Download (ELBulletin05-20-12.pdf, PDF, 211.12KB)

Jesus recognized the obvious link between unity and its apologetic value upon unbelievers when he prayed, “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jn. 17: 21, ASV). The world was greatly impressed by the unity of Christ’s followers in the first century; it suggested the mutual recognition of a single authority. Hardly anyone is impressed these days as “Christendom” has been splintered into countless sects. And even among New Testament Christians, division and mistrust continue to weaken the gospel’s appeal to people who are searching for authoritative answers. “Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) is more than a trite clichév; it’s a divine mandate.

Brethren divide for many reasons, many of which are sinful. When a local church decides to separate amicably in order to begin a work in a new area, that’s great. But that’s not what we normally see. More often than not, local churches split because brethren refuse to get along, refuse to address their differences, refuse to humble themselves for the sake of Christ, refuse to respect one another as brethren should, or refuse to deny their own selfish ambitions. That’s sinful. The existence of many local churches in a given community isn’t necessarily evidence of a strong spiritual presence; it may prove just the opposite. When various handfuls of brethren isolate themselves and harbor enmity toward one another, it shames the Lord who bought them all, and discourages non-Christians from wanting to get involved in the mess. The Lord is not glorified by more real estate purchased under the guise of honoring Him.

 It’s interesting to note that for all the church problems recorded in the New Testament, we find no mention of a church ever splitting as they do these days. Surely that should teach us something about handling trouble.

One can only marvel at all the difficulties encountered by the Corinthian brethren. Yet for all their faults, it never seems to have occurred to them to split off and start a new congregation. And for all their errors and sins, Paul never even mentions that as a last resort, let alone the preferred option it might be today. What seems to be missing in so many brethren nowadays is a sense of “belonging” to one another, although scripture teaches it plainly. “Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Many of us no longer feel a “need” for each other and the responsibility that inheres in being brothers. “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. In love of the brethren be tenderly affectioned one to another; in honor preferring one another…” (Rom. 12:9,ff). Do these doctrines no longer apply to us? Are we exempt from first-century principles?

Sometimes brethren truly are troubled by doctrinal differences that rise to the boiling point. But even then, division may not be necessary. There is a long-standing misconception among some, that any error in one member of a local church necessarily taints the entire body. Consequently, if a brother embraces any error, the only way to save oneself is to correct the brother or leave. That’s not what the Bible teaches.

 If ever a local church seemed divided beyond all repair, it would have to be the church in Thyatira (Rev. 2). Jesus addressed this church personally and indicted them for allowing the false prophetess Jezebel to lure Christians into fornication and idolatrous acts. He further stated, “And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication” (vs. 21). This evil woman and her followers are condemned in the strongest possible terms that they might serve as an example to saints in other places (vs. 22-23). Yet after rebuking this church for tolerating such sin,8 Jesus says, “But to you I say, to the rest that are in Thyatira, as many as have not this teaching, who know not the deep things of Satan, as they are wont to say; I cast upon you none other burden. Nevertheless that which ye have, hold fast till I come” (vs. 24-25). These other brethren apparently had a good relationship with the Lord, despite their association with Jezebel and her ilk.

This letter from Jesus ought to teach us that we stand as individuals before God. The existence of error or sin in the life of a brother doesn’t accrue to us by virtue of association. Naturally, we are responsible for dealing with sin and error as the Bible teaches, and it may even be that Jesus’ letter to Thyatira is to be understood as a command to withdraw fellowship, as in 1 Corinthians 5, but the close proximity of sinners didn’t make all brethren sinners. That’s the point. And the question of leaving to start a new group was apparently not even an option. It should never be our first course of action.

At the same time, though, it should be observed that the sin in Thyatira involved the voluntary participation of weak brethren. Simply being in the same assembly is neither endorsement nor participation. However, there have been cases where brethren have tried to force others to participate in that which violates the conscience, and that’s a different matter altogether. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). No one should ever allow himself to be coerced into having an active part in anything he believes to be sinful. And if brethren concoct a scheme for congregational activities in which one’s very service to God makes him a participant in things he believes sinful, he may well have to leave. But not before doing all he can to set his brethren aright. Love and brotherhood demand it.

Sadly, doctrinal problems are NOT the cause of division most often, though that may be the story told later. How many times have we seen brethren search desperately for a “horse to ride out on,” seizing upon some misconstrued statement as an excuse for finding error in others? Then the tale is broadcast, “So-And-So is teaching…” when the fact is that people left because they had rotten attitudes, and had wanted to leave for a long time—but needed someone else to blame. Beware of anyone who tells you the whys and wherefores of a church split, when knowing only one side of the story. And beware anyone who gets on the phone to bad-mouth other brethren in an attempt to justify his separation from them. Men who are truly justified in their actions rarely feel the need for excessive self-justification.

Division is often the coward’s way out. It’s easier to walk away than to go to a brother with whom you have a problem. It’s easier to leave in a huff than to admit one’s own mistakes. It’s easier to blame others for one’s own sinful attitudes than to correct oneself. But just remember, when weak brethren just walk away, their weaknesses travel with them. The same sinful attitudes that caused trouble this time, will live to cause trouble tomorrow. Walking away resolves nothing.

Not only do we indict ourselves by refusing to correct arguments with brethren, we also injure the larger cause of Christ. Brethren upset over church problems won’t be very evangelistic. And no one in his right mind will want to get hooked up with a group that can’t get along with each other. Let’s never sacrifice the name of Christ for our own pettiness.

- Steve Dewhirst

by Mark White

Hardly anyone speaks of the conscience anymore. As a society, our conscience hardly even bothers us any longer. We have become so accustomed to all kinds of wrong and all types of filthiness that we don’t even now how to blush. A Christian, however, is a man who lives by a properly ordered, well-trained conscience. In fact, violation of one’s conscience is sinful (Rom. 14:23), even if no inherent wrong is involved. Meat-eating was not sinful, per se, but if one had scruples against it, Paul said he should not eat meat. The lesson: do not violate your conscience. If careful study of God’s word and earnest prayer causes you to change your scruples and allows you to begin eating meat, that’s perfectly fine. But if your conscience cries out in anguish at the very sight of a hamburger—leave it alone. It would be sinful for you to go contrary to this inner sense of right and wrong.

Why is scripture so insistent that the conscience not be violated? Paul always worked “to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (Acts 24:16). He paid attention to his conscience, made certain that he did not abuse it, and determined not to violate it. In order to secure a clean conscience, the blood of Jesus redeemed us (Heb. 9:12-14). Baptism is an “answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). Concerning deacons, 1 Timothy 3:9 says they must “hold the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.” The conscience, therefore, is a vessel, a container in which our faith is held.

This being so, we can understand the necessity of an unbroken, clean conscience. Deliberate violations of conscience rupture the container in which our faith is held! If we persist in violating our conscience, our faith will leak away like water from a cracked drinking glass. When you do what you know is wrong, you cannot have a pure conscience. Without an intact conscience, sensitive to the will of God (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2), we are destroying the very thing that will keep us in the faith. 1 John 3:21-22 says, “If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things pleasing in His sight.”   

— Bible Viewpoint

Vacation Bible School

June 18 – 22, 2012

The “I AMs” of Jesus