Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received from us (2 Thess. 3:6).

A brother or sister “quits the church,” or more correctly quits the Lord. Is there anything the church can do beyond urging him to return? Usually when we suggest that maybe the church should consider withdrawing from such a one, we are faced with: “You can’t withdraw from those who have withdrawn themselves.” We do not believe that those who raise this objection are wilfully trying to avoid responsibility for discipline. I have heard it from some of the finest and more conscientious brethren that I know. But, I do believe that they have a misconception of the withdrawing process.

There is more to “withdrawing yourselves” than making a formal announcement at church and then no longer “using them” in a public way. Many seem to think that since the quitter no longer attends and participates in congregational activities that this constitutes his having withdrawn himself so we cannot “withdraw our fellowship” since the quitter has already withdrawn himself. But this solution to the problem will not do.

We suspect that part of the problem is that of referring to discipline as “withdrawing fellowship. ” The Scriptures refer to “withdrawing yourselves. ” There is a difference. When one withdraws himself it is true that his spiritual fellowship is withdrawn, but it goes beyond that. One withdraws his person, his company, or his social association from the offending party. Surely one can do this even though his brother or sister no longer attends the meetings of the church. Such withdrawal or isolation is designed to make the offender ashamed of his conduct and produce repentance. If Christians refuse to have any social association with such a one and let him know why he can have none then many would feel the pressure and be restored that probably would otherwise be lost. Of course, this severing of company does not preclude contacts for the purpose of admonishing (2 Thess. 3:15) and/or fulfilling other obligations one may have toward the person.

I have known many who have “withdrawn themselves” who continue to enjoy the day-to-day association with Christians. That association has not been severed at all. It is precisely the company (“mixing up with” – Vine’s Dictionary) that must be withdrawn (see 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Thess. 3:14). Such a person can still be “marked” or “noted” by the church and then each member can withdraw his company (association) that the one might be ashamed.

The concept that we cannot withdraw from the withdrawn (meaning one who no longer attends) because he has withdrawn himself presents still another problem. Suppose a brother (or sister) becomes an adulterer but still attends all services, sings, bows in prayer, eats the Lord’s supper, etc. (we have known this to happen) withdraw from him?

“Of course, they can,” you say.

But wait a minute. Does the fact that he still attends regularly and participates in worship not mean that he refuses to be withdrawn from? How can the church withdraw from one who refuses to be withdrawn from?

“But, we can’t keep him from coming and participating,” you say.

Right again!

“Each member can refuse to associate with him on a day to day basis.”

Right one more time!

“After all, we can ‘withdraw ourselves’ from him even though he is regular in attendance and participates in the worship.”

Now, my brother, you are beginning to get the point! If the fact that one quits means that he has “withdrawn himself” and we cannot withdraw from him – if one refuses to quit it must mean that there is nothing further we can do, since he refuses to be withdrawn from. If not, why not?

I believe that we can mark and refuse to company with a brother who walks disorderly whether or not he attends services. In fact, the very refusal to attend faithfully is walking disorderly and is grounds for marking and withdrawing ourselves.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, p. 340
June 6, 1991

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Peggy Noonan, What I Saw At the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Random House/Ballatine Books, 1990, 1991), pp. 202-203.

Peggy Noonan is a former newswriter for Dan Rather on CBS Radio news who in 1984 became a speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and, later, George Bush. She wrote some of the more memorable speeches delivered by Presidents Reagan and Bush, including the Reagan speech at Pointe du Hock in Normandy in 1984, the January 1986 speech following the space shuttle “Challenger” disaster, as well as George Bush’s nomination acceptance and Inaugural addresses.

Although not a “religious” book, it contains some enlightening passages about issues where politics and religion frequently intersect, and provides some insight into the often anti-religious bias of our public news media. I offer several of these passages for your consideration, and hope you will profit from them as I did.

[Another speech-writer] felt that this was a good time for the president to reassert his opposition to abortion and some of his reasoning. I thought it a good time to bring some of the reasoning up-to-date. A number of people I knew, friends who were approaching their middle thirties, were trying to have children and, for a variety of reasons, having trouble. One, who’d been a newswriter with me in Boston and become a close friend, was trying to adopt and finding it very difficult. One of the unanticipated results of Roe vs. Wade was that people like Judy couldn’t find babies they wanted to adopt anymore.

This is what I wrote:

“I believe that when we allow ourselves to take the lives of our smallest, most vulnerable members, we coarsen ourselves as a society. And it is surely a terrible irony that while some abort their children, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. Abortion has emptied the orphanages – and emptied the cradles of those who want a child to love.

“Our nation has made great strides in helping unwed mothers bring their children to term. Churches, private agencies and individuals are housing, feeding, clothing and treating young mothers, helping them to keep their children or put them up for adoption. This great movement has spread across the country like wildfire.”

Dick Darman did not like anti-abortion language (in the speech-writing business the word “language” is used in place of “argument” and “words”), partly because the president’s stance did not reflect, he said, the will of the majority of the people, and partly, I think, because he himself did not support a ban. We talked about it once. He brought up the polls and said it’s an 80-20, 1 said if you polled the German people in 1939 killing Jews would be an 80-20, he said you can’t squander political capital, I said the courage to take unpopular stands is this president’s capital, he referred to Prohibition and back alleys. I don’t know what I said but I probably conceded yes, people will still do it and they’ll get hurt, you’re right, and more than a change of law is needed – but a change of law is needed.

(I know I lose some people here. I don’t have a single woman friend who agrees with me on abortion, and the woman who edits this or sets the type is steaming. But it’s what I think. When people say abortion is a visceral issue I think they mean it’s purely instinctive: One’s instinct is either to rush to the aid of the frail thing that will be killed or rush to the aid of a freedom that could be lost – and there is no room for compromise. But I’ll tell you something that some members of the anti-abortion movement are privately wrestling with. I had a talk the other night [it is late autumn ‘891 with an anti-abortion activist who is a distinguished writer and thinker. I told him of my growing fear that moving for something like a constitutional amendment when so many women want to keep the abortion option open was – maybe right now not the answer. If we just pass a law and everybody breaks it, what have we gained? There would be so much profit made by bad people, by the worst of our society. And since the decision to abort is made in a single woman’s mind . . . maybe what we really have to do is keep changing minds. He surprised me. “I know what you’re saying,” he said, “and I think about it too.” Maybe the real battlefield is in literature and the arts, in the media, in the fields of political debate. Republican politicians hate to talk about abortion, and then once a year they line up behind a bill to ban it. They have it backwards. They should talk and talk and not move until they have the people. Maybe in this case action must follow consensus, or the action will be meaningless.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, p. 356
June 20, 1991

By Dennis Tucker

At one of the Gainesville hospitals they have a register that shows their patients’ religious affiliation. I heard one of the staff workers say that they wished that all of these different churches would just unite. That caught my attention because recently in a Bible study that same idea was mentioned. Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, expressed that same desire. “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Jesus did not wish for denominations and division but instead unity.

The result of unity would be great. As Jesus mentioned in his prayer, the unity would be proof that he came from God. If every so-called Christian would apply the Bible the same, we would be able to convince others that Jesus is God’s Son and we are his disciples. We would also need fewer church buildings.

In Trenton there are a number of buildings dedicated to worship God. They were not built because of over crowding but because of religious division. Many are only half full on Sunday mornings. This is testimony to the fact that they are not in fellowship with the same God; if they were they would be in fellowship with each other. Fewer preachers would be necessary and less time would be used to teach against the false doctrines of many of these churches. Can anyone question the good that would come about by true religious unity?

What would have to be done to establish unity among all religious people? We are not talking about union but unity. Union seeks to bind people together along with their differences. Unity seeks to do away with all differences and establish a true togetherness.

1. We would have to let Christ be the head of his church. “And He is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18a). This means that there would not be a “Pope” or any other unbiblical office to guide the church.

2. We would have to cast aside all creeds and doctrines except the Bible. The Book of Mormon, Discipline of the Methodist Church, Baptist Manual, etc., would be thrown away. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11a). The Bible would be our only guide.

3. We would teach the Bible plan of salvation. We would teach the same things as the Apostles taught on the Day of Pentecost and throughout the New Testament. “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38).

4, We would worship God as the Bible instructs us. We would sing with our hearts (Col. 3:16), give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2), observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of every week (Acts 20:7), pray to our heavenly Father (Acts 2:42), and study his Word (Acts 2:42).

5. We would let the church be the church. That means we would not make it a social institution nor create a system of government different from that mentioned in the Bible.

Everything mentioned above would create true religious unity. Jesus would be glorified and souls would be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 355-356
June 20, 1991

By Harry R. Osborne

In competitive events, it is not unusual to see opposing parties wishing disaster upon each other. I have yet to see a middle linebacker cry because he decked the opposing quarterback hard enough to knock him out of the game. Nor have I noted much sorrow from the remaining contestants when one player hits the bankrupt space on the “Wheel of Fortune.” In the business world, the cutthroat mentality seems to be accepted as a part of the corporate ladder climbing game. When the one on top falls, the next one is more than happy to take his place without much mourning over the associate’s lot. As any of us with children know, that kind of thinking begins very early. During the typical Nintendo game at our house, Chris and Ryan make no secret of the fact that each wants the other to mess up so as to hasten their next turn at the controls. While competition is healthy in various aspects of life, we need to beware of the general belief that good will come to us as a result of other’s disaster – especially in spiritual matters.

When disaster comes upon one in the spiritual realm, it means that a soul is in danger of eternal condemnation. A lost soul benefits no one. When one falls through Satan’s devices into sin, no one is better off. Yet, those who would claim to be Christians sometimes seem to rejoice at the fall of a brother or sister in Christ. It is a sad fact that news of another’s sin has occasionally been spread with glee among some Christians. Please notice the emphasized words. I do not believe such is the normal practice among brethren, but it has happened. Nor do I believe that most Christians react to a brother’s sin with glee, but it has happened. I remember a case of two people in a congregation who had a continuing feud. When one of the two was caught in a sin, the other hit the phone to help spread the “juicy news” and further embarrass the first. The practice of such gossip seems to be increased when the sin is one of a sexual nature. If the sinner is a preacher or elder, the urge to gossip seems to grow larger. Instead of sorrowing over the fact that a soul is in danger, lives have been ruined, and great damage has been done to the cause of our Lord; a few seem to delight in spreading the details of such tragedies. No sin should serve as the kindling for a fire of gossip, nor should any sinner be the wood consumed for the glee of another’s self-promoting tongue!

A few examples in Jesus’ teaching should serve to declare his disgust with such behavior. For example, examine the case of the elder brother upon the return of the prodigal (Lk. 15:11-32). After the prodigal had repented and had been forgiven of his sins, the elder brother sought to rehash the sordid past of the prodigal’s sins with harlots. Even though the prodigal had left such sinful relationships and had humbled himself in repentance, the elder brother desired to benefit from his father by bringing it up again. Jesus even directed one of his parables “unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought” (Lk. 18:9). The Pharisee of the story was quick to notice and confess the sins of others, particularly those of the publican. As he compared himself with the publican, the Pharisee was lifted up in pride. He did not seek, as did the publican, the forgiveness of God and transformation of his life to the instructions of the divine standard (Rom. 12:1-2). Obviously, Jesus despises the practice of rejoicing over the sins of another.

We have seen how we should not react towards the sins of another, but what should we do? The apostle Paul addresses that question:

Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man thinketh himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself (Gal. 6:1-3).

If we are indeed “spiritual” ones, our place is to restore our brother or sister who has been defeated in a battle with sinful passions. Instead of looking down our noses at our brother, we should consider what it would be like if we were in our brother’s place and see that such a scenario is possible. If we are certain of our own invulnerability to such sin, we have deceived ourselves and our fall may be imminent (1 Cor. 10:12). We must strive to help our brethren with the load of temptation under which they fell. Such is our duty commanded by God!

Since God gave us the obligation of restoring others, we should seek to follow his example in fulfilling it. After Israel had sinned against God in every imaginable way, God still offered restoration through the message of his prophet in Isaiah 57. He promised, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite” (Isa. 57:15). God’s actions towards Israel were aimed at bringing such humility and contrition so that he might “restore comforts” unto them (Isa. 57:18). God’s actions towards man have always been governed by that goal – restoration of the humble and contrite.

Is that not also the goal he desires us to pursue with the brother or sister overtaken in a sin? A good example of the principle is seen in the way God declared the fornicating brother of I Corinthians 5 was to be handled. The faithful brethren were told to “deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul goes on to state that the same method was to be used for other cases where one refused to leave a sinful practice:

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

One might say that such cannot be done in the “spirit of gentleness ” previously instructed (Gal. 6:1). However, when Paul commands the same thing of the Thessalonians, he adds, “And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish im as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). Thus, God declares that congregational discipline can and must be done in a spirit which shows our brotherly affection towards one overtaken in sin. The aim of such action ought to mirror God’s goal – restoration of the humble and contrite.

When the brother of 1 Corinthians 5 responded in humility and contrition to the action taken, the next step in the process of restoration needed to be taken. Paul gave these instructions to the church:

Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him (2 Cor. 2:6-8).

It was time for them to help the brother grow in service to Christ, reassured by their love. A soul had been saved from death and a multitude of sins covered (Gal. 5:19-20). They were to act accordingly. The same principles should govern our actions today. When one of a truly humble and contrite heart turns from sin and ceases the sinful actions, God covers the sins up. Who are we to dig them up again, chew on the past, and regurgitate the details? Let us help “lift up the hands that hang down” and heal the lame (Heb. 12:12-13).

Regarding the restored brother or sister, as David’s penitential Psalms have helped others be restored, so can you as your contrite and broken spirit shows through to others.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 362-363
June 20, 1991