Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The April 13, 1996 issue of The Indianapolis Star reported on a snag in the “heresy trial” of Episcopal Bishop Walter Righter. Righter has had charges of heresy brought against him by several “conservative bishops” because he ordained a non-celibate gay man. On February 27, the ecclesiastical court convened but soon became “hung up” on whether the bishop violated “church doctrine” or “church discipline.”

The Episcopal bishop’s lawyer, Edward Rehill, has argued that “doctrine consists only of church creeds relating to humans’ fundamental relationship to God  such as its teachings on salvation or the trinity.” In contrast “interactions between human beings are matters of discipline” and cannot therefore be called “heresy.”

This conflict was resolved among the Episcopalians by dropping the charges of heresy against Righter. While the heresy trial was in progress, Thomas C. Oden, professor of theology and ethics from Drew University, made the following observations in Christianity Today (March 4, 1996, 12):

The Greek word behind heresy means the act of choosing: the self-willing choice that departs from apostolic teaching. Marcion, Montanus, and Arius were all convinced that they had a clearer picture. The current error does not proclaim a better truth, but that all truths are equal and none is superior. The old-time heretic had excessive regard for his own “truth.” Nevertheless, the modem relativist may be every bit as willful in considering all truth “valid.” Thus the difficulty for someone who wants to discuss heresy.

I have had the dubious honor of being tagged a heresy-hunter. I first considered calling myself a victim, an abused truth-seeker. In-stead I have embraced heresy-hunter in an ironic sense: I am looking for some church discussion, even a bull session, in which heresy exists, at least in theory.

Today, the archheresiarch is the one who hints that some distinction might be needed between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. This is often treated incredulously by a relativist majority.

Oldline Protestantism at its tolerant and vulnerable zenith finally achieved what inquisitors and crusaders could not: the eradication of heresy. No heresy of any kind any longer exists within this pliable, smiling ethos  except, perhaps, for offenses against inclusivism.

Who can read what is happening among the mainline Protestant de-nominations without appreciating what Oden has written? Is there any doctrine that Protestant denominationalism can unequivocally say, “If someone believes and practices , he is a heretic”?

The Spirit of the Age

So long as I can remember, Protestant denominational-ism has been drifting further and further toward relativisim, the belief that there is no absolute truth. The spirit of ecumenism has been one of the primary points of emphasis among Protestant churches. The ecumenical movement was based on a gospel/doctrine distinction that allowed fellow-ship with one another based on common consent to the “core gospel” while allowing great freedom in doctrinal differences. As the years passed, what constituted the “core gospel” became smaller and less definite. The result is that one can believe just about anything and practice whatever he pleases while holding membership in most Protestant denominations.

The churches of Christ have not been insulated from the influence of this movement in Protestant denominational-ism. The “ecumenical movement” has been given a different, unique twist when it is preached among us, but that it has been preached cannot be questioned. The late Carl Ketcherside and his associate Leroy Garrett used their influence to promote the major tenets of the ecumenical movement. Before brother Ketcherside’s spiritual journey was ended, he was able to worship with those in most Protestant denominations, along with all of the groups of the restoration movement (including, among those who used instruments of music in worship, the Disciples of Christ). Brother Garrett wrote a series of articles in his Restoration Review some years back in which he visited area denominations and wrote glowing reports about the strong points he saw in each fellowship. His visit with a homosexual church was the only report that had significant negative criticism.

The fundamental premise of the Garrett/Ketcherside unity movement was “unity-in-diversity.” These brethren believe that the churches of Christ/Christian Churches should have fellowship with each other in spite of doctrinal disagreements over such things as mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, old folks homes, etc.), differences over the role of women (whether they can be used for song leaders, making announcements, preaching, serving as deaconesses, etc.), the inspiration of the Bible, and such like things. Many among the churches of Christ have accepted the fundamental presuppositions of the “unity-in-diversity” approach to unity. The movement has been aided and abetted by such journals as Image, Integrity, Mission, Wineskins, and several others among our liberal brethren. In the early 1970s, a significant group of men among us began parroting the “unity-in-diversity” concepts. Among those were Edward Fudge, Arnold Hardin, Bruce Edwards, Mark Nitz, and several others.

What Is A Heretic/False Teacher?

One tenet of the unity-in-diversity movement is that a person who is good, honest, and sincere is not a false teacher even if what he is teaching is false. Leroy Garrett wrote a series entitled “The Word Abused” in 1976. In the April 1976 issue of Restoration Review he wrote on 2 Peter 2:1 (“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”). His discussion centered on “who is a false teacher.” He wrote,

I may shock some of my more staid readers with the thesis I now set forth as to the identity of a false teacher. I do not believe, as I was always taught in the sect in which I grew up, that “denominational preachers” are necessarily false teachers, which is the view still urged upon us by many within Christian Churches-Churches of Christ. I have long since discarded the notion that “our” men are the truth teachers while “their” men are the false teachers (262).

According to Garrett, one cannot properly be called a false teacher unless he is intentionally dishonest; so long as he is ignorant of the truth, he cannot be called a false teacher.

It is unthinkable that such a characterization as this should be laid upon any sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person, however misled he may be on some ideas. One may even be caught up in the clutches of an insidious system and still not be a pseudo-didaskalos (false teacher, mw). The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you make of Romanism. She may well be more devoted to God than yourself, even if wrong about some things, and she may be a kalos didaskalos (teacher of good), as in Tit. 2:3, in that she is teaching those girls “to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited” (264).

Garrett continued to explain that a false teacher is one who is unscrupulous, who acts deceptively and maliciously.

The word pseudo is the key to our understanding the true character of the false teacher, and its meaning be-comes evident when we see it used as a prefix to numerous other words. 2 Cor. 11:13 refers to the pseudo-apostles and Mt. 24:24 mentions both pseudo-Christs and pseudo-prophets. Mt. 26:60 tells how pseudo-witnesses testified against Jesus before Caiaphas.

In each of these cases you have a bad egg, an unscrupulous person who acts deceptively and maliciously so as to satisfy his perverted ego. So Paul described the false apostles as “deceitful workmen, disguising them-selves.” Those who testified falsely against Jesus were malicious liars. That is our word, pseudo is a lie. A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer distinguishes between right and wrong. He has “rejected his own con-science,” as the apostle describes him (264).

This was the concept that Leroy Garrett used to redefine what a “false teacher” is. He did not think it was right to label those who believed, taught, and practiced differently from others on instrumental music, water baptism, and such like things as “false teachers.” Consequently, he worked to redefine what a false teacher was: he was an ungodly, immoral, unscrupulous man, not the sincerely mistaken man who happened to err on instrumental music, institutional-ism, or water baptism. Not believing that those in the Christian Church were false teachers, he could extend the hands of fellowship to those who were sincerely mistaken.

Garrett’s Concept Spreads Among Us

I do not wish to imply that the following men whose writings I quote have accepted every aspect of the “unity in-diversity” movement, although some have obviously made more statements that parallel the writings of Ketcherside and Garrett than many realize. I simply wish to demonstrate that several among us have accepted the loose teaching that a false teacher is one who is unscrupulous and immoral, not one who teaches something that is untrue that leads to a violation of God’s divine law.

W. Frank Walton’s lecture in the 1995 Florida College Lectures, Overcoming With the Lamb, develops the same point. He concludes by writing,

Hence, in the Biblical usage of the term, a sincerebrother who teaches error on some point is not a false teacher. Biblically, there is no such thing as a sincere, honest false teacher. Rather, he is a mistaken teacher at that point. Everyone who proclaims the Bible message bears responsibility for what he teaches (Jas. 3:1) and should take correction when shown to be wrong on a doctrinal point (Acts 18:25ff) or conduct unbecoming a Christian (Gal. 2:11). Jesus lovingly rebuked all deviations from His will in five of the seven churches of Asia, but He did not immediately remove their lampstand. He gave them time to repent (Rev. 2:4ff; 3:1ff). Yet, to be in the same league as the false prophet in Revelation, a brother’s disposition must be shown to be rotten and rebellious to Christ as is his erroneous position. Doctrinal differences among good, sincere brethren in applications of Bible principles demand patience and a due process of brotherly love and study. A brother’s true disposition will be exposed in the process over time, as well as the Biblical accuracy of the position under question (“The Divine Warrior,” 181-182).

I do not disagree with everything that brother Walton wrote, such as his statement that patience and a due process of brotherly love and study are demanded when brethren disagree, but his statement that “there is no such thing as a sincere, honest false teacher” is identical with the teaching of brother Garrett.

Bob Owen, former president of Florida College, has been preaching a series of lessons on fellowship in churches around the country. In his March 28, 1996 presentation at the Temple Terrace church in Tampa, Florida (across the street from Florida College), he developed as a major part of his lesson the concept that a false teacher was one who was dishonest and insincere, not a brother who teaches what is false. As he brought this portion of his sermon to a conclusion, he summarized,

… What’s Paul describing? Is he describing some-body that just differs on some issue? Or is he describing people who are unruly, vain talkers and deceitful, who are laboring for filthy lucre’s sake, whose very character is described as abominable and disobedient and who are unto every good word reprobate? Those were people to be warned against. They were false teachers… .

Would it be fair in light of the biblical use of the term to say everybody that teaches something that I differ with or we differ with on all of those issues, bear the label, “He’s a false teacher”? Brethren, there’s a world of difference in a conscientious, godly person reaching a different conclusion from a careful and prayerful study of a passage than I’ve reached, there’s a world of difference in that and the description that Peter has given. Now if somebody else listens to that it may sound like I have just joined Carl Ketcherside, and I’m not saying that we ought to just throw the blanket of kindness and love over everybody and there ought to be no problem with just accepting anybody that believes anything. I know you know in advance that I don’t believe that. And I hope you know that I know the Scriptures don’t teach that.

Obviously, we agree that not every difference between brethren involves sin and heresy (see 1 Cor. 8:8), but according to brother Owen, no error a man teaches can make him a false teacher unless we can show his character’s corrupt.

I have included more than was necessary in brother Owen’s sermon in order to include his disclaimer about agreeing with Ketcherside. I do not want to misrepresent him in any way, for I love him as my brother. However, with reference to what is necessary to be a false teacher, they are agreed, although in application they differ. (In respect to application, brother Ketcherside is more consistent than brother Owen.) In private conversation brother Owen has stated that he believes a man who is honest and sincere (such as Oral Roberts and Billy Graham) can be described as a false teacher, although this appears to contradict what he stated in his sermon. In his presentation of this material in North Carolina in March 1995, brother Owen used this material to justify asking brother Halley to preach in the church of which he is a member, although he believes him to be teaching that which is untrue about divorce and remarriage. He believes it is a misuse of Scripture to describe brother Halley as a “false teacher.”

In 1988, brother Ed Harrell, one of the five editors of Christianity Magazine, wrote an article entitled “Homer Halley: False Teacher?” He was reacting to the published reviews of what brother Hailey had been teaching on divorce and remarriage. In his article he argued,

Finally, I find particularly offensive the easy use of the label “false teacher” with reference to Homer Hailey. As I have already noted, the presumption that one be-comes a “false teacher” on the basis of holding one doctrine that I judge to be erroneous is loaded with con-sequences that none of us would accept. A false teacher is surely one whose dishonest motives and/or ignorance distinguish him from the sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion. If that is not the case, then I am surrounded by false teachers. I have come to know my fellow editors on this paper well enough to reveal that I disagree with them about some matters of biblical consequence. Are they all false teachers? Or, perish the thought, am I? That is nonsense (Christianity Magazine [November 1988], 9).

Again, with brother Harrell, I want to be careful not to misrepresent him. I do not wish to imply that he accepts all of the tenets of the unity-in-diversity movement. His application of what he believes is different from that of Ketcherside and Garrett. However, brother Harrell did make application of his view to men who teach, in sermons aroundthe country and in printed form, what he believes is wrong on the subject of divorce and remarriage. If the principle applies to one sinful practice, why not to others?

Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to identify what is a significant movement that is occurring in brethren’s thinking. Brother Leroy Garrett acknowledged the change in his thinking from believing that those who taught what was false was a “false teacher” to accept the position that false teachers are unscrupulous deceivers without regard to the content of their message. As one brother said, “Biblically, there is no such thing as a sincere, honest false teacher.” This change is beginning to occur or already has occurred in the thinking of many brethren. In subsequent articles, I wish to examine just who is a “false teacher.”(More next issue.)

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 2
August 1, 1996

By Larry Ray Hafley

“A constant drip-ping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike” (Prov. 27:15). “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman” (Prov. 21:19). “The contentions of a wife are a constant dripping” (Prov. 19:13). “It is better to live in a corner of the roof than in a house shared with a contentious woman” (Prov. 25:24).

Unfortunately, being contentious is not confined to women. Men can be “drips,” too. While it is no excuse, some women are negative and argumentative because they constantly are being berated by belligerent men. Treat your wife like a thoroughbred, and she will not be an old nag.

Perhaps some men have contentious wives because theyhave never learned: (1) That “a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh tongue stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1); (2) That “a hot tempered man stirs up strife, but the slow to anger pacifies contention” (Prov. 15:18); (3) That “Pleas-ant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones” (Prov. 16:24); (4) That “like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindle strife” (Prov. 26:21). So, men, before we complain about our “contentious” wives, let us examine the tenor of our tongues. If your wife is a “drip,” it may be because you are all wet.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 24
July 18, 1996

By Connie W. Adams

I recently received a copy of a report by Jerry F. Bassett under the heading “Work in the Philippines, January 23-February 19, 1996.” Over the years I have read many such reports with great interest because of my own involvement in the work there in years past. In the years since my last visit to your land, I have stayed in correspondence with a number of brethren. The welfare of the work there and the various trials that afflict the Lord’s people there have always been of deep concern to me. Many good men have visited there over the years to assist the very able preachers they already have among them. I have stayed in touch with most of them out of personal interest in the work.

In brother Bassett’s report he said that he delivered a lesson at “several locations” titled “Disagreements Among Brethren: Areas of Battle and Areas of Peace.” He,said the thrust of this was to teach how “brethren can continue to disagree and yet maintain fellowship in the Lord without the violation of conscience.” Then he said, “I also used an excellent article by Connie Adams accompanied by my application of its principles to the divorce/remarriage issue.”

Since a number of brethren in the Philippines read this magazine, I feel compelled to make some comments on this matter.

I have been in correspondence with some Americans who deny that brethren of brother Bassett’s view have taught on the divorce/remarriage issue in the Philippines. They have criticized brethren who oppose their view for preaching on it and for taking what they call “an American problem” to the Philippines. I have been told that this is a “moot” question there since there is no divorce law there. But now, it is clear from brother Bassett’s report that he, at least, has taught on this matter “in several locations.” So, let’s have no more of this denial that this has been and is being taught.

Whatever applications brother Bassett made of my article to the divorce/remarriage issue, I want my Filipino brethren to know that I am not in agreement with the doctrine he teaches on this subject. I have read and studied his book and also have the tapes of his two public debates on the subject with Jack Holt. So, I am not ignorant of what he believes on the subject.

Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-12 teach that one who divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery and that whoever marries one who is put away, commits adultery. It is brother Bassett’s contention that Jesus was simply explaining the Old Testament law here and putting things in proper perspective regarding that. Matthew 4:17 and 23 show that the Lord’s teaching was in anticipation of the kingdom. The teaching looked forward. The only backward look was to contrast what was permitted under the law because of man’s hardness of heart and what pertained to the kingdom which was soon to come. “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Verse 23 says he was “preaching the gospel of the kingdom.”

Brother Bassett and I also have serious differences on the application of Romans 14 to this subject. What Jesus called adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Paul said was an occasion for putting away a wicked brother from among themselves in 1 Corinthians 5. Such an one was to be “de-livered to Satan” thus purging out “the old leaven.” No company was to be kept with him. Paul said fornication was a “work of the flesh” and that those who practiced it would not “inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Romans 14 includes matters of indifference with God, such as eating meats honoring certain days. Whether or not to practice circumcision would fall into the same category.

Whatever use was made of my article and whatever applications of its principles were made, I want it clearly understood by you good brethren that Connie W. Adams does not believe what brother Bassett does on this subject and is convinced that what he believes and teaches on the subject is error. I am not accusing brother Bassett of saying that I agree with his position. I would, on the contrary, be very surprised if he did that. But I do not want my name linked, even by implication, with what I consider to be grave error. Brother Bassett is an able and knowledgeable man and I am sure most of his teaching there was helpful to those who heard it. But after reading his report and his reference to my article, I just wanted to make sure the record is clear as to where I stand touching this matter.

While the legal situation may be different in the Philip-pines than in the U.S. on divorce, it is a Bible subject. Any study of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, or 1 Corinthians is going to involve at some point the verses that deal with the subject. It is important that the truth be taught on these verses when students come to them. The fact that various positions have been taken by different ones over the years does not alter the fact that these passages are clear and uncluttered. It takes help to misunderstand them. It may also be said that different positions have been taken on Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 but that does not change one thing these passages say.

May the Lord bless every faithful effort being made to advance the cause of Christ in your nation. There are some issues which Filipinos face among themselves that do not trouble us here and there are problems we have here which they do not have to deal with there. But divine truth is universal and all of us must “walk by the same rule” and will all be judged by the same standard of truth. I urge all of you to consider any subject you may be called upon to address by the infallible word of God. May the Lord continue to bless you in your efforts to save the lost and edify the saved.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 3-4
August 1, 1996

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal. 5:7).

These words, addressed to the churches of Galatia (1:2), suggest the ease with which good churches can be hindered. In chapter 1, Paul expressed his surprise, not just that they were turned away, but that it happened so soon. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ” (1:6).

Paul did not ask, “What hindered you?”, but “Who hindered you?” When something goes wrong with a church, somebody causes it. It may not always be possible to positively identify the culprit by name, but he (or they) exists. When the who can be identified, he needs to be dealt with sternly by brethren (Gal. 2:4, 5; Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17, 18). While many may become involved, usually there are one or two key persons at the center of the unrest  either provoking or enticing the others to get involved. Identifying and dealing firmly with the key person(s) will go a long way in solving the unrest caused by the problem. At Antioch, Paul had to deal with a problem caused by Peter’s hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-21). Peter was not the only hypocrite in the crowd: “And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:13). Was Paul unfair in singling out Peter for this public rebuke? No. Peter was the ringleader and core of the problem. He was the principle who of that problem.

Paul indicates that while he knew what the trouble was in the Galatian churches, he may have not specifically known who the troublers were. Even though Paul may not have known who they were, he did not try to mask how he felt about them  whoever they were. “The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, who-ever he may be . . . As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:10,12, NIV). Oh, can’t you just hear some whining breth-ren complaining as to why Paul did not show more “love, understanding, and patience” toward these agitators, even though they had thrown the church into confusion? No, this was no time to be tentative and timid; the churches of Galatia were in trouble  troubled by three timeless hindrances to the purity, peace, and progress of churches.

False Doctrine

The false doctrine that said “you must be circumcised and keep the law” (Acts 15:1, 24) troubled many of the first century churches. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch (Acts 15), Corinth (2 Cor. 11:22), Rome, and possibly others were disturbed by it as well as the Galatians (5:1-6,11). Like most doctrinal error, it worked like leaven and threatened the whole lump (Gal. 5:9). A little leaven, secretly and strategically placed in a lump of dough, may go unnoticed for a while. Even when it is noticed it may seem too little and insignificant to be concerned about at the time. However, if left unchecked, it will eventually spread through the whole lump.

False teachers seldom hit the church with a frontal attack. They usually begin covertly long before becoming overt. A wolf in sheep’s clothing may secretly introduce his little leaven and let it do its initial work with as little fanfare as possible. “False brethren secretly brought in” their doctrine (Gal. 2:4). The idea is that they “smuggled” (Strong’s Concordance) or “infiltrated”(New International Version) it into the church. Peter also spoke of the secretive work of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). Once the leaven is in, it will continue to work until it destroys the church  unless someone is wise enough to spot it and courageous enough to deal with it decisively.

Few churches are destroyed and/or divided by words or deeds that are publicly initiated. Error is usually introduced privately  private conversations, home classes, and counseling sessions  often designedly kept out of ear shot of seasoned veterans of the cross in the congregation. After enough disciples have been indoctrinated to form a powerbase, the chief advocates then feel confident enough to spring it on the whole church. The leaven is now out in the open, but it has already done its major damage. The whole church either embraces the doctrine or, as is more often the case, the church divides. Earlier in this century we saw churches disturbed by premillennialism and institutionalism in this fashion. We are seeing signs that the same pattern is being repeated in the divorce and remarriage issue.

Once divisive teachers have gone public or have been exposed, they usually try to reinforce their positions by attempting to destroy the influence of faithful, knowledgeable, and respected brethren, who stand in their way to gaining the preeminence that they, in their selfish ambition, desire (cf. 3 John 9-11). With their “smooth words and flattering speech” (Rom. 16:18), they have won the hearts of enough naive brethren to feel confident enough to openly attack those who stand in the way of their ambitions. Often whole churches are turned against godly men, like Paul, who have unselfishly built up the church and justly earned their respect by toil and sacrifice. Factious men are good at stirring up a hornets nest and then skillfully shifting the blame for the confusion to those who, for truth’s sake, must step in and sharply oppose them.

Those whom Paul called, “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13), had apparently succeeded in turning many of the Corinthians against Paul (2 Cor. 10-12). Paul laments, “the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved” (2 Cor. 12:15). While pleading with them “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1), he did not step aside and let them have their way. He directs some of his strongest words toward those who were getting carried away with these teachers. He asks them to bear with him in a little foolishness (11:1) as he defended himself against their unfounded charges. With biting irony, he writes:

For he who comes preaching another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted  you may well put up with it! I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool, that I also may boast a little. When I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many boast ac-cording to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold  I speak foolishly  I am bold also (2 Cor. 11:4, 16-21).

Feeling the pinch of rebuke, brethren who are being corrected often try to relieve the pressure by charging those who are correcting them and other brethren with wrong doing. Not wanting to appear self-righteous, the rebukers are often hesitant to deny their charges. This leaves the one who leveled the charges with a sense of victory in the confrontation and feeling less a need to correct his wrong  for after all, at least in his mind, he has shown that his critic is just as guilty of wrong as he is. Paul was not willing to allow the Corinthians this luxury. He knew he had done them no wrong and flatly said so: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one” (2 Cor. 7:2). We need more men of the character and courage of Paul to deal with those who are sinning against the Lord and hindering his churches, without letting them shift attention away from their mischief to the faults of others  real or imagined. One is not going to be helped until he faces up to his unfaithfulness and ungodliness  regardless of what anyone else has done or has not done.

Discord

After dealing sharply with false teachers, using some of the sharpest language in all Scripture, Paul now warns the Galatians against another hindrance  internal discord: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty, only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” (Gal 5:13-15).

While false doctrine is at the root of much of the strife and division among churches, it is by no means the cause of it all. Brethren are quite adept at generating and perpetuating internal strife by other means. One does not have to teach a destructive doctrine to be a divisive or factious man (cf. Tit. 3:10). Of the original word, hairetikos, Vine says, “causing division . . . not necessarily `heretical,’ in the sense of holding false doctrine.” While one who introduces into the church unscriptural doctrines and practices is certainly a divisive man, generating strife, there are other ways to stir up trouble. One can generate strife with his sinful disposition as well as his false positions.

One may create discord with his contentious disposition. There is a vast difference in contending for the faith and just being plain contentious. We can abuse that militant spirit needed to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3; cf. Gal. 2:5, 11-14) by approaching every disagreement, no matter how minor, insignificant, or inconsequential with the same degree of militancy. While it is absolutely necessary to contend earnestly for the faith, it is not necessary to turn every point of discussion that might arise among brethren into a major issue.

There is such a thing as being “obsessed with disputes and arguments over words” (1 Tim. 6:4, 5) or “unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind . . .” (New International Version).

Paul urges Timothy to “avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife” (2 Tim 2:23). He gives a similar admonition to Titus (Tit. 3:9).

One may destroy unity with his overbearing and never bending disposition (cf. Eph. 4:1-3). If one has a forceful personality and is also inclined to be highly opinionated, self-willed, and unwilling to yield, he will generate strife sooner or later.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (Jas. 3:13-18).

Any over-bearing and/or self-willed member hurts him-self and the church, and if he is allowed to lead, he may make havoc of the church. One with this type of disposition should never be allowed to serve as an elder (Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:3)  or any other position of influence for that mat-ter. He will cause trouble sooner or later.

One may create unrest with a zeal untempered by knowledge and good judgment (cf. Rom. 10:1). If one’s zeal for God runs ahead of his knowledge, wisdom, and judgment, he can create more racket than a dozen wise men can quiet. He is like a car equipped with a souped up engine, over-sized fuel tank and reinforced body  with no steering system nor brakes. Such a one often has his own idealistic concept of how things should be and tries to push and shove the brethren into his visionary mold. Even if his view is correct, he needs to learn to gently teach the brethren into conformity (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26).

Such zealots, in their over-heated enthusiasm to get on with things, often rush into matters with little or no fore-thought or preparation. Their method is to act now, think later. In their fervor and self-confidence coupled with ineptness, they usually tear up far more than they fix. It is this kind of mentality that James is countering when he says, “let not many of you become teachers . . .” (James 3:1-12).

One may cause problems with a meddlesome disposition. (Read about busybodies in 2 Thess. 3:11; 1 Tim. 5:13 and 1 Pet. 4:16.) If this disposition happens to be blended with the overly zealous personality described above, then stand back and watch the fireworks! A busybody tends to inject himself into every problem he can find among the brethren, thinking he must instantly solve it without regard to the nature of the problem. He cannot see, while some problems can and must be solved immediately, be-fore they have time to do irreparable damage, others are less urgent and menacing and should be left alone  giving time for long-term spiritual growth to solve them. Too, before one injects himself into every problem he spots among his brethren and makes it his problem he needs to remember: “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:17).

He may even infuse himself into problems that have been dormant for years. I have known a preacher (or other member) to come into a congregation and learn of an old problem that brethren, who were on the scene at the time, had done their best to solve. Because of the complexity of the problem, they may not have been able to resolve it ideally, but were able to reach a workable solution that would leave the brethren at peace without compromising the gospel. Now this intruder, armed with an unshakable faith in his ability and a few fragments of information about the background, details, and complexity of the situation, jumps right in and proceeds to impose his ideal (?) solution. (Brethren, as much as we might like it, all problems and solutions are not simple.) It is not only highly unlikely that he will to be able help the affair at this late date, he is far more likely to get brethren to biting and devouring one another again over things that they probably would never have thought about again, had they not been reminded.

One can generate strife with an overly talkative disposition. “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov 10:19). “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19). Constant critics, gossips, talebearers, can cause endless strife within a church.

The book of Proverbs tells of the damage that such can do:

A talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter (11:13).

A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates the best of friends (16:28).

A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calls for blows (18:6).

He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; there-fore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips (20:19).

Where there is no wood, the fire goes out; and where there is no talebearer, strife ceases. As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindle strife. The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles, and they go down into the inmost body (26:20-22).

Worldliness

The third hindrance that Paul deals with in Galatians 5 is worldliness  the lusts or works of the flesh. (vv. 16-26; cf. 1 John 2:15-17). These things mentioned spring from a carnal mind rather than a spiritual one (vv. 16, 17). We might categorize the “works of the flesh” as follows:

 Worldly sensuality  Adultery, fornication, unclean ness, lewdness.

 Worldly cults  Idolatry, sorcery (witchcraft).

 Worldly dispositions  Hatred, jealousies, outburstsof wrath, selfish ambitions.

 Worldly strife  Dissensions, heresies, murder.  Worldly pleasures  Drunkenness, revelries.

All of these hinder the church when found among its members. Again, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” if left unchecked. (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6). Those who have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb must live above this level.

How well are we running, individually and collectively? Are we helping or hindering the church? Are we guilty of false teaching, generating strife, or worldliness? Are we allowing ourselves to be adversely affected by those who are? We all need to reexamine our positions and dispositions from time to time lest we become a hindrance to the congregation and the Lord’s cause in general.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 20-23
July 18, 1996