"Mind Your Own Business?"
Although Jovan Payes makes some good points in his article, "Mind Your Business," which appeared in the June issue of the Gospel Advocate, this review will take the position that he pushed his thesis beyond what the Scriptures teach. He opens by decrying the concept of church politics, and we could not agree more. The church belongs to Jesus—not us. Paul did not instruct Timothy and Titus how to play politics as part of their preparation for preaching the gospel. The goal of every church member ought to be to honor Jesus and the truth that is revealed to us in the New Testament. Therefore, we ought to commend someone for upholding the truth and challenge those who do not. Some who do not are false teachers through and through, but others have temporarily misspoken.
After citing examples of ego problems on the part of the disciples (36), Brother Payes discusses Jude 3. This is one place where, in order to make a valid point, he seems to go too far. He rightly says that Jude 3 has been abused and misapplied, but then he seems to try to rob it of its meaning by saying that those to whom Jude is writing should remain faithful "to the content of the faith" and let God judge the false teachers (37). Uh, no, that is not what Jude wrote. He exhorted them
to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 3b-4).
There is a vast difference between remaining faithful to the content of our faith and contending earnestly for the faith. Concerning the word translated "contend," the following information may be helpful. When Jude puts the preposition epi in front of the verb form, agonizomai, this addition modifies the word in some aspect. What, then, does the preposition do? According to W. E. Vine, "The word 'earnestly' is added to convey the intensive force of the preposition" (1:233). Therefore, not only are Christians supposed to contend; they are to fight in earnest—not as if they have no stake in the outcome. Our reward depends upon the effort we put forth (2 Tim. 4:7-8).
That being the case, how could Jude be urging such earnest striving in one breath, but in the next be saying, "But don't worry about it; God will take care of those fellows"? Is that what Paul was saying in Romans 16:17-18? Did he say to mark certain men who were causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine they had learned—so that God would take care of the rascals (Rom. 16:17-18)? Are we supposed to mind our own business and just let these men deceive brethren? Do we put on the whole armor of God only to sit around and watch the Lord fight?
Confronting Apostasy
The author continues his faulty analysis of Jude 3 by ridiculing those whom he calls the "J. Edgar Hoovers" of the brotherhood. Perhaps he has not seen any congregations fall prey to liberal theology, but many of us have. Perhaps our problem has been minding our own business too much. He advocates "the best way to deal with false teaching" is "staying busy with our own work and minding our own business" (37).
Such a tactic defies reality. To paraphrase John Donne, "No congregation is an island, entire of itself." We are all part of the brotherhood. This preacher was minding his own business, focusing on his own work four decades ago, when he was apprised of another congregation in the area that intended to host a "soul-winning workshop." Having worked in an Ivan Stewart campaign, this sounded like an interesting venture. Suddenly those who had never attended a single one of our gospel meetings wanted us to participate with them on this work of theirs, culminating in an area-wide worship in which all the brethren in the area would meet together on a Sunday morning. We declined to participate in that aspect of it, and every year we had visitors on that Sunday.
But the point is this: We are individual congregations, and we do focus on our own work, but brethren host workshops and gospel meetings, and we have to decide whether or not to fellowship them. Time was when that could be safely done—but not any longer. Our brethren are not letting us mind our own business. In this area they have a program for youth called Sonquest. One preacher was made physically sick after attending one of them. Clapping hands during the singing of spiritual songs was, perhaps, the least offensive practice. The speaker made a mockery of the Lord's Supper. The visiting preacher chose not to attend again. If conservative brethren all minded their own business, would these travesties come to an end?
Is the one who wrote the article for the Gospel Advocate not aware of history, including books published by the GA? Does he not know about the missionary society and the introduction of instrumental music into a body that was united before these things surfaced? Who invaded the work of each local congregation? Was it not the missionary society, who wanted all local congregations to participate in their program?
When churches in an area began to adopt the instrument, were brethren in other churches supposed to ignore it, remain silent, and let God fight the battle? Thankfully, they did not. Should they have supported the meetings of the digressives and pretend they did not hear mechanical music? And what ought brethren do today when congregations appoint deaconesses? Just mind their own business?
Who Is a Meddler?
The author of the article moves on to 1 Peter 4:15, where Peter encourages brethren to be faithful in the face of persecution. If they suffer as a Christian, such is acceptable but they should not suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer or as a busybody/meddler in other people's matters. The last word in the list is interesting; it indicates that the meddler acts as an overseer in other men's affairs. While it is true that some have attempted to exercise such control over others in the church, it cannot be thought that this was Peter's primary meaning. Consider the other three words: a murderer, a thief, and an evildoer.
These three things would be known by the community, and if one who was a Christian suffered for these offenses, it would not look good for the cause of Christ. A Christian should not suffer because of being known for having committed such offenses. Now what about the fourth one? In the context, we must assume that this transgression would also be known by the community. This cannot refer to a possible overreach by the elders within a congregation—or trying to impose oneself on another congregation. The world would not likely know of such matters. It was a worldly meddling.
But how is meddling within a church or within a brotherhood to be defined? It might depend on whose ox is being gored. What comes to mind is the old story about a new preacher who was complimented on some of his sermons, but when he preached against tobacco, one of the sisters said, "He has quit preachin' and gone to meddlin'." Elders have the responsibility to feed the flock and to guard them from wolves. So if someone comes to the area and is a known false teacher, they are justified to inform the congregation of the facts. Would some call that meddling?
A few years ago, an area congregation had scheduled a Ladies' Day with a woman, whose biography seemed a bit suspicious. Preachers at another congregation did some digging and discovered that she was linked with Abilene Christian University and Rubel Shelly. They shared that information with the host church, who in turn contacted her; she proudly and unapologetically admitted that Rubel Shelly was one of her closest friends. She volunteered not to come, and they were saved from an unenviable situation. Was that meddling? Don't brethren have a right to know the facts? No one told them what to do; they made that decision on their own.
It would be very easy to call names, such as "the overseer of brotherhood affairs" in such instances. One fellow used to call everyone he disagreed with the pope of the church in that area. Such epithets are not helpful. Just because some have overstepped their bounds does not mean that everyone who sounds a legitimate warning is a "brotherhood watchdog." Satan has found hundreds of ways to pervert the truth; we ought not take the subject lightly when the souls of men and women are at stake.
Diotrephes
Diotrephes was a bully, as Payes contends. What else can you call someone who refuses to accept an inspired apostle? He seems to be of the opinion: "This congregation is mine, and I will run it whatever way I please." In no way can such behavior be construed as trying to do what is best for the church. He thinks the church belongs to him instead of Jesus, Who actually died for her (Acts 20:28). Diotrephes lacked even a modicum of humility and cannot be defended on any grounds.
However, one need not be an elder or preacher to possess those characteristics. In some instances Brother Bigbucks controlled a congregation by threatening to take his support elsewhere. He has probably had a preacher or two fired and has put himself forth for consideration as an elder. Or it may be that such an individual is always causing a problem, and brethren just let him have his way so they won't have to deal with another tantrum. Most of the time these "brethren" never grow in God's grace or in the faith.
Exposés
The article closes with complaints about brotherhood magazines who do "excessive numbers of exposés about this school or that preacher rather than teaching what the Bible says" (38). Since the writer lives in California, one wonders, "Does he mean Pepperdine, which led the way into apostasy?" Surely not. But here again things are made our business. "Christian" universities cry out for funds with which to operate; they also need students. From where do they get them? If we all minded our own business, they would all fail. Since they have made themselves our business, we ought to be alarmed if they begin to teach theistic evolution or question the distinctiveness of the church built by Jesus.
John wrote about preachers who do not bring the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). Paul said to mark such men (Rom. 16:17-18). He warned brethren specifically about Hymenaeus and Philetus. Are we supposed to mind our own business while they continue to "overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. 2:17-18)? Or would not an exposé be helpful—especially when their own words are quoted? Many recorded Max Lucado's own words and were chastised for "misunderstanding" him. Faithful brethren did not misunderstand him; they understood him all too well.
Payes asks why people write those exposés. "For what purpose? To establish unity?" (38). No, two reasons exist: 1) to give the institution the opportunity to make corrections or the false teacher to repent; 2) to safeguard the church. Both of these reasons exist for withdrawing fellowship in 1 Corinthians 5. And in that instance it did produce unity; the man living with his father's wife repented. On a personal level, many conflicts could be avoided, but when someone teaches error publicly (either orally or in written form), then a public correction is needed. Love for the church demands it.