them talk about all their differences to see if I could determine what their real problem was.

As I listened to their comments, and grasped the spectrum of differences, my first reaction was that there was no way Christians with so many different backgrounds, philosophies, and opinions could work together. I took the cassette out of the player and put it away, thinking the situation was hopeless. Several days later, I listened to it again, and this time I was impressed by two things: (1) the candor of these Christians, who clearly were trying to determine how they might work together, and (2) the obvious respect they had for each other in the midst of their many differences. I suggested to those brethren I put some material on fellowship together, and present it to them to see if it could help them work together in spite of the fact they lacked complete doctrinal agreement.

Later, as I drove across the state to meet with them, I thought this was an unusual situation, because most congregations are fairly stable doctrinally without a variety of backgrounds being thrust together at the same time in the same place. However, the more I thought about these passages from Isaiah, the more I was forced to the conclusion that these situations are to be expected.

The New Testament doesn't present a picture of stagnant congregations where everyone comes from the same direction, but rather groups of Christians where many are converted out of quite a variety of religious backgrounds, and having to learn how to deal with one another while they grow doctrinally. As a matter of fact, as long as Christians teach those in the world, this problem will exist, and never go away. It was never supposed to! Rather, God wants Christians to learn how to conduct themselves in these circumstances. Certainly, it helps to solve these problems if we first realize they are not unusual when a church grows as it should.

Solving Problems Together Builds Bonds Between Brethren

An individual Christian is a highly complex person, consisting of at least a body, spirit, mind, and personality as did Jesus in Lk. 2.52, where it is said He grew in wisdom, stature, and in favor with God and man. As a result, even a person who lives alone will have personal problems. If two such complex persons marry, marriage problems naturally occur. When children are added to the family, each with their individual bodies, minds, spirits, and personalities, family problems are inevitable. Likewise, as many diverse people are joined together in a local church, problems are bound to manifest themselves.

This chapter examines some things Christians can do from the teaching of Christ and that will (1) prevent many problems from arising in local congregations, and (2) solve some problems that may already exist. Above all, local church problems do not have to be tolerated. God tells us how to avoid and solve problems between Christians. When we don't solve them, but merely endure them, it shows either a lack of knowledge of or a lack of faith in God's teaching.

Ignorance of God's Word Causes and Magnifies Problems

God says His people are destroyed by ignorance. Ignorance of God's word causes many church problems. Many secondary causes of problems exist between Christians, some of which are discussed in this chapter. However, many of these secondary problems generally go back to a more fundamental factor, ignorance of God's word.

Historically, ignorance has always been the paramount cause of the disobedience of God's people. In Hos. 4.6, God spoke of the underlying cause of Jewish problems seven hundred years before Christ when He said:

My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.

Likewise, when the Apostle Peter preached the second gospel sermon recorded in Ac. 3.17, he explained to the Jews why they crucified the very Messiah they looked for:

And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

The gospels show that Jesus was put to death because of pride, envy, and love of money. Peter, however, got to the heart of the matter when he proclaimed Jesus was crucified in ignorance. The Jews were simply so ignorant of God's word they crucified His Anointed.

So it is today. Most doctrinal problems local churches get involved in go back to a dismal ignorance of God's word. Many personal problems between Christians stem from the same root cause. Christians worldwide starve for competent teachers of God's word, who can teach them the way of the Lord more perfectly. Therefore, since widespread ignorance of God's word is basic to church problems, a well-rounded knowledge of the word of God helps us avoid many church problems, as well as enables us to extricate ourselves and others from difficulties.

Solving Problems Together Builds Confidence and Bonds Between Brethren

Often a congregation contains able Christians with quite a reservoir of Bible teaching available to them, and yet the members may not work well together. Collectively, the congregation may do so little the people in their community don't even know they're there. Little personal evangelism is done, and Satan may well have that church exactly where he wants it, with its doing perhaps twenty percent of what it could.

Usually, a major reason those Christians cannot do more together is because of a lack of respect for and confidence in each other. They may be friendly and associate together on a social basis, and yet they still may not have developed confidence in one another on a large enough scale where they can work together.

Because of a lack of confidence and respect in one another, when doctrinal or personal problems arise, as they inevitably will, it is easy to “write off” the others as not being valuable compatriots anyway. Thus, efforts at collective church discipline are not effective. The person losing fellowship doesn't consider it to be too bad a penalty because after all, fellowship with the congregation wasn't all that grand to begin with!

Confidence in brethren does not occur naturally, and it doesn't come about by accident. Neither does that confidence develop by mere social contact, no matter how extensive it might be. Many in a congregation might get together socially very frequently. However, when problems involving doctrine or personal sin arise, some of them won't have sufficient confidence in each other to work together to solve the problems, even though they are veritable reservoirs of the teaching of God.

We can learn what produces confidence among Christians from the dealings of the Apostle Paul with Christians in Corinth in whom he had no confidence at first. In I Cor. 3.1, he declared he couldn't even talk to them like spiritually-minded people because they were still so carnally minded. He had to treat them like babies. Throughout the letter he rebuked them for their lack of understanding of preacher-church relations (Chapters 1-4). He demanded they quit being proud of an impenitent fornicator in the church and deliver him to his owner, Satan, so he might be ashamed and repent, and thereby be saved (Chapter 5).

He blistered them for taking their disputes before pagan judges (Chapter 6). He chided them for not conducting themselves properly in realms of expediency (Chapters 7-10), i.e., of not having the judgment to conduct themselves properly toward weak Christians. In Chapters 12-14 Paul made it clear they were sadly mistaken concerning a variety of aspects of miraculous spiritual gifts. In Chapter 15, he endeavored to correct serious misconceptions concerning the general resurrection at the end of time.

Imagine a similar church in our day! If a church of our acquaintance had members who were seriously mixed up and divided on a variety of matters, we wouldn't have any confidence in that group of Christians. Yet when Paul wrote his second letter several months later to the same church, his tone was entirely different. For example, in II Cor. 7.16, Paul told them:

I rejoice that in everything I am of good courage concerning you.

Remember, in the first letter he did not speak of good courage about them. He confided elsewhere in the second letter that as he wrote the first one he cried because he was afraid his harshness might cause them to renounce their association with him. He had anything but good courage concerning them in the first letter. But Paul delighted in the good report his companion, who delivered the letters to them, brought back to him, so much so, that he began boasting about them in II Cor. 8.22:

And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you.

Thus, Paul and his traveling companion both felt tremendous confidence in a church where just shortly before, they had none whatever. What produced this change?

Before answering that question, notice some additional events where Paul expressed great confidence in individuals and churches. For example, in Philemon 21, Paul mentioned his confidence in his friend Philemon:

Having confidence in thine obedience I write unto thee, knowing that thou wilt do even beyond what I say.

Likewise in Phil. 1.14, Paul spoke of the confidence the Roman Christians had in him in the midst of a major trial directed against Christians in that city:

...and that most of the brethren in the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.

In all these instances, Paul had been through trying situations and weighty problems with certain brethren. When Paul and these brethren worked together according to God's word, even solving tremendous problems, they established bonds of confidence. Brethren merely associating together socially for years will not build bonds of confidence nearly like they were working in spiritual situations together according to God's word. Solving problems together by applying the teaching of Christ builds not only faith in Christ, but also confidence in faithful brethren as well. Then when new problems between those brethren arise, bonds of confidence will prevent them from writing each other off so quickly. In addition, church discipline will have a real chance to bring about repentance when needed, because loss of fellowship will cost brethren a great deal.

I remember a serious conflict between two Christians. It started when a mature Christian woman hired a babe in Christ to do some remodeling work in her home. She overheard him tell a lie in a phone conversation to one of his suppliers, and when he hung up, she confronted him about it. No one ever dealt with him so forthrightly, and being somewhat perturbed, he denied he had lied, thereby lying again.

The more he tried to extricate himself, the deeper in he dug himself. He simply never had anyone refuse to be shaken off like this lady. Since he had now sinned against her by lying to her, she dealt with him according to Jesus' direction concerning personal offenses as prescribed in Mt. 18.15-18.

When he wouldn't hear her private exhortations, she got two witnesses, of whom I reluctantly was one, to hear her continued efforts to get him to renounce his untruths. I well remember going to their meetings with an upset stomach, wishing to be anywhere else. I thought all along these two Christians would soon have nothing to do with each other again.

How wrong I was! When the young Christian finally realized this lady was not his enemy, but trying to get him to repudiate his past pattern of casual attitude toward the truth, and that she was not going to be put off, he finally repented of his lying. I'm glad to say those two Christians became the best of friends, and several years later, when the young man became a gospel preacher and needed some financial support, guess who was the first one to come forward to aid him financially? That's right, the woman who he had thought was out to destroy him in the beginning of his service of Christ. To this day, they have tremendous confidence in one another, and their solving a serious spiritual problem according to God's word was the foundation of that confidence.

Many other Christians of my personal acquaintance have developed confidence in each other this same way. Are you in a group of Christians who do not work confidently together? Do you have a problem with anyone that could be solved scripturally? If so, approach him with this attitude: since someone could probably have a lot more fun doing something else than being a Christian in that specific congregation, why not give him credit for wanting to do what is right? Then approach him with the idea of your working together with him on some spiritual project. It may well be the very thing your troubled congregation needs to start developing confidence among brethren.

This ought to be easy to do, especially in troubled congregations. Where brethren have been plagued with problems, and many sensible people have already left because of the seriousness of them, it ought to be easy to give the ones who have remained credit for wanting to serve Christ and do what is right. They may not do right, they may not even know what is right, but if they stick it out in an unpleasant situation, it's not for the fun of it. They must want to do what is right. Give them credit for that at least and striving to solve problems with them according to God's word will become much easier.

Is the Restoration Over?

A major thing that gets in the way of brethren solving doctrinal problems is their attitude toward the restoration of the way of Christ. To those who have been for some time involved in a “restoration movement,” we simply ask, “Is the restoration over?” In other words, are we involved in going back to the Bible and seeing for ourselves what Christians did in the New Testament, or do we merely hand down what some early restorers determined to be the truth?

Stated another way, “Do we restore the New Testament way of righteousness or a restoration movement?” There is quite a difference! As a matter of fact, the two philosophies are thousands of miles apart. We shouldn't object to the Roman Catholic practice of setting forth the infallibility of one man, the pope, if we somehow believe in the infallibility of a group of men, a group of preachers, a previous generation of preachers, a brotherhood paper, etc. It is no worse to believe in the infallibility of one man than it is to believe in the infallibility of a group of men.

Another interesting question along this same line might be, “When did someone first speak of the restoration as something completed in the past?” Many do so now, but those involved in restoration movements didn't always. The restorers before Alexander Campbell definitely did not. Campbell himself absolutely did not. He viewed himself as right in the middle of restoring the New Testament way. I doubt any of us, had we lived in the time of Campbell, would have thought the restoration was over. Those in churches of Christ need to know that Campbell taught many things they would not endorse. For example, Campbell believed the sabbath rest was commanded in the Garden of Eden. This sounds fine to sabbatarians, but the Bible doesn't so teach. Campbell believed all his life the body of Christ is composed of congregations rather than individual Christians, a thoroughgoing denominational view. Campbell didn't know baptism is for the remission of sins when he was baptized. We certainly wouldn't view one who agreed with Campbell today as having arrived at the pristine way of Christ. The practice of offering an “invitation” to obey the gospel was unheard of in Campbell's early work, something most seem to think is absolutely mandatory today. Thus, had we lived in Campbell's time with our present understanding of the Scriptures, we would not have thought those brethren “had arrived.”

If one believes the restoration is over, i.e., that someone somewhere at some time arrived at all the truth so all that remains for us to do is to hand it down to future generations, several questions naturally arise. First, “Who finished the restoration?” “When was it finished?” “In what city was it completed?” If it has been completed, someone must have done it somewhere at sometime.

All these questions are designed to help us realize that to view the restoration as completed in past time misses the whole concept of restoration. Even if someone had arrived at all the truth, either in the past century or in the current century, each one of us still has the same personal responsibility to study for ourselves and determine the truth of God for ourselves.

However, the restoration is not a movement of congregations, as Campbell conceived it. Instead, it should be the restoration of a person's personal fellowship with God, not organizational. Since we still should be involved in a renewal that is a continuing process, then we need to appreciate the following distinction.

Bible Study vs. Creed Rehearsal

Once we regard the restoration process as ongoing, then the distinction between “Bible Study” and “Creed Rehearsal” becomes clear. Once, when I had just begun work with one congregation, I noticed when questions that were a little off the beaten path arose during Bible classes everyone dove for cover. It was as though they thought they would be “fragged.” One fellow seemed to get especially nervous when the discussion went longer than he deemed necessary. I knew from the background of the questions and the ones who asked them that the questions concerned real issues in those persons' lives. They were sincere questions that needed immediate application, but this fellow attempted to curtail all discussion so we could go to the next verses.

After noticing this for several weeks, I approached this Christian, and I asked him what the sign outside the building said was to take place at 9:45. He said he didn't understand. I said, “Does it say we have Bible Study or Creed Rehearsal?”

He thought about it a moment, and said, “I see your point, I guess we are here to study the Bible, aren't we?” It's important for us to see that if we are involved in a continuing process of determining the truth for ourselves, with lions and lambs from a variety of backgrounds involved in the search, we're bound to have some off-the-wall views and concepts expressed. To have it otherwise would not be normal.

Thus, we need to appreciate the necessity of Bible study instead of creed rehearsal, and realize we're all involved in a continual search for truth. We must learn not to be so defensive when ideas other than our own are expressed. At such times, we ought to be able to give each other credit for wanting to know the truth, then help each other find it, and behave ourselves toward each other while we strive to find it. The purpose of this chapter is to help us learn to behave ourselves toward brethren when we have doctrinal differences. In Chapter 5 we established the concept that a local congregation is a group of Christians who agree on what they do collectively and who agree to behave themselves on the matters they're not agreed on. Now we seek to see what “behaving ourselves” means in the case of doctrinal differences.

Unless We Learn Some Lessons, We're Doomed to Undergo Splits

It is of the utmost importance that we learn how to conduct ourselves in the midst of doctrinal differences, because unless we do, congregations are doomed to undergo a succession of splits. In the restoration movement in the United States, many splits occurred in fellowship between Christians in the same congregations as well as splits between coalitions of congregations (which coalitions should never have existed anyway, being denominational in nature). Churches of Christ split over the missionary society concept in the 1850s, and over instrumental music in worship sometime later. Earlier in the twentieth century, they split over benevolence, sponsoring churches, Bible classes, and the container used in the Lord's Supper, etc. Generally, these splits took place without a lot of study and understanding of the other side's arguments, but with much tension, labeling of each other, misrepresentation, and hard feelings. At the present time, some churches contemplate a similar split over various questions pertaining to divorce and remarriage. Others seem willing to draw the line on whether or not the fruit of the vine used in the Lord's Supper may be fortified with Vitamin C. In most of these splits, the breaks in fellowship take place between brethren who are not at all familiar with both sides of the issue. The break comes before a lot of studying has been done by most of those involved.

Unless we learn to solve the real underlying problem of how we ought to conduct ourselves toward brethren we differ with, we will continue to have comparable breaks in fellowship. We may always say it's over a different doctrinal issue, but we fail to deal with the real issue.

Not only are we doomed to a succession of splits, but the overall situation will also continue to get worse, because as one older, wiser preacher suggested, “In every split, the conservatives always get the cranks.” In a controversy over an innovation, the conservatives get the ones who are honestly scripturally opposed to the innovation. These are not the cranks we speak of. The ones opposing the innovation also get the people who are opposed to doing anything they've never done before (i.e., Tuesday night Bible classes instead of Wednesday night), along with those who are opposed to doing anything at all. These latter two categories are indeed cranks. This being true, as the succession of splits goes on without the real problem (our mistreating each other) ever being addressed, the concentration of cranks will only increase, and lead to even more splits!

Question Showing the Extent of Doctrinal Differences

In the congregation where I was invited to present this material originally, to emphasize the overwhelming nature of their differences, one Christian asked this question during a question and answer period:

The following illustrates the magnitude of some of the dif­ferences we have:

One brother teaches Ac. 2:38 promises us the literal in­dwelling of the Holy Spirit and another teaches that the gift is not the literal in­dwelling, but salvation.

One brother affirms that in Ac. 19.1-7 those baptized into John's baptism were bap­tized in Christ's name to re­ceive the Holy Spirit (literally) and not the for­giveness of sins, because they had already received forgive­ness under John's baptism, while another brother affirms that those people were bap­tized for forgiveness of sins and did not receive a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

One brother teaches that the phrases in Rom. 8.9-11 “if Christ be in you,” “in the spirit,” “if the spirit of God dwell in you,” and “if a man have not the spirit of Christ” are all descriptions of the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, while another brother publicly affirms that this doctrine is wrong because he believes that the ideas and power of God's word is what dwells in us.

One brother teaches that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are literally one and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ minis­tering on earth in spirit form, while another brother teaches that the Holy Spirit and Christ are separate divine be­ings.

One brother teaches that what was promised to Abraham was the Holy Spirit, but the other brother teaches the promise to Abraham was salvation through Christ.

Can fellowship exist between these two brothers?

As I read this brother's question, I originally thought, “There's no way these two brethren can be in fellowship.” Surely the fellow who wrote the question thought it was hopeless, and perhaps you do as well. After thinking about the matter for a moment, though, I answered the question this way: “Yes, it is possible for these two brethren to be in fellowship, but it will not be by accident.” I meant they can enjoy fellowship in many cases. For instance, suppose one of these Christians is a new convert, while the other one has been a Christian for many years. It is entirely possible for a new convert to have all kinds of mistaken ideas about the Godhead, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.

When I obeyed the gospel and became a Christian, I was not even aware of most of these questions, much less their answers. I had not even heard of the proposition that God promised Abraham the Holy Spirit when I read this question. Can a mature Christian associate with me while I study to find the truth of the proposition? We can be if we agree to behave ourselves toward each other while the study goes on. Even then, it wouldn't have to affect our collective action if we differ on the nature of the promise made to Abraham. If one view wasn't pushed to the exclusion of all others, I could probably enjoy fellowship with both of these brethren.

We're Not Saved by Perfect Doctrinal Correctness

It will surely help us conduct ourselves properly toward brethren we differ with if we appreciate the fact none of us is in fellowship with God because we're completely doctrinally correct. Remember, we're talking about differences only between brethren, i.e., between Christians, who are in Christ, and have been baptized into Him upon the basis of their faith in Christ.

A recent debate proposition between two Christians clearly draws this issue: “Resolved: Absolute doctrinal conformity is necessary for scriptural fellowship.” As previous chapters show, since fellowship with God is based upon perfect faith, not flawless knowledge or performance, the requirement of absolute doctrinal conformity cannot be right. Before reviewing the reasons why, observe that this contention does not work, practically. The man who signed to affirm the proposition didn't have absolute doctrinal conformity with God when he became a Christian, and thence he didn't have scriptural fellowship with God if his proposition is right. To be truthful, he still doesn't have absolute doctrinal conformity with God, and thus, according to his own proposition, he still doesn't have scriptural fellowship with God.

Likewise, if absolute doctrinal conformity is required to have scriptural fellowship between two Christians, there are not two Christians in the entire world who have absolute doctrinal conformity. The concept of perfect doctrinal precision makes fellowship with God or with any other Christian practically impossible.

We understand that perfect doctrinal conformity is not essential for mature Christians to be in fellowship with new converts. Everybody seems able to see it in that case. We understand the new converts in Acts 2 did not have absolute doctrinal conformity, either with God or with each other. Even though the Apostle Peter preached Gentiles would come into the kingdom on the same basis as Jews, he didn't believe it. Thus, Peter didn't even have perfect doctrinal correctness. In Acts 10, God performed miracles to convince Peter to practice what he had preached years before.

Many times we show extreme patience with those we teach the gospel. After they obey the gospel, we are still fairly patient with their off-the-wall ideas, at least until they've been Christians, let's say, for three to six months. But by then, woe be unto them if they are doctrinally incorrect!

We should be able to see it within ourselves if we are mature Christians. Who among us is perfectly doctrinally correct? Are you? Are you really? If you are, how long have you been? How long has it been since you've had to change on some doctrinal issue? If you believe complete doctrinal correctness is required for fellowship with God or with other Christians, were you in fellowship with God just before you changed doctrinally the last time?

Chapter 4 reviewed Paul's statement in Romans 4 that we will be saved like Abraham and David were. Abraham and David were two powerful choices for Paul to use because one lived under the Law of Moses and the other one did not. Therefore, the Law of Moses was not the means by which they were justified. Secondly, one was justified being circumcised, yet the other was justified before he was circumcised. Thus, circumcision had nothing to do with their justification. Imagine the force the justification of Abraham and David had on the Jews of Paul's day, who believed they were justified because they had the Law of Moses and had been circumcised!

Also, neither Abraham nor David were justified because they were perfectly doctrinally correct. Did Abraham have doctrinal perfection? When God promised all nations would be blessed through his seed, Abraham first thought Eliezer, a member of his household but not a descendent, would be his heir. This was not doctrinally correct. If I taught this today, you would know I was wrong, just as wrong as Abraham was when he believed it. Yet Abraham's position concerning Eliezer was not a lack of faith, but rather a lack of understanding. It appeared logical to him, based upon what God had told him up to then.

When God told Abraham that Eliezer was not the heir, but one coming from his own loins would be his heir, Abraham immediately stopped thinking of Eliezer as his heir. But he then mistakenly thought Ishmael (who came from his loins, but by Hagar, rather than Sarah) would be his heir. If anyone today taught Ishmael was the heir of whom God spoke, we would all know the doctrine was wrong, as it was wrong in Ishmael's day. Again, this was not a lack of faith on Abraham's part, because Ishmael fit what God had told Abraham at that time. It was a lack of understanding.

Finally, when Abraham understood Isaac was the heir, he was still doctrinally mistaken when he went to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. He believed after he killed Isaac, God would raise him from the dead. If I taught this today, I would certainly be mistaken, but it was not a lack of faith on Abraham's part, was it? To the contrary, it was a lack of understanding. Absolute doctrinal conformity must not be required for scriptural fellowship with God, for Abraham did not have such conformity, yet he was justified.

In spite of the clear example of Abraham, some of us continue to think we cannot be doctrinally mistaken and still be in fellowship with God. To illustrate, a lady once heard me preach a series of lessons on Matthew 24, presenting a view different from that held by preachers she had been exposed to. After the lessons she said: “Sam, I've read your teaching on Matthew 24 for many years, and I've enjoyed even more listening to you in person, and I think what you teach on the passage is the truth. But I have a question: If what you preach is the truth, then what about all the other preachers who have stood in the same pulpit and preached another view?”

I replied I didn't understand what she meant. She then asked, “Will these other preachers be lost if what you teach on Matthew 24 is the truth, and what they've taught is not true?”

I replied, “No, they won't be lost because they taught something wrong on Matthew 24, nor will I be saved because I may have taught the truth on it.” None of us will be saved because we've got the truth on Matthew 24. Abraham wasn't saved because he had the truth on Matthew 24. We'll be saved because we have Abraham's kind of faith, faith you can walk in the steps of.

What About I Cor. 1.10 and II John 9?

Some may well ask, “What about passages like I Cor.1.10 and II John 9? Are you saying doctrinal correctness is not important?” Assuredly, doctrinal correctness is important, and these passages teach it is. However, I Cor. 1.10 and II John 9 do not teach we're saved by complete doctrinal correctness. A few moments' reflection will help us see no one really believes these passages teach this.

Before we notice the passage in detail, recall an aforementioned announcement of a religious debate between two brethren, both of whom believe doctrinal correctness is important. The proposition they debated illustrates the issue we are confronted with at present: “Resolved: Absolute doctrinal conformity is necessary for scriptural fellowship.” (Sentry Magazine, XIII, No. 4, Floyd Chappelear, editor, pp. 7-11, June 1987.) Although the man who affirmed this proposition had several pages to prove his proposition, he used only two inches, and merely quoted I Cor. 1.10 and II John 9.

Before discussing these two passages individually, let's make some general observations concerning the significance of this proposition. First, if absolute doctrinal conformity is required for scriptural fellowship, then it would be required for both fellowship with God, and with other Christians. Thus, unless one had absolute doctrinal conformity with God, he could not be in association with God, and unless he had absolute doctrinal conformity with another Christian, he couldn't work with another Christian.

Second, in Mt. 28.19-20 Jesus told the apostles, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

Notice that Christ said to teach those who have been baptized. This should raise a question: “If people are already in fellowship with God because they have absolute doctrinal conformity, then what more could they be taught?” Why have Bible classes to teach those we have baptized, if one must have absolute doctrinal conformity in order to be in fellowship with God?

Third, Eph. 4.11-14 lists Christ's gifts to the church, “for the perfecting of the saints...till we all come in the unity of the faith...that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.” If absolute doctrinal conformity is required to be in fellowship with God, why do we need teachers, elders, evangelists, etc., to teach the way of the Lord more perfectly? We can't get more perfect than absolute doctrinal conformity, can we? We had to arrive at the unity of the faith before we could even get into fellowship with God, and we stopped being tossed to and fro at the same time. Why have Bible study in local churches, or why teach the Bible to Christians, if they already have absolute doctrinal conformity?

Certainly, we should all strive for absolute doctrinal conformity, and this author is so striving. But this is a far cry from a demand for doctrinal conformity in order for us to be in fellowship with God or other Christians.

I Corinthians 1.10

With these general observations in mind, let's now turn our attention to I Cor. 1.10, where Paul said:

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In the context, the apostle Paul addressed the Corinthians' practice of calling themselves after the name of the preacher who baptized them, and Paul condemns their division. But even then, he did not say the Corinthians were already out of fellowship with God. In verse 9, he mentioned, “God is faithful, through whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord,” as though they were still in fellowship with God. If they weren't, they had no business withdrawing from an impenitent fornicator as Paul commanded them in Chapter 5. However, they risked losing fellowship if they continued in the error.

Additionally, throughout the book of I Corinthians, Paul mentions their differences with one another over eating meat offered to idols (Chapters 8 and 10), yet he did not tell them to withdraw fellowship over these differences. As a matter of fact, regarding the same problem in Rom. 14.1-2, he said the strong ought to receive the weak, not withdraw or fragment from them. Again, with respect to the weak, who bound more closely in the realm of expediency than God Himself, Paul called them in I Cor. 8.5-13 “brethren...for whose sake Christ died.” Obviously, these weak Christians did not have absolute doctrinal conformity, yet Paul called them “brethren” and did not urge a break in fellowship between them and their more knowledgeable brethren. Rather, he encouraged the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak, even though they were doctrinally imperfect.

From our previous study on what we can differ on and still share fellowship with other Christians, we could say scripturally “being perfected in the same mind and in the same judgment” in I Cor. 1.10 does not require us to agree on matters in the realm of expediency. We may differ on matters that are not in the realm of expediency but that don't affect our collective action. We may differ on matters that would affect our collective action if we were to engage in them. We may differ with some things that are preached, as long as the forum is open in the search for truth. This doesn't mean we can be satisfied with doctrinal differences, nor that we shouldn't study the issues and resolve the differences. But all doctrinal differences don't have to be resolved in order for us to be in fellowship, either with God, or with other Christians.

II John 9-11

In this passage, John says:

Whosoever goeth onward, and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.

The “teaching of Christ” John speaks of is “the teaching from Christ,” not the teaching about Christ. See Appendix 4 for a brief discussion of this issue. Given that, does this passage teach “whosoever goeth onward [transgresseth-KJV] past the teaching from Christ doesn't have God,” or that “whosoever differs with Christ doesn't have God?” If you think the passage teaches whosoever differs with Christ hath not God, did it mean that the day you obeyed the gospel? If this is what the passage teaches, and you differed with Christ on anything the day you were baptized, then you still didn't have God! In fact, unless you are confident you don't differ with anything Christ teaches now, you still do not have God.

The word translated “goeth onward” in this passage does not mean “differ.” It implies a disregard for the authority of the teaching of Christ, not ignorance, nor misunderstanding, nor difference. Those who have studied John's Epistles seriously have learned John wrote to combat a sect of false teachers known as Gnostics, and nearly every verse of these three letters contains some teaching that was anathema to the Gnostics. Among other false teachings, the Gnostics taught you didn't have to pay any attention to the teaching of Christ; you didn't have to be constrained by those teachings. John affirmed anyone who had a careless disregard for the teaching that came from Christ didn't have God. While the Gnostics had a disregard for Christ's teaching-many who misunderstand or are ignorant of Christ's teaching do not have such a disregard.

In addition, in verse 10, John said, “If anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting, for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works. What is “this teaching” John spoke of? Is it the teaching of Matthew 24? Revelation 20? Any aspect of divorce and remarriage we might differ about? No, “this teaching” is the teaching John had just stated: you have to abide in the teaching of Christ to be share fellowship with God.

Next, did John teach that if a Christian has a doctrinal difference with another person (either a Christian or not) then he can't even invite the person into his house to study the issue? Many won't, but is this what John says? No, he affirms that one (like the Gnostic false teachers) who had no compunction about going beyond the teaching of Christ should not be given support, lest we be a partaker in his evil works. Support to the false teacher who disregards the authority of the scriptures is the subject.

Doctrine is important. It's so important if one is like a Gnostic and thinks it's not, he is not in fellowship with God. Something else that is important, though, is the Bible's teaching about how Christians treat each other while they seek to find the true doctrine. In Mt. 23.23, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for stressing doctrinal correctness to the extreme they forgot about justice, mercy, and faith. We who strive for doctrinal correctness may labor under a similar condemnation if we neglect justice, mercy, and faith while aspiring to attain complete doctrinal correctness.

What Can We Differ on and Still Be in Fellowship?

As shown in Chapter 5, “Fellowship with Other Christians,” we may differ on matters of expediency where God gives us choices and the options are scriptural. In this realm, He leaves it to our best judgment how to conduct ourselves most expeditiously, and still not disrupt fellowship in a local church.

Also, we can differ on matters that are not in the realm of expediency, but that do not affect our collective action. In that chapter, we gave the example of whether or not a Christian can participate in carnal warfare. One may say, “Even though this doesn't affect our collective action, one of two Christians who differ on the war question is wrong.” Yes, one of them is wrong, perhaps both are wrong. However, the one who is right on the war question is undoubtedly wrong on something else, and thus, he won't be in fellowship with God because he's right on every doctrinal issue. As a matter of fact, neither of these two Christians has ever been right on everything, any more than Abraham was.

Likewise, we might differ on questions that would affect our collective action, but we do not practice them. Along this line, we might deal with the question, “Must we agree with everything preached?” We shouldn't expect to if we're involved in a search for truth. We can help pay someone's salary to come preach something we differ with if we can view it as part of the truth-seeking process, in an open forum. Truth can stand the light, it has nothing to fear in open investigation, Jn. 3.21. God commands us to put everything proposed for our belief to the test, I Thes. 5.21. When the people he has the controversy with will no longer speak out in the open, they take the same tactic the rebellious Jews took with Jesus, Jn. 7.25-26. Without an open forum, the search for truth is over, and so is the restoration of the New Testament religion of Jesus, insofar as that local church is concerned.

A quotation from David Lipscomb, a restorer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries applies:

When differences exist, the discussion of these differences is the only hope of union. The suppression of discussion is the direct and open road to division. Whoever opposes the free discussion of differences among brethren, in that favors speedy division. Differences existing will manifest themselves. If they are discussed freely, there is hope of reconciliation and harmony. Suppress the discussion, and unless the strong hand of arbitrary and despotic power holds by the terror of physical force, disruption and division must follow. When persons having a community of interest differ, so long as those who differ show a kindly interest in the others, listen to the remonstrances, treat with considerate kindness their feelings, wishes, and reasonings, they remain one. The moment the one party says: “We wish to hear no more your reasonings; we intend no longer to regard your feelings or wishes; we intend to go our own way, regardless of your course or purposes,” those people become two distinct people. Division or an unmanly and unchristian submission to what we believe to be wrong is the only alternative. (David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate [Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1906], p. 552.)

Lipscomb's advice for dealing with brethren we differ with is what we have lost in large part. The Christians in Lipscomb's day didn't have perfect doctrinal correctness, but they propagated the right standard (which the Gnostics in II John 9 did not do): the teaching of Christ rather than denominational creeds. Those with the attitudes Lipscomb describes conducted themselves properly toward each other while they studied to learn truth. They still respected each other; it was not uncommon for preachers who differed with each other to stay in each other's homes when preaching away from home so they could study together. We see these attitudes of open investigation all too rarely anymore.

An admirable modern plea like Lipscomb's recently came in a letter from a brother studying a controversial topic with a group of others. While the topic of their study is not pertinent to our present subject (it so happens I disagree with the brother on the topic), the plea for good behavior on the part of all involved is. Concerning their previous study session, he wrote:

I want to thank you all for the time you have set aside to help me with a very important topic...Unfortunately, I was disappointed in our last meeting. I had serious questions in my mind which hinder me from taking your stand. But rather than deal with my questions seriously, as though you were helping me to learn truth; you dealt with them defensively, adversarily, as though you were “batting them aside.” There are at least three serious problems with this approach: 1) it withholds your knowledge from me (so I can't change my thinking); 2) it keeps you from looking closely at something which might change your thinking (cf. Acts 17:11); and 3) it left [my companion-SGD] in a quandary. He doesn't agree with me, but saw you unable or unwilling to deal seriously with my questions...

I know you want me to commit myself and expose a “position.” This, I believe, is pre-mature. Now is the time for patience and study. The fact is, I don't know what the answer is (though I do have a prevailing line of thought-which I will pursue until proven false, or true).

I need you to help me see through the questions I've raised. I haven't raised them to “convert” you; but to show you where I see serious flaws that hinder me from embracing your stand. Continue patiently with me to overcome these “stumbling-blocks” by dealing studiously with my questions.

I am not a teacher of this subject, but a student. If I present my concerns and questions and leanings, it is in order to glean input and understanding; not to persuade. I feel that you have misunderstood this. There were a few adversarial statements Monday night which indicated that you would rather cast me and my questions aside than to take the time and energy necessary to seriously deal with them. Indeed, someone said, “We've given you four hours and you still haven't said anything to change our minds.” Brothers, I wasn't trying to change your minds. I was trying to get you to change mine! I was showing you where my hang-ups were, not to unseat you, but so you could show me the answer.

So far you haven't done that for me. If what you have is truth, I both need it and want it. And, if my questions keep me from embracing truth, I need to lay them aside. But integrity will not allow me to lay aside nagging questions just because others, who know more accurately, say I should. Gentlemen, your duty, if you love me and deem me an honorable man, is to do for me what Priscilla and Aquila did for Apollos. Show me the answers. If you respond: “we already have shown you;” please, be patient with me. Obviously I didn't understand your answers. My questions still nag.

I want to know the truth. I want to lay the nagging questions to rest. I want to be at peace within. I want to tell people only what God wants them to do. But, I don't want it to be superficial assertions. I want to have the confidence of a fellow worker in the cause of Christ who can ask the nagging questions (which may fly in the face of “orthodoxy”) without being reproached. Let there be serious concern, study and communication on such questions. I want to be in fellowship with brothers who won't cast me aside the first time I dig into God's word and ask questions which might indicate further study is necessary. I covet the freedom to study, to air ideas, and to come to a deeper knowledge of truth-and to do so without fear.

Please deal gently, kindly and patiently with me-and with all who are eager for truth.

Again, the topic of their study is not material here. As a matter of fact, whether any of the people involved are Christians is not even material. If I can't behave myself toward a Jehovah's Witness who wrote me a letter like this while we study together, I've got character problems at least as serious as his doctrinal ones!

Of course, some doctrinal differences will finally lead to a break in fellowship. After intensive study of an issue that affects the collective action in a local church, when one Christian thinks he must do a certain thing out of his allegiance to Christ, and another Christian believes he must not do the thing, then their fellowship must cease. Even then, these two Christians do not have to be mean to each other. They can strive to keep the lines of communication open, hoping some day they may be able to work together once again. And they should both realize that even though they are not able to work with each other, they may both be in fellowship with God. Their fellowship does not depend upon complete doctrinal correctness, but perfect faith.

The restorers in the American restoration movement knew how to differ with each other. They discussed, debated, and discovered truths that previous generations had missed. If we've lost those qualities, then the restoration is, indeed, over for us.

Principles for Solving Problems

In this section, we discuss a number of tips for Christians to use in solving their doctrinal differences. To help us appreciate their validity, a comparison of how we should handle them with how they're customarily handled follows.

Need to Give Others Time to Study

In Rom.14.1, Paul instructed more mature Christians how to conduct themselves toward weak Christians, i.e, those less knowledgeable:

But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples.

While Paul speaks of things in the realm of expediency, this passage contains instruction applicable much more broadly than just that realm. In this context, the weak brother is always the fellow who makes a law where God did not, and who binds where God did not. He is always more conservative than God Himself, and never thinks the controversy is in the realm of expediency. The Christian who thought it was wrong to eat meat offered to an idol didn't think the controversy belonged in the realm of expediency. The fellow who thought it was wrong to esteem one day above another didn't think the controversy was in the realm of expediency, etc.

However, Paul's instruction for dealing with one who made a law where God didn't, and who didn't think it was in the realm of expediency, was not to withdraw, nor to fragment from him, but rather to receive him. Paul said he should be received, but not for the purpose of arguing with him about it all the time. These truths imply Christians should give others time for study to occur. The fact the weak brother is more restrictive than God doesn't mean he's lost, i.e., he's out of fellowship with God, or he ought not to work with us.

I remember a Christian woman I met when I first began preaching. Her brother was a preacher who had come to hold a new (for him) position concerning the woman's covering Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 11. While she visited him (they lived in different parts of the United States), he brought his new convictions to her. He told her he could be in fellowship with her because she had not studied the issue. He wanted to study it with her. Then if she differed, he would have to withdraw fellowship from her. She asked me, “Can he do that?” I replied, “He certainly couldn't withdraw from me, for I'm not in fellowship with people like that.” Paul would give more time before drawing the line of fellowship.

I also recall two very fine Christians in a congregation that was trying to select elders. These two had a doctrinal difference that caused the lady to object to the man serving as an elder. Strangely, the woman had agreed with the man until recently, when she changed her position. Now she demanded he make the same change. It had taken her several years to come to her new conclusion. After quite a long discussion concluding with the man leaving her home, he made some comment that let her think perhaps he was coming around. She said, “Come back in, and I'll fix you a sandwich. If you don't agree after the sandwich, I'll still have to object to you.”

These were both very fine people, but in Romans 14 Paul gives us more time than it takes to eat a sandwich before we have to come to a parting of the ways. I'm glad God has given me time to come around on His teaching, and on some of the more difficult passages and doctrines, I hope He continues to give me time. If God has allowed me more time than it takes to eat a sandwich, shouldn't I be able to allow God to give time to others?

Credit Others for Loving the Lord as Much as You

One thing that will help us behave ourselves toward brethren we differ with is to give them credit for loving the Lord at least as much as we do. This should be easy to do, since they do not serve the Lord for the fun of it, and could have more fun doing something else. They should be given credit for loving the Lord as long as possible.

Allow You Might Be Wrong

We have been wrong before, and we will be again. For many years, when studying controversial matters with brethren or non-Christians, I usually mention in the beginning that while I think I'm right on the matters we will discuss, I have to allow to myself I might be wrong, as I have been many times before. I then ask if they can allow the same thing of themselves. Most people do not allow they may be wrong. In studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, the common answer is, “Why, no, we can't be wrong; we're God's organization.” One can have this attitude and be as wrong as can be, whether he is a Jehovah's Witness, or a Christian. Solomon writes (Prov. 12.15), “Every way of a fool is right in his own eyes.” Perhaps most important, truth isn't what's propagated by “God's organization.” As we've seen, the universal church doesn't teach anything through an organization. Truth is taught in God's word (Jn. 17.17), and depends on no organization or person for its validity.

Be Open-Minded

In I Thes. 5.21-22, Paul instructs Christians:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.

The word translated “prove” means to put something to the test, to see if it be genuine. Thus, God gives Christians the responsibility to put everything that is proposed for their belief to the test of His word. This is a solemn God-given responsibility that cannot be delegated to a favorite preacher, one's parents, an organization, or anyone else. A child of light (Eph. 5.8-11) simply must examine everything for himself. What he finds to pass the test of God's word he must hold to; what fails, he must reject.

Notice that Paul does not say that we should reject or ignore everything new to us. He says, test it. If we are unwilling to do so, we are willfully blinding ourselves to truth that may be new to us. Many times we demand an open mind on the part of those we teach. Yet if we are unwilling to practice what we require of others, there's a word that applies to us-hypocrite. Jesus condemned the religious conservatives of His day as two-faced in Mt. 23.4, saying, “Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”

Too Much Talk, Not Enough Talk

Another major cause of church problems, including those involving doctrinal difficulties, is too much talk, not enough talk. You might say, “How can too much talk, not enough talk, be just one cause?” It's simple: too much talk to the wrong people and not enough talk to the right people. In human relationships, this is a major cause of problems. It causes personnel problems at work, marriage problems, problems in business, or church problems. When problems need to be dealt with, we almost always do too much talking to the wrong people, and hardly ever do enough talking to the right people.

In Mt. 18.15-18, Jesus gives a procedure for wisely dealing with personal offenses. If I am convinced a fellow Christian has sinned against me, I may tell a third and perhaps a fourth party about it rather than the person Jesus specified. Later, if I find out the offense was really just a misunderstanding (as personal offenses many times turn out to be), it will be a lot harder to straighten out all the talk and hard feelings than if I had just gone to the person who caused me the problem. In that case, by talking to the right person and not to any wrong ones, I won't have damaged his reputation with the others. While Jesus spoke of personal offenses, rather than doctrinal differences, it seems much of the wisdom contained in His instruction applies to this case as well. It simply works much better to do it the way Jesus says! The more times you try His way, the more confidence you'll have Jesus knew what He talked about. Again, solving problems according to the teaching of Christ builds confidence in Christ and in your brethren.

In Jn. 7.51, Nicodemus rightly said to the Jews who plotted to do away with Jesus:

Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?

Even the Jews who killed Christ waited a while in order to hear some more from Him. In Mt. 22.46, Matthew says:

And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

When the Jews quit talking with Jesus, the time had come to watch out! So it is today, as David Lipscomb said earlier. Also, notice that the following passages warning of the tremendous power of the tongue for harm in these cases:

Psalm. 34.13: “Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.”

Psalm 52.2: “Your tongue devises destruction, like a sharp razor, O worker of deceit.”

Prov. 18.21: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue...”

Rom. 3.13: “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

Thus, misuse of the tongue plays a great role in causing problems. It greatly hinders their solution, as well.

Don't Answer Before Hearing the Other Side

In Prov. 18.13, 17, Solomon said:

He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him...The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him.

Thus, a person who has a difference with a brother, and makes up his mind about the issue without studying the other side, may not only reject the truth his brother may have, but he also does a very foolish and shameful thing. Hearing the other person's side before jumping to conclusions is a good way to avoid being embarrassed. Moreover, answering before we hear is no substitute for study.

Don't Misrepresent the Other Side

Another thing that is not a substitute for study with a brother is misrepresenting him or his position. Misrepresentation has always been a dishonorable way of dealing with someone you differ with. A few moments reflection will remind us that misrepresentation of our own views is not an effective way of reaching us with a certain teaching. Is it?

When someone accuses us of believing Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, when we don't believe it, will they make much headway with us? If one conscientiously doesn't believe in certain methods of providing care for orphans, it will not be effective to represent him as opposing taking care of orphans. When Christians strive to live by the teaching of the New Testament and not by the Mosaic Law, it will not do to accuse them of not believing in the Old Testament. When people who strive to be just New Testament Christians and reject denominational allegiance, doctrine, organization, etc., it will not be effective to accuse them of thinking they're the best denomination. If people believe in the necessity of water baptism in order to be in Christ, accusing them of believing in “water salvation” will not be an effective way of reaching them.

If a few moments' reflection convinces us the technique of misrepresentation doesn't work with us, surely we can see it will not work if we use it on those we differ with. Misrepresenting the other side is not a substitute for study, either.

Don't Hasten to Label

Hastening to label someone in the midst of a difference has always been a dishonorable way of dealing with controversy. In Lk. 7.33-34, when John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, the Jews said he had a demon. When Jesus came both eating and drinking, they said He was a glutton and a winebibber. You just can't win with those who would rather label than study. It's easier to label someone than it is to learn his position and deal with it from the scriptures. It's so much easier and faster to call someone by a prejudicial name than study. This may be why so many do so much of it. However, hastening to label is no substitute for study.

Don't Impugn Motives

We now want to discuss a major cause of church problems, actually a sin so common in mankind it affects every conceivable human relationship. Since it is a common fault, it may surprise some to find out that “judgment of others' unknown motives” is wrong. Once we realize what this sin is, we will easily recognize it in the workplace, in our family, with our neighbors, and even with the stranger on the street.

In I Cor. 2.11-13, in the greatest text on the subject of the inspiration of the New Testament, Paul says:

For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth: combining spiritual things with spiritual words.

This passage teaches at least four great truths: (1) Man has a conscious spirit, a spirit that “knows” his things. This is not our breath, as Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists or other materialists might affirm, for our breath knows nothing. (2) We don't know the things, the thoughts, intents, wishes, desires, likes, or dislikes of a person, unless he reveals them to us. (3) We don't know what God's things are, His likes and dislikes, unless He tells us. (4) The very words of the Bible are inspired by God. The Apostle Paul specifically denies the apostles spoke and wrote their own words, but the Holy Spirit guided their very words.

Most people probably don't have problems with the fact man has a conscious spirit. The majority will understand we don't know God's likes and dislikes unless He reveals them to us. Our readers probably believe in the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. However, many probably will fail to appreciate the devastating sin we commit when we judge or impugn another's unknown motives. Paul affirms we no more know what another human being thinks unless he reveals his thoughts to us than we know what God thinks unless He reveals His thoughts to us.

Think how prone we are to condemn the motives of those whom we differ with. Think how apt we are to judge the motives of those whom we have doctrinal differences with. Think how liable we are to impugn the motives of individuals who teach false doctrine. Think how inclined we are to malign brethren whom we differ with. We are quick to do this in our marriages, business dealings, families, dealings with people we strive to teach the gospel, and in local churches.

How easy it is to think that someone who criticizes us is out to get us. How naive it is to think our wives don't care about our wishes when they do something that displeases us. How simple it is to come to the conclusion that a person I have a doctrinal difference with simply doesn't love the Lord, or doesn't care what the truth is.

The truth is, some individuals don't care what the Bible says on a subject. You may know of cases, as I do, where a preacher has said, “I know that's what the Bible says, but I've got so much invested in my denominational pension plan I can't afford to start preaching that now.” However, this doesn't give us the right to assume his followers have the same callous attitude toward serving God that he has. We don't have the right to assume all those who make his same arguments are so motivated. Paul affirms we don't know the things of a man unless his spirit tells us. Believe it!

In Ac. 1.24, the disciples wanted to know God's will concerning a replacement apostle for Judas, who had fallen away. When they addressed God in prayer, they said:

Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen...

Mark it well: God is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. When we are involved in a doctrinal discussion, how easy it is for brethren to accuse others of not believing in the grace of God, of trying to get around what the Bible teaches, or of having a lack of faith in God.

Several reasons show why judging motives is extremely serious. First, judging others' unknown motives is a sin. We take upon ourselves a prerogative that belongs only to God, and hence we're guilty of blasphemy. These are strong words: examine them carefully and see if they are true. In Rom. 1.28-32, Paul recounts the sinfulness of the Gentiles in these words:

And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them.

We often use this handy passage to condemn several horrible sins we want unalterably to oppose: whisperers, homosexuals (vv 26-27), covenant-breakers, etc. However, notice the word “malignity.” This is same the sin we speak of: impugning the unknown motives of another. Paul said those who practice it are worthy of death!

Second, impugning motives is extremely harmful to us because it both determines and undermines the way we approach every person we have differences with. Now, how many relationships in your life involve people you have differences with? Isn't it every personal relationship you have? We can differ with our child's teacher, the clerk at the store, our next-door neighbor, our spouse, our children, or any other person whom we come in contact with.

If we do something that undermines the way we deal with every human being we come in contact with, then we'll have serious problems with a lot of people. If we're quick to decide those who differ with us on some doctrinal point are “not interested in the truth,” or “trying to get around what the Bible says,” then we certainly will not make much of an effort to teach them further, will we? So we easily repudiate people who differ with us doctrinally. We mourn, “No one is interested in the truth anymore.” We quickly brand some as “liberals,” others as “anti's;” and thus, we're done with them. In reality, we probably didn't even get started!

Practically speaking, more people are interested in the truth than we might think. The man we have a doctrinal difference with may be more interested in the truth than we are. We may just defend ourselves by judging his motives. After all, it's a whole lot easier to impugn somebody's motives and dispatch him, than it is to diligently study God's word so we can deal with his argument, isn't it?

Judging motives is one of the reasons why many churches are constantly plagued by problems from within. Churches may split every decade or so, ostensibly over some “doctrinal issue,” when in reality, they may fail to engage in much mutual study of the issues involved. Likely, the persons involved don't know very much about how to deal with brethren they differed with. They may decide quickly that those they differed with were not interested in the truth. Then they may settle the issue by refusing to waste their time studying with people who couldn't care less what the Bible says. No doubt, they save themselves a lot of work, but they surely do not save themselves a lot of problems.

We need to recognize churches are doomed to a succession of splits until they teach and work on the real problem. The real problem is the absolute impropriety of passing on the motives of individuals when we simply do not have the ability to know their motives unless they reveal them to us. A person who is constantly in discord with other people needs to examine himself and see if he's guilty of impugning their motives. The next time we are involved in a religious discussion where someone impugns motives, let's realize we're dealing with only the second man on earth with the ability to do that. The first man was Jesus Christ. Finally, maligning a brother is no substitute for study.

Admonitions Concerning Misuse of the Tongue

As the last several suggestions concern the tongue, so a number of passages warn of the unrighteous use of the tongue. James 3 contains some familiar and provocative teaching about misuse of the tongue. For example, in Jas. 3.6, James says:

And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.

When I first lived in the northwestern part of the United States with its great forests, I learned that a very small, improperly controlled cigarette can easily cause a forest fire costing millions of dollars and perhaps even loss of life. James affirms the tongue similarly can cause great damage in the lives of men and women.

During the Senate Watergate hearings that led to President Nixon's resignation, I recall listening one afternoon while the Senate committee questioned one of the President's underlings, a man by the name of Alexander Butterfield. Unknown to the Senate committee, this man was responsible for the maintenance and operation of a secret tape recording system the President used in the White House.

While Mr. Butterfield answered another question, he casually mentioned “the tapes.” When the Senate Committee heard those words, they became excited and of course closely quizzed Butterfield about the tapes.

You probably know the rest of the story. Both the House and Senate Committees subpoenaed those tapes. The President denied Congress access to the tapes, and the case went to the United States Supreme Court, that ruled President Nixon had to turn the tapes over to Congress. Within days, he became the first President to resign under fire.

What brought down the President of the United States? Russian premiers had threatened and tried for years to bring Nixon down. They had sought to destroy him economically. They had contemplated annihilating him with their missiles on several occasions. But the slip of one man's tongue led to his downfall. James says the tongue is a comparable fire, that has also brought down many Christians and congregations.

In James 3.2, we read:

For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.

James affirms if a man can control his tongue, he can control his whole body. Think of it! The hardest sins to overcome are not sexual sins or alcoholism, but sins having to do with controlling the tongue. If a man can control his tongue, he can control himself in the sexual realm. Those who say they are homosexuals and cannot help it are mistaken. Some sins are harder to overcome than homosexuality, and they have to do with the tongue.

Now you might say, “Well, I just don't know if I can believe that!” or “That's hard to accept!” If so, your problem is not with me, but with what James says, by the inspiration of God.

In Jas. 3.7-8, he says:

For every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind: but the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison.

We've all marveled at trained animals: elephants, dolphins, horses, lions, whales, etc. James explains that the man who can control his tongue ought to arouse our awe! In Jas. 1.26, he says:

If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain.

“Vain” means “empty, worthless, of no value whatsoever.” These are strong words, like those of Jesus in Mt. 15.6-9 when He affirmed that the Jews who set aside God's teaching with their own traditions made their worship of God “vain.” James says we do the same thing when we do not bridle our tongues. James goes further, though, and says this man “deceives his heart.” He may think he's in fellowship with God, but actually he's the furthest thing from pleasing his God.

Indeed, misuse of the tongue is a great cause of problems in local churches. In addition, the following passages reflect the responsibility of the listener when others misuse their tongues. In Prov. 20.19, we read:

He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets. Therefore do no associate with a gossip.

Likewise, in Prov. 26.20:

For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention dies down.

We Shouldn't Credit Others with the Foolish Statements of Those Who Hold Their Position

Preachers (and others) often try to put someone who differs with them in some camp so they can assume he believes everything the other person does. This gives them “pat” answers to what they “think” he believes. It sounds terrible to say that someone else agrees with Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler, but again, it's no substitute for study with the person.

Remember What “Sanity” Must Include

A disconcerting fact that breaks out in the press from time to time is that modern mental health experts cannot agree on what constitutes sanity or insanity. Apparently, drawing the line is a fine task to the workers in this field. However, Dr. Karl Menninger, a recognized expert on mental health who probably knows more about the subject than any man alive, has given the following definition of mental health:

Mental health is the adjustment of human beings to the world and to each other with a maximum of effectiveness and happiness. Not just efficiency or contentment or the grace of obeying the rules of the game cheerfully. It is all of these together. It is the ability to maintain an even temper, an alert intelligence, socially considerate behavior and a happy disposition. This, I think, is a healthy mind. (Dr. Karl Menninger, cited by Ann Landers, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 24, 1986.)

Notice the term “socially considerate behavior.” Menninger argues that a basic quality a person needs to be considered mentally healthy is the ability to put himself in another's shoes and understand his point of view. Isn't this exactly what Jesus requires of us in Lk. 6.31? There He said:

As ye would that men would do unto you, do ye also unto them.

When we have a difference with a brother, how do we like to be treated? We like for him to be socially considerate of us. We like to be given credit for loving the Lord. We like for the person we study with to be open-minded. We want him not to answer before he hears our line of thinking. We want him not to misrepresent us, hasten to label us, or impugn our motives. Surely these desires are common to all of us. The next question then is, are we willing to treat a brother the same way we would like to be treated? If we're not, not only do we disobey one of the most basic teachings of Christ, but we don't even display one of the basic ingredients necessary to sanity!

Maintain the Independence of Local Congregations

Assuredly, when a congregation of Christians faces a doctrinal difficulty that has the potential of affecting their work together, no earthly headquarters of the church or body of Christ exists that can solve the problem for them. Nor is there a spokesman to say, “Here's what the body of Christ believes and teaches” on this or any other subject.

Many times someone asks, “I know what the Presbyterian church teaches on such-and-such, and the Adventist church, but what does the church of Christ teach?” But, as we have seen in the Bible's concept of the universal church, the universal church doesn't collectively teach anything! No one on earth has the right to say what the universal church teaches! Generally this question is asked from a denominational point of view, i.e., “What does a distinct coalition of congregations (Presbyterian or Adventist) teach?”

If someone actually wonders what a coalition of churches of Christ teach on a specific subject, I reply, “I don't care!” The extent of my concern is what does God teach in the Bible, and what do we teach collectively in the local church I am in fellowship with. The truth on the specific doctrinal question this congregation obeys is not what some man or group of men or churches (whether it's the Jehovah's Witnesses or nondenominational Christians) hands down, but it is ascertained by its own independent study.

In addition, a local church confronted with a doctrinal difficulty needs to solve its doctrinal difference for itself, not for a brotherhood, congregationhood, religious paper, religious college, preacher, or coalition of preachers. Its concept of fellowship with other Christians ought not to be larger than that local congregation. If a congregation will spend less resources and energy on what entities outside the local church think (other than Christ, of course) and devote its resources and energy to dealing with those within, it will fare much better. It won't squander limited resources on activities, interests, crises, and concerns the Lord never contemplated in His word.

Not only should a congregation not try to solve doctrinal problems for others congregations, but it should not let anyone outside the congregation settle their differences for them! No one has the right to try to impress the teaching of a religious paper, college, preacher, collection of preachers, or another church upon a congregation with a doctrinal question.

These last two points may be hard to do in practice, but with effort, they can and should be done. I recall once among churches of Christ, where it is customary to assemble twice on Sunday, one congregation's elders decided to eliminate Sunday night services. Many Christians in other congregations looked askance at their decision, not realizing what the other congregation did was none of their business.

Likewise, other congregations might do many things that are simply none of our business, unless we think of the body of Christ as a coalition of churches, a denominational view. Christians, including preachers, squander tremendous energy in this realm, and then wonder why their own efforts are so fruitless.

In addition, the congregation we work with may do many things in the realms of discipline, worship, and leadership that are not the business of any other congregation. Concern about our congregational affairs by other Christians in other congregations should make us recoil at such violations of congregational independence.

To sum up thus far, when a congregation has a doctrinal question, it should settle the question for itself. This is not to say a congregation can't ask for teaching or procedural advice from other Christians, but it is a long way from the church bowing to outside pressure. If we say we believe in the independence of local congregations, let's practice it. If we say we see the danger in denominational coalitions of congregations and allegiances, let's leave them alone.

To illustrate, what a local church believes, teaches, and practices concerning partaking of the Lord's Supper had better not be based upon the positions of prominent preachers, papers, or colleges, but on the basis of its own independent study and deliberation. What a local church believes, teaches, and practices on sponsoring church or benevolence issues had better not be based upon the positions of well known preachers, papers, or colleges, but on the basis of its own independent study and deliberation. Similarly, what a local church believes, teaches, and practices on various issues concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage had better not be based upon the positions of preeminent preachers, papers, or colleges, but on the basis of its own independent study and deliberation.

Know the Difference Between Contending and Being Contentious

A concrete example illustrates how the previous procedures apply to solving doctrinal problems between brethren that have the potential of affecting their collective action. I once became aware of a congregation that had just arranged for a preacher to come work with them. I had been familiar with this congregation from its inception, and knew them to be interested in the truth wherever it might lead. However, the congregation was composed of Christians who in the vast majority had not been raised as children of God, i.e., they had not been “raised in the church,” either universal or local. Thus, while they had quite a practice and reputation of being willing to seriously examine anything proposed for their belief or practice, they had very few human traditions to fall back on.

Within several months after the preacher's arrival, he became convinced that the congregation was involved in collective error, whereupon he preached a sermon or two “lowering the boom” on the congregation. When a significant number jerked back from his approach, he became disgusted with them and left. The whole episode took only two weeks, without the issue he thought so important being extensively taught or deliberated on. This failure to calmly study the issue with the congregation before writing them off is the calamity, regardless of what the doctrinal issue was, or whether or not the preacher had the truth on it. For the purposes of this illustration I could freely admit he was right! Likewise, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, courage, or even that he did the best he knew how to do.

Incidents like this happen so frequently on so many different issues that the location or specific doctrine is immaterial. So is the fact that a preacher was involved: other Christians do the same.

The congregation was willing to study the issues he had raised, but he gave them no time for study before the eruption took place. They said, “We believe a preacher (and other Christians) must contend for the faith, but we also believe preachers (and other Christians) can be contentious as they propagate what they believe to be the truth. But we're not sure how we can tell the difference between contending for truth and just being contentious.” This chapter grew out of wrestling with that distinction, and the following shows the difference.

Let's suppose that I as a preacher begin working with a congregation that practices something I no longer believe is scriptural. What the issue is or whether my position is right or wrong is immaterial to how the issue should be handled. If I no longer believe the practice can be substantiated by the Bible (and I could be wrong), and it affects our collective action, then it is a doctrinal difference that falls into the scope of this chapter.

We have two ways to approach the problem: First, after studying with them in Bible classes and sermons to let them get to know me, I would pick an opportune time to bring the matter to the attention of the congregation. It would not be the first thing I “tackled” after our working relationship had begun. When I finally did bring it to their attention, I would suggest we study the matter in a completely open forum, with plenty of time for all to consider and deliberate on the matter.

All would be urged to refrain from misrepresenting those who differed with them and impugning their motives. If we could all conduct ourselves in this way, either they would teach me, or I would teach them. More likely, we would teach each other, and perhaps we would collectively come to an entirely different conclusion from what any of us now have, as a result of our deliberate study together.

Another approach, much more popular it seems, would be for me to conduct myself in the following manner. Soon after commencing work with this congregation, I could think that specific doctrinal difference is the first problem I've got to work. If we think we're saved by perfect doctrinal correctness, we would have to come to the conclusion if the congregation differs with God on this single point, those Christians will be lost.

Further, we could think you shouldn't have any problems between “lions and lambs,” assume the restoration movement is over, and have creed rehearsals instead of Bible studies. If anyone differs with us, we can become defensive. We can think we've got to agree on everything or we can't be in fellowship.

We can misrepresent those who differ with us, impugn their motives, and try to impress brotherhood, paper, or college positions. We might insist our position is what we've always believed, and imply the weakness of anyone who says study is needed. We can fail to learn the others' arguments, blast them, suppress the study, and press for an immediate answer with no time for study.

Surely we can see that if we conduct ourselves in this way, we won't work together very long, regardless of what the issue is, or what the truth of the matter is. We'll part company, and the doctrinal question will not have received the attention it deserved. It's the difference between contending for the faith as God commands and dividing churches through the contentiousness of men.

What God Always Has Required

In conclusion, all through His dealings with His people, God always has deplored the person who mistreated others while maintaining doctrinal strictness and rigorous obedience. For example, in Isa. 1.11-17, we read:

What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle, and I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lamb, or goats. When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My courts? Bring your worthless offerings no longer. Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and Sabbath, the calling of assemblies-I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts. They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them. So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow.