Balance, Division, and Unity

Last week's article examined the implications of a statement written in an otherwise fine article from the Christian Worker. This week will take a look at one written by Randy Duke, president of the Gospel Advocate, for the August, 2017 issue. Its title is, "Balance," and the main theme of the article is correct.

The president affirms that absolute truth exists and that Christians must keep God's commandments (5). He correctly points out that Jesus prayed for His followers to be united and that Paul also taught the same thing. It is also usually the case that: "Satan wins when we are divided." Of course, last week we noted that God was responsible for the division in Israel. Paul, a great encourager for all brethren to be united, also wrote: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (1 Cor. 11:19).

But generally speaking, we should, as brethren, be avoiding division and seeking to solve problems. The only hitch in saying these words (and this is not an indictment against Brother Duke) is that many more speak these words than practice them. In other words, many more people are crying out for unity than are actively pursuing it. It is one thing to call for unity and quite another to offer to help resolve a problem or serve as a mediator to discuss differences or encourage others to do so.

Duke suggests that those among us who have gained a knowledge of the truth have "taken that message and added to or subtracted from that doctrine to form our own theology of what God wants." He is correct and probably is referring to Liberalism and Anti-ism. No one has the right to take away from what the Scriptures teach; God's commands cannot be removed or ignored. He put them in the Book for a good reason. Many liberals refer to those of us who adhere to obedience (John 14:15; 2 John 6) as "legalists," although there is nothing wrong with the desire to obey God. If Noah had not done according to all that God had commanded (Gen. 6:22; 7:5), we would not be having conversations about grace (the only concept some think is important).

Likewise, God has authorized no one to add doctrines that must be adhered to upon threat of terminating fellowship. God did not forget to put in the Book various commands. He does not now need our help to spread the word of things He neglected to say. God, for example, did not say, "Don't eat in a church building." How do we know that? No one had church buildings in the first century, for starters. Obviously God never legislated, therefore, what its furnishings could be. Can we meet without heat or air conditioning? Yes, but it is a matter of judgment as to what we include. Some don't want a kitchen (stove, refrigerator), but that's a matter of judgment not a commandment.

Brother Duke asks how far is too far, and he lists several items that could be considered. He says he knows what he thinks about them, but the only thing he says matters is what God thinks about them. He is right of course, but what should brethren think about such matters? Let's consider each one.

One cup in the Lord's Supper.

It is true that Jesus blessed "the cup" (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 20; 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; 11:25). Because of these verses, some insist that only one cup can be used in communion. They apparently refuse to recognize the figure of speech known as metonymy, in which the container stands for its contents—in this case, the fruit of the vine. Jesus' body died on the cross, and His blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins. A cup had nothing to do with these two things; it only serves as a container, no matter how many cups are used.

Can anyone explain how one cup was used in Jerusalem when more than 5,000 members partook of the Lord's Supper? In the absence of clear-cut evidence on the matter, it is wrong to bind on all brethren everywhere that one cup must be used for all members to drink from. If a congregation wants to make that arrangement its practice, they certainly have the right to do so, but they have no authority to bind this method as a commandment when God did not ordain it.

A gymnasium.

Of the six things listed, this is the only one that will be left open-ended. Perhaps some will decide to make the best Scriptural case possible—taking all of these matters listed below into account and send it in. Is a gymnasium Scriptural? And if it is not, then ought we to withdraw fellowship from any church who has one? Usually, congregations of a more liberal nature build or buy them, and therefore other reasons exist for a lack of fellowship. But some conservative brethren also have one on their property.

On the one hand, many will rightly ask, "What business has a church got in building a gymnasium?" We may lament that such is not the work of the church and that having one rarely converts anyone, both of which are true. But while most of us would never be involved in such a situation, are we binding a commandment that is not in the Bible?

Churches are autonomous, and some things remain in the realm of judgment and expediency. Some church buildings have an expensive steeple. Most of us would not vote for that, either. While we might affirm that this is bad judgment and poor use of the Lord's money, the question remains, "Is it a sin?" Would it be all right for the church to build a library, a video store, a hospital, a school, or a café? In foreign fields, many brethren offer health clinics or provide education in order to get into the country to preach the gospel. What about any of these matters?

Instruments of music.

This is clearly going too far because it alters the nature of worship. Instruments add to the singing which God has commanded. We must have Scriptural authority for all that we do, and there is no authority for playing to accompany singing. Every instance in the New Testament—whether public or private worship (Eph. 5:19; Acts 16:25)—is found to mention singing only. The Bible only authorizes a practice in so many ways; in this case there is no command (or direct statement) to use instruments of music. Certainly, one cannot find an example of them being used in the New Testament, nor does any passage imply their use. Furthermore it is not an expedient to singing (as a pitch pipe is) because it alters the nature of the music that God desires. No, we cannot fellowship those who choose to use them.

Clapping.

This is only a subset of what was discussed above. The hands serve as a percussion instrument; usually they take the place of a drum; and they change the nature of the singing. Brethren who persist in this practice, after having studied the matter, should be withdrawn from. We are not inventing or binding a commandment God did not give; we are upholding the authority principle that He did give (Col. 3:17).

Women preaching.

Yes, it is going too far—because it tramples 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The acceptance in various denominations of female "priests," "preachers," "pastors," and "rabbis" has resulted mostly from the radical feminists of the '60s and '70s. Are men and women equal? Yes, in terms of worth and salvation (Gal. 3:27). They are not equal in physical strength, which is obvious. And God has designed for them to be submissive in the home and in the church (Eph. 5:22-25). Those churches who are allowing women to preach and be elders or deacons have loosed where God has not loosed. They cannot be fellowshipped.

The doctrine of inerrancy.

Hello. Those who do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant, and infallible cannot be considered as brethren. If we do not believe that the Scriptures are rock solid, why are we discussing any of these matters? Only it contains answers. Even if we occasionally have disagreements of interpretation on certain passages of Scripture, we all must believe and maintain that the Scriptures are right and our only authority (2 Tim. 3:16-17). What is the alternative?

Yes, we should avoid squabbles based on pride. And we should not become so bogged down in disagreements that we fail to take the gospel to the world. But to what shall we convert them? We do not want to make them twofold more a child of hell (Matt. 23:15). Your congenial columnist once worked with brethren who quenched any desire to be evangelistic. Why? We had two families who were into the charismatic movement. What would happen to new converts if they got hold of them? Finally, the men studied with those two families and eventually withdrew fellowship from them when they refused to repent.

Not dealing with a problem causes unrest and confusion in a congregation. After that matter was resolved, the church was able to resume its evangelistic focus. When problems arise, appropriate thought, discussion, and eventually action must be taken. This is part of balance. No accusation is being made toward Brother Duke, but some have promoted balance as an excuse for not dealing with problems.

Resolving Problems

First of all, Brother Moore said in the article noticed last week, that brethren "should not be suspicious of one another." This attitude has sometimes existed, and it is counterproductive. Would it not be better to assume that both parties of a disagreement have good motives even if their knowledge is imperfect? When it comes to a point where that is no longer the case, then something will have to be done. Either both parties can agree to disagree if it is a matter of opinion, or they will need to separate if it is a matter of Scripture.

Since we have all obeyed the one gospel, patience should be in evidence, and attitudes must be at their best. The problem is that too often an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude emerges, followed by an "us versus them" mentality. How are problems going to be resolved if accusations from each side are continuously hurled at each other? Those who have been involved in various disagreements can testify that these attitudes will probably not bring about reconciliation.

Personal feelings should be set aside in order to find out, "What is the truth of the matter? What are the facts? Is it a misunderstanding? Will apologies clear up what has occurred?" However, if it is a matter of what the Scriptures teach, then we should all desire to come to a better knowledge of the truth. It does not help for one to accuse the other of being Liberal while their opposition charges them with being Antis. What do the Scriptures say? Is it a matter of, "Thus saith the Lord"—or is it a matter of judgment? Issues involving judgment cannot suddenly be elevated to status of doctrine, nor can matters which the Scriptures discuss be relegated to a matter of judgment.

Above all, everyone should be approachable. Comments such as the following are inappropriate: "I'm not going to discuss that subject anymore; it was resolved years ago." Really? Then why is it still a matter of division? If unity is our goal, then why are some unwilling to take the time to discuss an issue? A wave of the hand to dismiss a problem does not work for Christians any more than it did for Antony Flew against Brother Warren. "Can't you just see that?" cannot replace the Bible.

Attempting to dismiss practically every disagreement as a matter of judgment wears thin pretty quickly. Let us all discuss an issue fairly and resolve it, or else determine that it is not going to be resolved. Then is the time to mark a false teacher (Rom. 16:17-18) and obey 2 John 9-11. Speaking of balance, how many congregations have marked anyone lately?