| March 26, 2000 |
Vol. II, No. 48
|
Feuding, fussing, factious brethren often fracture fellowship with their opinions. These opinions run the gamut of division. From colleges, collectivities, communion, covering, and Christmas -- you name it, think it, dream it, and brethren have been disturbed and divided over it. Some oppose the use of cups to serve the communion; some say a woman cannot teach a class; some say a woman cannot speak in class; some say it is wrong to have a Christmas tree or to exchange gifts; some say it is wrong to let your kids go “Trick or Treating” at Halloween; some say a woman cannot cut her hair; some say one cannot vote in civil elections (but they can vote in church petitions!); some say it is unscriptural to offer the Lord’s supper on Sunday evening; some say a woman must have a covering or a hat on in public worship; some say one must kneel in prayer; some say one cannot be a member of a labor union; some say one cannot work in any industry that may be related to tobacco or liquor. There is not enough space to list all the opinions and views that have separated and alienated brethren. If you have a favorite opinion or hobby, feel free to add it to the list.
It is not the purpose of this article: (1) To clearly define each person’s opinion. When I refer to “the Sunday night communion,” you know what I mean. (2) To answer every argument used to advocate and advance the various opinions that brethren argue over. (3) To enter into a running gun battle with every wild-eyed opinionist who is certain that his “studied and settled” conscientious convictions and conclusions are the salvation of the church. (4) To make fun of SINCERE brethren. I hope to make fun of contentious, stubborn, arrogant, divisive brethren who have their egos enveloped, encased and enclosed with their pride and pet theories, but I refuse to shame or scorn the “honest and good heart” who just may be SINCERELY mistaken.
A Positive Note. The writers in this series of special articles maintain varying views on a wide range of topics. It is possible for us to practice our personal opinions without forcing one another to wander “about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented” and divided. We can study and reason together, fight the good fight of faith together, and endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This is as it should be. We can disagree agreeably, “love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 4:8). It is those who cannot who have problems and cause envy, strife, “confusion and every evil work.”
Brethren are justly tired of the endless campaigns led by every conceited fanatic who gets a bee up his breeches. The disgruntled, frustrated cynics usually start with dire predictions of “another major apostasy.” They cause ears to be perked and pricked up as all soldiers are alert to the dangers of digression. But, alas, they find that it is just another critic and crank who has an ax to grind. The cultic, one-issue mania, is getting old and faithful brethren are fed up with the peddlers of isolation and alienation.
How Serious Is Your Opinion? I have heard of brethren who have said they would just as soon see a lady in short-shorts as to see her without a covering on in worship. I have heard of those who say that the covering of 1 Cor. 11 is as binding as Acts 2:38. I have heard of those who equate a family Christmas tree with idolatry. Still others have belched that if a woman talks in a Bible class she may as well preach. Really, brethren, how serious are your opinions on these and related questions?
(1) Do you withdraw yourselves from every brother that does not conform to your view? (2) Do you believe that every one at variance with your view is a false teacher to be marked and avoided? (2) Is every person who does not subscribe to your view bound for hell? (4) Are churches that largely reject your opinion faithful churches or has the Lord removed their candlestick?
Consider the implications and ramifications of your answers to the above questions before you disturb the peace and harmony of brethren over your opinions.
There is a difference between “contending” for the faith and being “contentious” in the faith. The ability to discern between the two is badly needed. Like the Jews of old, some will “compass sea and land to make on proselyte” to their position. The Lord’s cause is hurt by those who feel compelled to introduce their divisive opinions. This is especially true in areas of the world where the church is small and struggling. Surely, lands like the Philippines have greater needs than the veiling of 1 Cor. 11 or the so-called “second supper” issue. Churches and brethren are not strengthened by bickering over one’s posture while praying or by convicting all who observe Christmas as a social holiday as “tainted with Catholic idolatry.” Such people are puffed up, but they are not built up. Ultimately, they huff and puff and fume and feud and leave a trail of evil surmising, strife and division. Then, the originators and creators of the small, opinionated groups speak of how they have “suffered for the cause.” They actually glory in their isolated pockets of “faithful brethren” (i.e., those who make their human opinion into divine dominion).
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” Watch the work of those who seek to bind their opinions. They are generally followed by strife and divided churches. They usually deny “preaching on it” or “teaching publicly about it.” Of course, they “respond when asked about it.” The truth is they push it and preach it. It is passingly strange when a congregation suddenly stops offering the Lord’s supper on Sunday night even though the preacher “holds the view, but never preaches on it.”
Admonitions and Conclusions. First, each of us must be certain that our views on Bible teaching are not held because of impure motives. Do I oppose elders because certain elders have mistreated me? Do I destroy a legitimate work in order to foster my own? Am I bitter because brethren have not acknowledged or noted my ability or scholarship; hence, I take positions to oppose those who are so honored? We must examine our hearts, motives, and attitudes, 2 Cor. 13:5.
Second, it is important that no one draw lines of fracture (often called lines of fellowship). If a man disagrees with me regarding the war question, I should not seek to cancel his meetings or ruin his influence, as some have done on similar issues. Not all men who disagree or hold differing views are “opinionated church splitters.” It works both ways on a variety of topics.
Third, I must not take sides with a brother in a dispute just because that brother agrees with my opinions. Let a brother who holds “my view on the passage” have problems in a local church, and I will stand with him; I will deny the bonds of integrity and the friendships of a lifetime in order to defend a man of my persuasion. This sort of thing has been done. It is sectism gone to seed. Those, “who for fear of the Jews” are too cowardly to stand against their party and acknowledge their brethren in the truth are equally as bad.
Fourth, in matters of individual activity, we need to respect the conscientious convictions of one another. If a man will not celebrate Christmas in any form, let me not invite him to a Christmas party where gifts will be exchanged. If a sincere, godly Christian feels she must wear a covering to worship, let me not chide or deride her for so doing. There needs to be more love and concern for one another in these individual areas. A “know-it-all,” arrogant attitude will cause one to be overbearing in hate and spite rather than forbearing in love and kindness. Study and reason together with mutual respect and regard for one another. Let no one seek to cast out his brother whom Christ has received. Remember, it is a two way street.
Fifth, let us not forget that our friends and neighbors and relatives are dying and going into everlasting shame and contempt while we are castigating our brethren for not admitting that they should be willing to kill an intruder who attempts to molest one’s family. Why bicker and snicker at one another over whether one should consent to be a policeman when the world is perishing around us? “My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”
Sixth, the influence of the pillar and ground of the truth is tarnished when we spend our time splitting, splinters. The world sees the ugly affects of our internal war parties. They know “those folks” preach unity but practice division. Someone will answer for these occasions to blaspheme.
Other articles in this issue of the paper have dealt with various aspects of problems that plague God’s people today. Read them with an open Bible and determine to “Let there be no strife between me and thee... for we be brethren” (Gen. 13:8). “Let brotherly love continue.”
--Larry Ray Hafley, via Guardian of Truth, Sept. 2, 1982
Matthew tells us that after the death and burial of John the Baptist, Jesus sought solitude in an unpopulated place, but a great crowd followed Him. Jesus had compassion on them, healed their sick, and taught them many needed lessons. “When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying, ‘This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.’ And they said to Him, ‘We have here only five loaves and two fish.’ He said, ‘Bring them here to Me.’ Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. And He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes. So they all ate and were filled, and they took up 12 baskets full of the fragments that remained. Now those who had eaten were about 5,000 men, besides women and children” (Matt. 14:15-21).
This miracle was recorded in all four of the inspired accounts of Jesus’ life. John’s account, written after the other three, adds some facts not mentioned by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is John’s account that informs us that the five barley loaves and two small fish actually belonged to a young boy in the crowd, John 6:9. Because this boy was willing to put what he had at the disposal of the Lord, the Lord was able to use it to bless many.
There are any number of lessons we might take note of in this particular incident. Of course, we should not lose sight of the fact that all Christ’s miracles were worked to produce faith in His Deity and/or Divine mission. We want to also note some other things that might be learned from this incident.
First, note that what might seem rather meager by human standards can be used greatly when it is put to the full disposal of the Lord. Second, take note that as Jesus received the loaves and fish, He “blessed them,” by giving thanks to God. A quick assessment of Jesus’ action on other occasions where food was received and eaten will show that He always gave thanks for that food. If we are in the habit of eating our meals without pausing to think of where those blessings originate, without pausing to express thanks, we should be more careful to follow Jesus’ example.
Finally, we will note that after the multitudes had eaten till they were full, Jesus “said to His disciples, ‘Gather up the fragments that remain, so that nothing is lost’” (John 6:12). We are not told what further use He made of the fragments, but we may be assured that they did not go to waste. Even the scraps were not wasted. We need to learn to be less wasteful and more efficient with the blessings God gives, and let Jesus bless others through us, as He blessed the multitudes through the usefulness of the little boy’s lunch.
--CRJ