The Strife Filled Church

The Strife Filled Church

Jn. 13:34,35

Intro.

A. This is not a pleasant subject, but one that deals with a reality - especially of our time.False accusations and twisting what others say are evidence of the lack of the identifying mark of discipleship - love, as Christ loved us.

B. Discipleship begins and continues through truth (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 2:1-6).

1. The same Bible that teaches the importance of truth, teaches that brethren fellowshipped one another when they did not have 100% agreement on all doctrines.

2. Yet it teaches that we should not fellowship false doctrine or sinful practices and under some conditions must withdraw from those who so teach or practice.

C. The ideal is:

1. Everyone “walking worthy of the calling” (Eph. 4:1-3); or “As He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct” (1 Pet. 1:15). Any other standard is a false standard; we do not lower the bar so we can do scale it. We leave the standard where God put it, and continue to strive to meet it ourselves and help others.

2. Everyone agreeing on every doctrine. “There is one body....one faith” (Eph. 4:4-6). We are to contend for the faith (Jude 3), and “speak the same things” (1 Cor. 1:10). Any other standard is a false standard. Because we fail does not excuse throwing away the standard.

a. To say we cannot understand alike is to blame God; to say that we do not is to blame self.

b. What do we do with people who believe error, or commit sin? (Not a simple issue - which accounts for why so many are willing to pick apart what others write, but most are unwilling to write anything on how they get along with people with whom they disagree. And what they do write is inconsistent with what they practice!)

c. Much of the material I have used, and continue to use, came from a special issue of Gospel Guardian, Aug. 6,13,20, 1970. (Especially articles by Robert Turner, Franklin Puckett and Byran Vinson, Sr.) They did not answer all the questions, nor am I naive enough to believe that my efforts will settle the age-old issue.

3. There is nothing new about strife in the church - (though in the day of instant communication it can be sent around the world with the click of a button). The only way you can keep the fact from people is to keep the N.T. from them!  (I probably would have left Corinth!)

Body:

A. The proper treatment of brethren is a doctrinal issue.

1. Doctrine simply means teaching, whether it is of controversial nature or not. Anything the Bible teaches is doctrine. Cecil Willis (in a workbook “How to Study the Bible,” commenting on 2 Tim. 3:16,17) -  “Did you ever hear anyone say, ‘Our preacher preaches too many doctrinal sermons?’ What other kind of sermon is there? If every scripture is profitable for doctrine, the only kind of non-doctrinal sermon one could preach would be an unscriptural one.”

2. 1 Corinthians teaches the importance of truth and holiness:

a. Speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10); withdraw from ungodly people (5:9-13).

b. Yet, there were those in Corinth who still did not fully understand the significance of one God (8:4-7).

c. Paul did not say you must agree on everything before you can do anything together.

d. Neither did he say you can participate together in things about which you disagree (8:10,11).

e. Chapter 3 condemns factionalism. Their choice of one preacher over the other was arbitrary and factious (“If Apollos comes, we will not announce his meeting!”)      

 e. Chapter 13 - love “believes all things;” (“ready to excuse,” the Jerusalem Bible). Putting the worst construction on the words and actions of others results in strife and is evidence of lack of love.

      DO YOU SEE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNITY AND LOVE?

3. John emphasized fellowship based on truth (1 Jn. 2:3-5), and denounced the spirit of anti-Christ (1 Jn. 4:3,4), but had strong words for the lack of love (1 Jn. 4:20-5:3).

 DO YOU SEE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FELLOWSHIP AND LOVE?

a. The problem is that we can bite and devour and excuse it because we are “defending the faith” and fighting trends that may result in apostasy.

b. This is the challenge of self-examination. Do I angrily oppose anger? Do I contentiously condemn contention? Do I practice carnality by a factious spirit, while opposing other false doctrines? (The way we treat one another is also a doctrinal matter!)

c. The importance of truth, and the right attitude, cannot be overly emphasized. We do not abandon the pattern because we have difficulty in applying it. Robert Turner wrote: “For example, two men who do the same thing religiously - one because he sincerely believes God wants it that way, and the other because he likes it that way and has no intention of changing regardless of God’s word - may be less in fellowship than two men whose practice is different, but who are both sincerely searching for truth, and are willing to conform to all truth they find. The first two will drift further apart; the second two will be drawn together in the paths of God.” THIS IS  NOT LIKELY IF ONE GOES OVER THE COUNTRY CALLING THE NAME OF THE OTHER AND EITHER MISUSING HIS WORDS, OR PUTTING AN INTERPRETATION HE REJECTS! (Such contributes to strife and is not a product of love.)

B. False Standards on How we should treat those with whom we differ?

1. We cannot fellowship anyone who believes/teaches anything we believe to be false                               teaching.

a. The Corinthians knew that they had different beliefs about eating meats offered to idols, but they fellowshipped one another, although did not participate together in actions they believed to be wrong (1 Cor. 8; 10). They had unity AND diversity (not “unity in diversity” - practicing together what one believes is wrong; which makes doctrine non- essential to fellowship). The expression, “unity in diversity,” is being used today like the term “anti” was/is misused by some (as a label without definition).

b. Some in Thessalonica were ignorant about the resurrection (1 Thess. 4:13); although Paul taught them, some still did not understand (2 Thess. 2:2-5).

c. Hymenaeus and Philetus received different treatment, evidently because they were handling their belief differently (2 Tim. 2:18). Attitude certainly should be considered - is he contentious/factious? (Rom. 16:17).

2. We cannot fellowship anyone who believes/teaches anything that would cause someone to sin.

a. Whatever principles I apply to others they have a right to apply to me. Must everyone who believes that I teach something that they believe would cause a person to sin disfellowship me?

1) What about wearing the veil? Those who believe 1 Cor. 11 teaches it, must believe that it is wrong not to do so.

            2) What about conscientious objectors?  It is not fair, nor honest, to classify the veil           and killing for the government as matters of indifference - and then classifying                errors on creation (long days or gap theories) as matters of fellowship.

b. One who advocates disfellowship (on Gen. 1) said: “A man who is converted to Christ may accept the current belief about abortion, believing that abortion is not a sin, but a personal choice. Since he can never have an abortion and if he never teaches his belief, he may very well hold this belief without it ever causing him to sin. Is he in the state of damnation until and unless he learns the truth about abortion?

   “A person who is converted may not know the truth about using mechanical instruments of music in worship. The person may see nothing wrong with using instruments and may even express as much to one of her friends. Because she is not using mechanical instruments in worship and is not teaching false doctrine, she may believe wrong without being guilty of sin. Is this person in a state of condemnation until and unless she learns the truth about instrumental music in worship?”  (Mike Willis).  (A person can believe and talk with someone about abortion and instrumental music in worship; but if he believes error on the days of creation, he should be disfellowshipped.)

c. You cannot put abortion and instrumental music in worship in Rom. 14. Those are not “matters of indifference to God.” There are other principles that must be considered in addition to Rom. 14.

d. Current battle over “mental divorce” (mentally putting away one who has legally divorced you; two theories on that). Some say “it’s just a matter of application - when the divorce actually takes place.”

1) Some who disagree with this say it results in people living in adultery (sin).

2) Others disagree, but continue to fellowship those who believe the doctrine - while advocating withdrawal from anyone who puts a different  interpretation on Gen.1.  

C. Biblical principles on dealing with differences:

1. Does the difference have a practical effect on my faithfulness to God?

a.  Acts 2:38 - What is the gift of the H.S.?  (Miraculous, personal, the word, forgiveness, or fellowship with Deity). At least four of those are wrong! And you can be factious about either.

b. Does belief in a personal indwelling (which I believe is wrong) demand that ultimately we must disfellowship? Is that error the same as denying that Jesus was born of a virgin or was resurrected (which would obviously affect the atonement)?

2. Does it involve me in the practice of what I believe to be wrong?

a. 2 Cor. 6:14-17 - an “unequal yoke” is when a yoke involves me participating in (fellowshipping) evil or error. Here is where “unity in diversity” fails to apply truth.

b. Sapphira was yoked (married) to Ananias (Acts 5) - that was not unequal. But her yoke with his lie involved her joint participation in sin. She should have practiced “unity and diversity.”

c. Those in Corinth who fellowshipped brethren who believed it was right to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol, could not fellowship their action - as long as they believed it to be sinful.

d. “We can be in fellowship - and are - without necessarily having fellowship in every area of activity in which other brethren engage. If this were not true, I cannot conceive how anyone can claim to be in fellowship with any other brother! Why? Because I doubt that there is a single one of us completely, one hundred percent, in agreement both in faith and practice, both jointly and singly, with any other one...Then, if you cannot be in fellowship with one whom you do not have complete fellowship with in every act of his, you are in fellowship with no one” (Bryan Vinson, Sr.).

e. “There may be many things in which people can commonly share while at the same time they may be unable to jointly participate in other things. A denial of fellowship in one realm does not always exclude a sharing together in other realms. On the other hand a granting of fellowship in one thing, or in some things, does not require or justify an extension of fellowship in everything” (Franklin Puckett).

f. Clinton Hamilton: “Therefore, one must resist the temptation to exercise judgment in relation to God’s servant in his standing with God. This is the point at which some brethren are. They have difficulty distinguishing between ‘receiving a person,’ and extending fellowship to him; and in not accepting a point of view which he holds, which one believes is incorrect” (p. 749). (Some say - how can you accept the person and not what he believes? Obviously the Romans did - and so does everybody else.)

g. Today - it seems that we must not only agree on every “doctrinal issue” - but also about where to draw the line on anyone who doesn’t. Brethren who agree on doctrine are drawing lines against those who do not draw the lines where they do.

3. Is the action individual or collective?

a. “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God” (Rom. 14:22). Does not justify individual sinning (Rom. 1:28-32 - individually committed fornication, murdered a man, or stole that money!)

b. The problem often is whether the activity causes one to sin. The eating of meats or observing certain days are specifically discussed, but many things about which brethren

disagree are not specifically addressed: Christmas observance, Sunday night communion, woman teaching class with baptized boy in it, weddings/funerals in the church building, individual support of schools, etc.

c. Am I hearing the old Ketcherside theory on schools?  Schools have no right to exist: “all schools have gone into apostasy or died.” Yater Tant said: “Liberal elements will control the schools, the publishing houses, the various institutions, and all the larger congregations” (G.G. Aug, 1970).  Nearly all large churches have gone into apostasy (so no large congregations?); and many small ones have died (so no small ones either?). Schools and papers have gone into apostasy - so fight all of them?

dc. Any issue can be agitated to disruption of unity (Tit. 3:9,10).

4. Does it involve me in supporting or encouraging false doctrine? (2 Jn. 9-11).

a. The passage does not say: “false doctrine that would cause someone to sin.”

b. Wuest Word Studies (Vol. 2, p. 207) and the IVP Bible Background Commentary, p. 749 suggest that “house” here may refer to their meeting place. Whether by the church or individually - we can treat him with kindness (may even commune, sing, and pray with him), but not support him if he is “bringing” false doctrine.

c. The passage is talking about traveling evangelists being supported for teaching their error (doctrine). It was talking about a major issue - Did Jesus come in the flesh? (v. 7; 1 Jn. 4:1-3). Do not support or encourage him in his mission.  In contrast, Gaius was encouraged to support true teachers (3 Jn. 5-10).

d. I must make that judgment on when my treatment of a brother is in violation of this principle - but I am not the policeman to see that all others observe my conclusions.

5. Does it restrict my ability to teach what I believe to be truth and oppose what I believe to be error?

a. The meat-eaters (in Rom. 14) had a right to teach what they believed, but not until everyone agreed or got out. Contention is a work of the flesh, just as heresies (Gal. 5:20).

b. There is a difference between preaching what I believe is truth and policing the practice of it. Sometimes it requires separation, but that should be a last resort.

Concl.

A. One writer said concerning the Jews: “Their privileges, their belief in the one God, and their knowledge of his will, should have made them humble and ashamed that they had made such poor use of their privileges and blessings; but, instead of that, they were boastful, and they maintained an air of superiority over all other people. And so every blessing has its corresponding danger. Is there not danger that we fall into a similar state of mind? We have the Bible, abhor creeds, glory in the name we wear, and feel able to teach the world. Are we not inclined to be proud and arrogant? Should we not rather feel humble and ashamed that we have not made better use of what we have?” (R.L. Whiteside, Commentary on Romans, 1945, p. 60).

B. Brethren have always disagreed on many subjects. “All of us must accept the fact that we have fellowship (live and work and worship with) brethren with whom we differ (sometimes radically) on many things. There is no way around it.  It has always been true, and I think we all know it always will be” (James Needham, Torch, Jan., 1975.) This is not the ideal, but it is the real, and always has been.  One brother wrote that he had, for many years,  fellowshipped a brother whom he knew taught error (until he became more militant with his belief); now if we can find out that a person believes error (even if he is not factious about it) we are going to the computer and exposing and attacking the false teacher. This attitude, consistently applied, will result in endless strife and factionalism.

C.  One source I read said that we are losing 63% or our young people. Why? Paul gave one reason: “But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another” (Gal. 5:15). They are simply disgusted with the constant strife and get out of it.

D. What can we do? Continue to teach the truth in love; get involved in saving souls and practice godly living. (A young man in S. Florida called me wanting to know what to do about a member who had moved in with the contentious mind-set. I told him to ignore him as much as possible, continue to win souls and build up the church. About a year and a half later, the man was moving away and came to the preacher and with tears in his eyes said “We got off to a bad start, but you have opened my eyes to what Christianity could be and should be.”

-Frank Jamerson - 7-9-02