A "Theoretical" Problem

This is a response to a recent article on an important topic. Even though many specific details could be supplied, the goal here is to keep emotions and personal attachments from getting in the way han offer a different perspective than the view presented in said article. Many will know immediately what problem is under consideration, but many will not.

Let's say that Brother A took a position that many brethren disagreed with. He not only espoused such a view, he presented a sermon (which remains available on the Internet after 30 years) in favor of it. This defense of a practice most brethren did not agree with caused division in Brother A's own congregation. And for many years thereafter, it was reported that the church learned a valuable lesson and that this church would never engage that particular practice again. And they did not—until 13 years later.

This time about 135 members left and went to various other congregations in the area. About this same time, Brother A also departed and moved on to a different work. Some thought those in authority at this new work might want to know about the situation he had left; so, they communicated with the one who was then in charge. He was totally disinterested in hearing anything negative.

Within a short time, however, he was no longer the head of that work, and Brother A was put in control of it. At this point, some became even more vocal in their opposition to Brother A, who had never admitted that he was in error on the afore-mentioned issue. The congregation he had left provided a statement saying that they were wrong in practicing what they did, but Brother A did not add his name to theirs. No, in fact he issued his own statement trying to justify the teaching that remains on the Internet.

In various places, there began to be individuals and groups who supported Brother A and those who opposed the position he espoused. Your congenial editor had no personal ill will against Brother A, but his position was causing division which seemed as though it might be resolved. A letter was sent to Brother A, urging him to meet with brethren with a view toward solving the matter. No reply was ever received. Another brother—one well-known and well-qualified to write on the subject—sent a similar letter to Brother A, which also went unanswered.

Two Options

One would think there were two alternatives in dealing with this situation. One is that brethren close to Brother A would tell him that this situation needed to be resolved. After all, if his view were correct, then everyone should stand behind him and ask those opposed to it to withdraw their criticism.

However, if he was in error on this point, he needed to say something like, "Brethren, I'm sorry I took this position. It was something I got caught up in without thinking it all the way through. Neither did I realize the division such a position would bring about. I now realize the Scriptures do not support such a view. Henceforth, I repent and stand opposed to what I formerly believed." This admission would have brought brethren on both sides back to unity.

Neither of these two possibilities occurred. A third and a fourth possibility opened up. One of these was to ignore the situation. If anyone raised an objection about Brother A, then they too were ignored. Now, the reader may suspect that such an approach was not Biblical, but it occurred nevertheless. Jesus said that, when a person realizes that a brother has something against him, he should go to him and resolve the situation (Matt. 5:23-24). If Brother A has ever practiced this principle, it is a well-kept secret. Jesus also taught that an offended brother should confront a brother, and if he does not hear him, take others (Matt. 18:15-17). But whatever efforts have been made in that regard have not borne any fruit.

Attacks

A fourth response, incredibly, was to attack those trying to find a Biblical solution to the problem. One person characterized the opposition as being "as vile a group, and I do mean vile, as I have ever read after in my life." One accused us of being liars, and another said we didn't know what we were talking about. No proof was offered for any of these charges. Yet another brother tried to slip an unsavory label on us, which did not then and still does not fit. Still, he thought it appropriate to bring it up again.

A few people may have attacked Brother A personally, and if so, this approach was wrong. But the vast majority only dealt with the issue. Believe it or not, one brother, whose name many would know, called and talked to your congenial editor for 40 minutes of a 45-minute conversation. Yours truly (try hard to imagine this) grew speechless when he was asked, "Well, suppose Brother A does believe what he taught, is it worth dividing the brotherhood over?"

The response was, "Seriously?" From the very first day visiting the Lord's church, the operating philosophy has always been, "What does the Bible say? The facts matter." Except when they don't, apparently. My response was probably incoherent; in my wildest imagination, I never could have envisioned such a question. But it does explain how some have never taken a stance on the original issue. Is it the case, after all, as postmodernists insist, that truth doesn't matter? That may be the case when it comes to Brother A. Does the end indeed justify the means?

Proper Responses

It never occurred to this writer to attack Brother A personally. In fact, he is competent and capable and has done good work. Neither he nor his family deserve personal attacks despite the fact that those of us opposing his teaching on this one subject have received them. We have only focused on the area of disagreement. One should ask, however, why his supporters don't comment on the doctrinal issue and instead hurl epithets at those who have challenged his teaching. As has often been pointed out, "Those who have an argument call it forth; those who do not call names."

There was a time when brethren used to be concerned about doctrine; the evidence indicates that many still are. We once cited Jude who exhorted brethren "to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (v. 3). Are there some teachings that are no longer part of the faith? Are there some teachers that have exemptions for some of their doctrines?

Many were once so stringent that they insisted on a strict adherence to: "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God…" (2 John 9). Does Brother A's teaching fall within the realm of the doctrine of Christ? If it does, he should not be received into any brother's house. If it does not, then he should be fellowshipped. But should we fellowship someone who has made a departure from the Scriptures? Or doesn't it matter?

Most brethren apparently still believe 2 John 9-11 and Jude 3; they cite these verses in their articles and in lectureship books. One wonders if they thought of Brother A when they employed these words. Perhaps, they don't see any relevance or are even unaware of the situation. But if they do remember, then isn't the appropriate question to ask, "Why, after 20 years, has this teaching not been dealt with? Why hasn't the division been resolved?"