Truth Magazine

By David E. Dicus

In John 8 the writer records an incident regarding adultery that has many of the aspects of a controversy that is disturbing the brotherhood today. While John’s record dealt with the question of what punishment should be applied under Moses’ law (see Lev. 20), some brethren today are more concerned with ways and means to excuse or exonerate the offender. The people of Jesus’ day had no trouble in identifying problems of adultery. It was simply a matter of “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than their lawful spouse” (Webster). Although this definition of adultery came from our modern dictionary, it was just as applicable in Christ’s time as it is today. Back then, there was no hassle over whether they had a right to divorce and remarry or if the guilty party was amenable to this law or that law. Not that it makes any difference but, we can’t even prove Whether the woman in this story was a Jew or a Gentile. What is important is the fact that the question did not even come up and obviously the laws covering adultery were similar for all people of that day. Under the circumstances we probably have to concede that she was Jewish and subject to Moses’ law. It would be interesting to see just how this story might have turned out if some of our brethren of today had been around to “defend” the woman.

John did not see fit to go into detail as to what this woman was mixed up in. Did she have a living husband? Was she in an unscriptural marriage? She could have been single and involved with a married man. Leviticus 20 suggests any number of ways she could have committed the adultery. What is perfectly clear is that there was no question but what she was guilty of a grievous sin, the sin of adultery. Also in evidence is the fact that Jesus, who had the power to forgive sins, forgave her (see Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24). He said, “Neither do I condemn thee – go and sin no more.” In other words, the forgiveness bestowed by Jesus was on condition that she not return to her previous state of adultery. It did not give her any license to continue in what she had been doing. If it was considered adultery and sin before Jesus forgave her, it would still be adultery and sin after the forgiveness took place. What reason would there be to expect the circumstances to be any different today?

At issue in this incident between Christ and the Pharisees was a conflict between the law of Moses and the principles that Christ was teaching. To this effect then, we can say it was simply a conflict between the old law of Moses and the new law of Christ. The old law called for a punishment of physical death for the sin of adultery. It made no provision for forgiveness as provided for in the new law (Heb. 10:4). On the other hand, the new law sets out eternal death as a punishment, but it also provides a way of escape through repentance and forgiveness. And over and over again the message of the New Testament cautions the forgiven sinner against returning to his sin. As Jesus said, “Go, and sin no more.”

In the controversy before the brotherhood today the key issue is what constitutes a “lawful spouse” as suggested by Webster (above), more specifically, the lawful spouse in a divorce and re-marriage situation. The answer should be quite obvious. A lawful spouse is a person who has satisfied both the laws of God and man in a marriage relationship. In the case of man’s law, this is not difficult to do. (Not near as difficult as it should be considering our present average divorce rate of I out of every 2 marriages. But this is another problem. – DED) The difficulty arises when we start to justify the leniency allowed in man’s laws in light of what God expects. Divorce courts today will grant divorces for most any cause from adultery to irreconcilable differences and incompatibility. The people involved are free to remarry anyone else so long as the new mate is also un-married in the eyes of civil law. The New Testament law will also allow a divorce between marriage partners, but it lists only one reason for either of those partners to marry the third party, that reason being when fornication was a factor in the divorce. Then, only the innocent partner is free to remarry without being considered an adulterer or adulteress.

Jesus first taught these principals in his sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:31,32. Then, when pressed by the Pharisees, he went into more detail in Matthew 19:4-9. In this teaching Christ points out that it was God’s intention that man and wife should be “one flesh ” and “what God hath joined together, let not man part asunder. ” Then he says, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives (Deut. 24:1) but from the beginning it was not so. ” While it is to be conceded that a “put away” spouse under Moses’ law, could re-marry under certain conditions, Jesus minced no words as to what he expected when he said, “except it be for fornication. ” “And whoso marrieth her that is put away (except for this reason) doth commit adultery.” And about this, as he said to the woman, “Go, and sin no more.”

It may be wise to point out at this juncture that, although fornication and adultery are similar terms, they vary slightly in their definitions. Webster says fornication is “sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other.” Careful comparison of the two definitions will show that adultery is illicit sexual involvement by a married person or persons, while in fornication, one or both partners may be unmarried. Since Jesus was dealing with the question of marriage, he obviously touched all the bases when he included single people by the use of the term fornication. This is one loop hole he closed and no amount of misapplied, out of context, Scripture can pry it open.

As far as can be determined by this writer, these two occasions mentioned in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are the only times Jesus taught on the subject of divorce and remarriage. To be sure Mark and Luke alluded to the same incidents, but not in as much detail as Matthew. As we analyze these passages, it is obvious that they were all that was needed to cover the subject. They are concise, factual, and directly to the point. Since there were no other conditions, understandings, agreements, or circumstances affecting the marriage laws of God, there was no reason for Christ to belabor the issue, as many do today. But while he dealt with facts, the apostle Paul’s teaching was concerned with specific conditions. For example, the incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5, and the general instructions of 1 Corinthians 7, and Romans 7, Paul was not teaching the law of divorce and remarriage, rather he was applying the law to the circumstances and persons involved. Paul was a lawyer, a Pharisee who was trained “according to the strict manner of the law of the fathers” (Matt. 22:3). It was not his job to create or enact law, merely to interpret or apply it even though he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. When this passage, and others like them, are taken out of this context, they can easily be twisted to create confusion between what Christ and the Apostle Paul were teaching. And who is it that will agree that this is possible with the word of God (1 Cor. 14:33)?

Some years ago a close friend and brother in the Lord attempted to justify his adulterous re-marriage with I Corinthians 6. He claimed that because his ex-wife had taken “a brother to law” for the divorce, he was scripturally justified to remarry, even though adultery was not a factor in his divorce. He had found a “loop hole” and he was determined to “marry his new love.” And so he did.

It seems to be a common trait of false teachers to attempt to justify questionable circumstances, rather than accept the truth to correct them. This is especially true of the brethren who go about attempting to justify unscriptural divorce and remarriage. It seems that using misapplied and out of context scriptures, is the name of the game. Instead of searching out and “rightly dividing” the penetrate Scriptures, they will seek out vague passages and take them out of context to try to prove their point. And the point they are trying to prove has usually been generated by circumstances within their own lives or the lives of someone close to them. They apparently give no thought to the souls they are leading astray. They simply are not paying attention to Jesus as he tells them, “Go and sin no more.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 99-100
February 16, 1989

By Bill H. Reeves

The warfare between truth and error is between Christ and Satan (Rev. 17:14). Involved is the “wisdom that is from above” and the wisdom that “is earthly, sensual, devilish” (Jas. 3:15). False teachers and false brethren (2 Pet. 2:1; 2 Cor. 11:26) employ the carnal tactics of human wisdom in their opposition to those who insist upon submission to Divine wisdom. Paul says (2 Cor. 2:11) that Satan seeks to gain advantage over us; to this end he uses “devices.” We should not be ignorant of these devices, or schemes. Human wisdom has just so much capacity; so, when we learn its principal devices, there are no more new ones to surprise us! The details may change a little, but that is all. In this article I want to list some major tactics employed by human wisdom, so that the reader can be well informed concerning them and able to readily recognize them in his battle for Truth.

Devices

First, let’s look at 2 Corinthians 2:11, “devices.” The Greek word, noema, means mental perception, thoughts and purposes. The “devices” or “schemes” are the forms which the thoughts take. When I preach in Spanish, coming to 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 read the word maquinaciones (machinations = a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end). In our everyday English, “device” and “machinery” are well-known ideas. Satan has his machinery at work; we are not to be ignorant of these devices!

Experience In Living

Long life on earth allows one to accumulate a lot of experience about the way humans act. One becomes almost a prophet as he predicts what turn events will take, because he has seen for many years human wisdom at work. Carnal tactics are employed by those who refuse to submit to Divine wisdom, and human wisdom has only so many (principal) devices, or tactics. I was baptized fifty-two years ago; I have seen a lot of changes in the brethren throughout the years. Having lived through the “issues” of the ’50’s, concerning centralization (sponsoring-church-concept) and institutionalism (churches donating to human institutions for the accomplishment of church-work), now that I am again directly involved in this same battle in the Spanish-speaking field, I can readily recognize the age-old, carnal tactics, being used by liberal brethren among the Hispanics. Recently I completed a 48-page work in Spanish entitled, Tactics and Methods of Liberalism. I not only listed the principal carnal tactics being employed by liberal brethren today, but documented, such from personal letters, bulletins and other articles published by them, and from personal encounters with my erring brethren. In this English article, I will list the tactics and give some sample cases, but will not tire the reader with the many proofs that are at hand in the Spanish-speaking brotherhood.

Carnal Tactics

I. Ignorance and Prejudice. Liberal brethren (both Anglo-American and Hispanic), who have not informed their converts of the division which took place in the ’50’s and ’60’s, are now telling them about the “antis,” because in the Providence of God the truth on these issues is reaching a great many brethren throughout the Spanish-speaking world. But these “leaders” are not explaining the issues to the brethren, but rather using prejudicial terms to hopefully to prejudice their minds against us. The Hispanic brethren at large do not know what “anti” means, as it is being hurled about. The context in which they hear it implies that the “anti” is something bad! The term is being used simply to stigmatize brethren.

Sample: Brother Enrique Martorell, of Toledo, Spain, when he heard that brother Wayne Partain and I planned a preaching trip to Spain in December, 1984, sent a circular letter to the churches of that country, saying that we are “anti everything and more.” This had the desired effect; the churches were frightened and prejudiced against us, but had no earthly idea as to what the issue is that divides us.

Sample: A few years ago, brother Otto Alvarez, of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico was called an “anti” because he opposed a certain practice locally. Not knowing what was meant by that (since the term was simply used derogatorily), and having heard of some brethren 900 miles away who also had been called that, he traveled the distance to consult with them. And thus he learned why he had been called an “anti.”

Sample: In March, 1985, brother Alfonso Castillo of Guatemala wrote a brother in New York City and said that brother Partain and I had been in El Salvador and in Guatemala, teaching a different doctrine and causing uproars. He wrote: “I do not know if these men belong to the church of Christ . . . I am writing you for information.” The brother condemns us, states that he doesn’t know if we are even in the church of Christ, or not, and then solicits information! A fine judge he is – acting on ignorance!

II. False Representation. Before preceding, I call to the reader’s attention something that he will see over and over in his lifetime; that is, the false teacher is always guilty of that of which he accuses his opponent!

Sample: The day before brother Partain and I were to arrive in that city, the large, 300-member, liberal church in San Jose, Costa Rica circulated a special sheet to the church. It referred to us only as “men,” not brethren. It quoted a certain brother in New York City as saying that brother Partain had passed through that city like a hurricane, destroying the work of the Lord, leaving churches of some 110 members with barely 40. “This is the result of the terrible division that the anti’s came to do,” he wrote. The circular said: “These men will be trying to knock on your doors to deceive you. They will come to you with the appearance of piety and with smooth words . . . but their goal is destruction . . . . .. In March, 1984, we were in Costa Rica to hold a gospel meeting with a particular congregation that had formally invited us. That we did, and returned home. But the leaders of the liberal church did their best to misrepresent us. I wrote the four churches in New York City, purportedly decimated by brother Partain, and each one replied, flatly denying the ridiculous charges and stating that we are welcome there any time we can visit them. (I was with them during May of this year.) The congregations are from 20 to 60, at the most, in membership. Brethren from the one church in NYC, where the informant was a member, sent a letter to the liberal church in Costa Rica. This letter denied that said member had written any such thing about brother Partain. The Costa Rica church made no correction of the matter. Its leaders simply wanted to misrepresent us in order to control the minds of those who follow them.

In every controversy of any kind, one should always ask himself: What is the issue? and correctly define it in his own mind. Then, he should be sure that the opponent is dealing with the real issue, because if the opponent is not honest, he will either evade the issue, or misrepresent it! Don’t allow yourself to be caught up in a discussion without a proposition! Don’t allow yourself to be drawn away from the real issue, or off onto a false issue.

Note some false issues in the centralization and institutional controversy: “It’s a matter of methods,” “legalism,” “divisionists,” “destroying the peace,” “binding opinions,” etc.

Churches would do well to have classes on defining the issues, first of New Testament days (Judaism, Gnosticism) and then in history since then (Romanism, Protestantism, Modernism, the Missionary Society and instrumental music issues of the last century, Premillennialism, Centralization and Institutionalism). Many brethren are incapable of correctly defining these issues; no wonder the enemy of truth has it so easy in misrepresenting them!

III. Hatred. The very ones who so loudly accuse us of not “loving the church,” or “loving your brethren,” are so filled with hatred. The false teacher doesn’t like anyone to stand in his way. The Gnostics of New Testament days, egotistical, arrogant and conceited as the worldly-wise always are, hated the brethren who insisted upon apostolic doctrine (see passages in 1 John 2,3,4). With educated language the false teacher often pours out his contempt on those who stand in his way.

In the Spanish work on Tactics I quoted from letters from a number of “leaders” among my liberal brethren who, in writing to others about us said such things as: “They are dangerous Pharisees, introducing themselves subtly and with apparent humility,” “they are ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing,” “Flee from them, flee from the Antis … . what they teach are pure lies,” “due to the hypocritical entrance of the antis . . . who sow the well known seed of hate and distrust,” “men whose god is pride, contention, and deceit,” “sacks of pus.”

The very ones who shout so loudly that we aren’t showing proper “love” have been so loveless themselves. It is always that way: they are guilty of the very kind of thing of which they accuse their opponents! It reminds me of a bulletin article (of a conservative church) I read recently, in which the preacher-editor raked over the hot coals some other preachers who allegedly had “raked over the hot coals Bro. _________ for positive preaching.” They’ll do it every time!

IV. Appeal to Numbers. “We must be right; look how many of us there are!” Such is the appeal of the false teacher. Contrast that with John 6:66,67. Jesus, who is truth, did not need followers to prove that he was truth. Truth stands alone, if no one wants to stand with it! Truth is not determined by numbers. But numbers is a favorite tactic of the carnal mind.

Brother Guy N. Woods used to say of the “antis,” “They are dying on the vine” (that is, not many left; not going anywhere). In September 1984, brother L. Haven Miller wrote to brethren in Spain, concerning brother Wayne Partain and me, and our going to Spain to preach, “I have known these two men for forty years . . some years after they graduated and were working in the Cause of Christ, they fell in with a group, a small minority, among churches of Christ in the U.S. which insists that certain types of cooperation among churches is very bad and is prohibited.”

The (carnal) purpose of stating “a small minority” is to frighten the reader and prejudice his mind. Being a carnal tactic, of course it is not concerned with consistency and truth. True disciples of Christ have never been a majority in this world. The New Testament church suffered an apostasy, and the majority became the Roman Church. Is the Roman Catholic Church therefore the true church?

Brother Jose Cuellar, in a publication in Puerto Rico several years ago, in an article entitled, “What Makes The Church Grow?” at the close mentioned without comment that the Madison, Tennessee church has 7,000 in Sunday Bible School, has 350 teachers, and that on a certain Sunday was going to try to reach 8,000. The obvious effect of such a statement is that of glorying in numbers.

The devil uses “numbers” to his advantage. Let us not be ignorant of his devices!

V. Lies. What is gained by lying? Well, human wisdom says that it can be very profitable at times. It succeeds in closing the minds of those who refuse to inform themselves. It prejudices their minds against those considered enemies of the promotion at hand. Of course, in time the lie is exposed and the liar suffers.

In Latin-America a number of different “leaders” in several different countries were circulating these lies against us “antis” who are preaching in Spanish and going into Central and South America: We don’t believe in sending money to preachers in Latin-America, we are “one cuppers,” we don’t believe in Bible classes, we don’t believe in having church buildings, we don’t have any place to preach in the U.S., so we are going to Latin-America, we are not even members of the church of Christ, etc. There are many liberal brethren who know that these are lies, but have not stopped their circulation.

VI. Cowardice. Many of the very ones circulating lies about us in Latin-America have absolutely refused to speak to us (they really love us, right?) even when we have gone to them in person. In one case pictures of several of us “anti” preachers, or a list of our names, have been posted on bulletin boards, warning the brethren to avoid us, and one of the preachers who did that refused to speak to brother Partain and to me, even though the three of us were invited by a congregation to preach on the same occasion (and we preached!)! When he finished his sermon, he walked out. But later, after we had left the country, he returned, and rebuked the church for inviting us. That church told him not to come back!

A preacher in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico went to an “anti” church and told the brethren he would debate “10 Bill Reeveses at once.” The church informed me, and I sent formal propositions for debate to him and to the church. More than a year later I sill haven’t heard from him. Brother Larry White, of Louisiana, who has preached much in Central America, misrepresented me to brethren in El Salvador. I proposed that he and I debate our differences there, sent him a copy of the letter with the proposition, and never heard from him. Brethren in Nicaragua circulated that brother Wayne Partain “refused to dialogue” with them, so Wayne sent propositions for a public debate there, and made a trip there to fulfill his part, but the liberal brethren went silent.

I will say that brother DeWayne Shappley hasn’t refused to debate. He and I had a debate in Puerto Rico, but only one brother showed up with him, and he is more liberal than DeWayne, because he advocates “fellowship halls,” with food and fun paid for by the local church.

VII. Neutrality. A few outstanding “leaders” in the Spanish liberal brotherhood have opted to be “neutral” in the controversy. Among them is the well-known Juan Monroy, of Madrid, Spain. He is very influential, being a very educated journalist. He is used by the liberal brethren throughout Latin-America, specially in big “campaigns” and for graduating ceremonies of brotherhood PreacherTraining Schools. Take a look in the book What Lack We Yet? (p. 259) Brother Monroy was picked up by liberal brethren at the “Church of Christ booth” of the World’s Fair in New York City, and put to work in Spain. He is sectarian to the core: believes in Original Sin, fellowships Protestants, speaks of “absurd discussions between conservatives and liberals,” etc.

One of the stock-in-trade arguments used by many liberal brethren in Latin-America, not to involve themselves in the present-day controversy, is to reply: “This problem is in the United States; it’s not here. You brethren there solve your own problem.” This effort to try to remain “neutral” is what they have been taught. They say this, because this is what they have heard!

We have shown them that the problem is everywhere that the teachers of unauthorized practices have gone, and that they are fellowshipping error. The main reason such practices as church-supported institutions and centralized projects are not common in Latin-America is because of the lack of money there to invest in such. It is like a church which doesn’t have a piano because it lacks the money to buy one!

VIII. Intimidation. This is a popular tactic with those who want to control the minds of followers. Their threats don’t have to be necessarily direct in order to be effective.

Sample: The men of a church in San Jose, Costa Rica, invited me for a study of the issues. After two or three hours of study, we were all of one accord in the basic teachings considered. After I was gone, brother Juan Garcia, the selfstyled leader of the large, liberal congregation in town, went to that church and told the brethren that if they continued to allow Bill Reeves to visit them and teach, that he would no longer consider them a church of Christ! And it worked! They were intimidated. (For Christians in the U.S. to appreciate the power of such a threat, they have to know just how much control the big, downtown, central, “mother” church in the capital city has over the other churches in the country, controlling U.S. money for church buildings, preachers’ salaries, songbooks and literature, etc. The head “missionary” in the country wields tremendous control.)

This is not an exhaustive list of carnal tactics, but I believe that these are principal ones, and need to be recognized for what they really are! If one doesn’t have the truth, what does he have? What is left for him to use? Our Latin brethren, being of a more temperamental nature than Anglo brethren, usually don’t try to mask their feelings. When they use carnal tactics, it is more glaring and evident. However carnal tactics are not the private property of any particular culture. We must recognize them and expose them. We must be careful lest Satan, using them, gain advantage over us.

Brethren, have studies on rightly defining “issues” (questions, matters, Acts 15:2,6). I find, as I go about among the churches, two great lacks in this respect: older brethren are not able to accurately state in simple language what the “Institutional Issue” is, and younger brethren are not informed on it by preaching and teaching, so they have little or no interest in it. Let us also have more studies designed to help all of us to recognize Satan’s devices!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 80-82, 87
February 2, 1989

By Forrest D. Moyer

Looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled (Heb. 12:15).

We have studied quite a bit lately about the grace of God and the fact that no one can merit salvation. We can only be saved because God loved us and through his grace provided a way for our justification. We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8-9); we stand in grace (Rom. 5:2); we have our daily forgiveness through going to his throne of grace (Heb. 4:14-16). When we get to heaven, we can truly sing, “Amazing Grace” and “Wonderful Grace of Jesus.” How precious is that grace which God has so richly “lavished upon us” (Eph. 1:7-8).

But the Hebrew writer gives to each of us a very solemn warning: “Be careful lest you fall short of the grace of God.” Therefore, it is possible for us to “miss out on” God’s grace. The writer said that it is! Paul also said that it is possible for us to “nullify the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21) and that we can “fall from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Let us never feel that since God loves us and that his grace has forgiven us of our every sin, gross as they may have been, it is still possible for us to “fall short of that grace.” How could we do so?

In the passage under consideration we see some possible ways of our falling short.

(1) We could be defiled by a “root of bitterness.” This is a metaphor borrowed from plants where roots are essential. Moses referred to such in Deuteronomy 29:18 – “a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.” Here, then, are people whose words and life are bitter before God and corrupting to people. The pagan and Judaistic influences of their day tended to draw people away from the grace of God. Today, there is worldliness, humanism, and all kinds of false doctrines that are poisonous to the souls of God’s people. Let us be especially careful.

(2) We could fall short of God’s grace by fornication (v. 16). God’s grace can forgive fornication as is seen in the lives of some of the Corinthians – “such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). But his grace is not a free ticket to practice immorality. We cannot pre-suppose the grace of God or be guilty of the sin of presumption. Some have reasoned that since God’s grace will forgive that it does not matter if we go ahead and commit sin. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Some people in the early church were “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness” (Jude 4). There are many today who look upon sexual misconduct whether before or after marriage as of little consequence. Paul tells us that those who practice such cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21). John says that such will have their part in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). If you are involved in sexual sin, repent right now and live a life of moral purity lest you fall short of God’s grace.

(3) The writer speaks of “any profane person” such as Esau (v. 16). The word used here is bebelos and means unhallowed. It is used for profane in opposition to consecrated. “Bebelos is used for the person who is uninitiated and uninterested in contradistinction to the man who is devout” (Barclay). A profane life is one lived without thought of or interest in God. All of its goals and plans are only earthly. If we like that, we fall short of the grace of God which is designed to help us have a “heavenly calling.” All that Esau was concerned about was to satisfy his hunger with the pottage that Jacob was cooking. “Who cares about the future? I am concerned with right now, and I want this!” Oh, how often this becomes our attitude and it leads to our downfall and to our “missing out on the grace of God.” A person’s character is just as strong as the weakest link in it. If, in weak moments, we are concerned only with the present physical appetite, we become a “profane person like Esau.” How bitter were the consequences in his life and in ours when we lose sight of God’s goodness to us. This is why it is so important for us to stay out of situations where we can be tempted, for when the fires of appetite burst out of the furnace of our mind and the flames start to burn, we lose sight of the holy and become “profane like Esau.”

(4) Really, the way we fall short of God’s grace is by “refusing to hear Jesus” (v. 25). Those who refused to hear Moses did not escape. “Much less shall we escape who turn away from him who warns from heaven” (v. 25; see Heb. 10:26-29). If we reject Jesus, we are rejecting God’s grace – “insulting the spirit of grace” for he came and died as the means of establishing the grace of God. Being a Christian is doing whatever Jesus requires of us. If I reject him, I have spurned that matchless grace.

No, don’t think for one moment that God’s grace automatically takes care of all our sins and rejections of his will. “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be” (Rom. 6: 1). Let us have full faith in the God of grace and accept his grace that will forgive and save us and take us to heaven. But let us never take it for granted and “fall short of the grace of God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 77
February 2, 1989

By W. Frank Walton

A member drops out of sight. After a long while, someone asks, “Where’s brother Blank?” Someone gets around to talking to this absent brother, but by now he’s spiritually “cold” and might not be revived. In another congregation, harsh, hateful words are exchanged in a business meeting. It was all a misunderstanding but now it’s too late – another congregation will be formed and brethren who worshiped together will probably not see or speak to one another for quite a while. Yet, in another church elders are to be selected. But feelings are hurt when ancient incidents are dredged up, which should have been resolved years ago. Now, this church might not have elders for years to come.

What do these situations all have in common? An urgent need to heed Romans 15:14: “And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another” (NASB). Paul knew brethren in Rome were spiritually strong enough to work out any difficulty among themselves. They were sincere and good-hearted. They knew God’s will because they were informed. They would care enough to communicate spiritual warnings to one another. Could Paul have the same confidence in you and the brethren with whom you worship? Do we care enough to give loving correction or constructive criticism? Are we willing to accept it?

Brethren often don’t feel comfortable in being open and honest with one another. Some are so “touchy” that their feelings are easily offended, egos bruised or pride deflated. We all admit we have our faults, that we could do better, and that we could use constructive criticism. But we feel personally attacked so that we don’t welcome helpful comments.

Many times we know of some problem that needs to be pointed out and dealt with, but too often it’s swept under the carpet and overlooked. We’re obligated to lovingly correct a sinning brother (Lk. 17:3). “Admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men” (1 Thess. 5:14). This takes initiative, concern and involvement to speak the right word at the right time. Will we care enough to communicate concern to one who is apathetically wandering away from Christ? Will we speak a kind, encouraging word to refresh a struggling soul? Also, patience in personal relationships helps us cut some slack for others. We need to be as understanding with them as we are with ourselves and as we wish others to be with us.

What are some practical things to remember in admonishing (warning, correcting) and communicating with one another?

Things To Avoid

1. Don’t assume too much or the worst. Don’t put them on trial as being guilty until proven innocent. “Love . . . thinks no evil” (1 Cor. 13:4,5, NKJV). Get your exercise, in other ways instead of jumping to conclusions. “He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18:13). Get all the facts.

2. Don’t be disgusted with others, thinking they’ll never change. No person is hopeless. What’s the worst thing you’ve ever done? God loved us when we were ungodly rebels (Rom. 5:8). God never gives up on us.

3. Don’t dredge up the past as today’s ammunition. God doesn’t bring up the past against us (Heb. 8:12). Since we’re his children, let’s not imitate the Devil who is “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10). Any hostile critic or thoughtless person can pass along inaccurate, unfair or baseless innuendo. You’ll find what you’re looking for in others, if you want to badly enough. Gossip is the Devil’s brew. Such “corrupt communication” (Eph. 4:29) pollutes the air of brotherly relationships. Don’t talk to everyone else who isn’t involved about the problem.

4. Don’t belittle, ridicule, talk down to or “tell someone off for their own good. ” Rash, acidic words can’t be recalled. Admonishing someone isn’t just getting an obligation off our chest. This is cold and uncaring. Instead of thinking, “I just don’t understand how they could do this,” try to empathize. Understand we all have weakness and blind spots. Don’t just find fault and exaggerate: “You always . . . you never . . . every time I turn around, etc.” But find a solution – together!

Guidelines To Remember

1. Let’s form closer brotherly relationships. “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor” (Rom. 12:10). We’re not just to tolerate one another. It’s hard to confront a stranger. But love shows we’re following Christ. Our common hope draws us closer together as family. Family love is optimistic and persistent. It “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails” (1 Cor. 13:7-8a). Love is demonstrated in outgoing care for one another’s welfare. When this is obvious, we can be open and honest with one another. We won’t fear to speak what’s weighing heavily on our minds.

2. Criticism should be directed at the performance (the act) and not as an attack against the person. Most brethren are basically good, or they wouldn’t even bother claiming to be part of God’s household.

3. Be reasonable, fair and realistic. Look at all the names listed in your directory. Imagine all the trials, temptations and problems each one faces daily. Before Ezekiel preached to the exiles, the Lord wanted him to empathize with his audience: “I sat where they sat” (3:15, NKJV). Think, “How would I feel if this fault was pointed out to me?” Don’t expect more of others than you do of yourself.

4. Show in the Bible why something is wrong and needs to be corrected. Help them to see in God’s “mirror” of truth. This helps to show it’s not just a matter of personal opinion or taste.

5. Give reasons for change from the Bible. “If you fix your mind on the right things, you won’t be tempted so much and your attitude will change” (cf. Rom. 12:2; Phil. 4:8; Prov. 23;7). Or, “God promises us that if we put up a fight resisting the devil, instead of listening to his temptation, that he will flee from us” (Jas. 4:7). “If we feed our faith, it will be stronger and won’t fail us” (Lk. 22:32). Being “filled with all knowledge” helps us to apply Scripture to each situation. But give incentives for them to change . We have the potential to do better. Encourage them by painting the picture of them overcoming (Jas. 1:22-25).

6. Tone is important (Prov. 15:1). It’s not always what we say, but how we say it that helps effective communication (Col. 4:6). Each person is different. It takes practice and prayer for wisdom to sense the unique situation of each person. Be perceptive and kind in finding the right words and place to talk. Be non-threatening and on their side. “How can we work on this? What do we need to do to change the situation for the better?” Anticipate their reaction so you can defuse defensiveness. “You might be thinking this . . . I know how you feel . . . I know what you mean … I’ve had a hard time with this too … I’ve made the same mistake before and now what you’re facing . . . I wish I had someone to talk with me to help me, but I had to learn the hard way.”

Make sure they understand the reasons for the correction or warning. Make sure they know you care about, identify with and understand them and the problem.

7. Commit yourself to help. “But encourage one another day after day, as long as it it called ‘Today,’ lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). We all need each other and constructive criticism. We all are sinners, since we all have faced temptation and have succumbed to the Devil’s wiles. We can draw support and count on one another to help in time of need (Gal. 6:1-2). In the Lord’s army, we shouldn’t shoot our wounded. Let’s lift one another up as we march arm in arm toward heaven’s glory.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 83-84
February 2, 1989