Bob
Owen on Fellowship
Fellowship
Bob
Owen
Temple
Terrace, FL (August 30, 1993)
The same good God of Heaven, who created heavens and earth and according to Paul in Acts 17, set the bounds of the habitation of man; He could arrange the affairs of nations, and could be instrumental in the rise and the fall of a nation. That same God, who made heaven and earth, and can organize nations, did so when he formed his special family of the Jewish state. And God was perfectly capable of organizing an entire nation, and directing their affairs. But when he sent his Son to the earth, through his precious blood, he established a spiritual kingdom. And God did not see fit to establish some international or national organization of the peoples on earth. But in his wisdom, he brings his people together in what we commonly call local congregations, described in a variety of ways in Scripture. The picture that comes best to my mind, and I think in our own context most accurately describes the relationship within such group, is that of the term "household". But you and I don't talk about households, except when somebody is reading the Scripture. We call them "families." And local congregations are families of believers, structured together by the wisdom of God, to give assistance to Christians in particular locations, to teach one another, bear one another's burdens, share their joys and sorrows, and help each other go to heaven. And in that structure, God has necessarily placed upon us a responsibility of choosing associates. And it is incumbent upon Christians and collectively in congregations for them to exercise what we commonly call "fellowshipping". Tonight, we're going to be talking about some of the parameters in Scripture that deal with the bases of that kind of "fellowshipping".
It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on God's word on any occasion. I am honored and pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this occasion. I'm honored to be with the group of men who have been sharing the pulpit during the week. And although I was not here on the Lord's day, I've heard the other speakers this week. And rejoice in that. I must though, make some observation with regard to my topics. Brother Cunningham talked about the "old" soldier of the Cross, and maybe that was, the idea is, well, he is about gone anyway, so let's just use him and get the thing over with now. When the topics were assigned, I was given two subjects. I wasn't really sure whether they felt that I didn't know enough to say about one, so they give me two and maybe that would, uh, take care of the situation for me. Or whether it was a matter, we'll just put both of these together, and then we'll let happen what will happen.
The two particular topics that I was asked to discuss tonight are these: "How should brethren treat one another when they differ." Specifically, "Can we fellowship one another when we differ?", and secondly, "What is a false teacher?" Unless you've been on Patmos with John recently, you're fully aware that both of these subject matters have been written about, debated about, spoken about, and differed upon, extensively throughout our brotherhood in recent years. Both of them are current issues. Both of them are critical issues. And, I welcome the opportunity to talk with you about what I understand Scripture to teach on these topics. I hope you detect from the manner of presentation and if you don't, let me say it up front, I never try to present something as though I am the end of all wisdom. Quite to the contrary. But as we talk about these things, I will be offering to you what I understand from Scripture to be the teaching on these matters. And all I urge is, your careful, prayerful hearing and then your own study and evaluation and application of the principles that are involved.
I would like to take just a second to talk about the difference between the church in a universal sense, and the church in a local sense. Though those terms are so common to us, but the universal church is simply that reference to all believers, all scripturally baptized believers, those who have been born again into the family of God, at any time and place. The universal church has no organizational structure on earth. God could have done it that way. If he organized Israel, if he can cause the rise and fall of a nation, He could have elected, for some kind of national, brotherhood organization. He didn't. But He did frame us together in what are called local churches. Now when one obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ, and is forgiven of his sins, and born into the family of God, the Scripture uses the expression that he is added to the church. Brethren, that's added to the church in the universal sense. Participation and acceptance makes a person a part of a local congregation. When the Eunuch obeyed the gospel. He became a Christian, he became part of the universal body. But when he would begin to work and worship with other brethren, he would have what we call local fellowship. God adds us to the church in the universal sense. We exercise some option with regard to membership in a local congregation, and the local congregation exercises an option to the acceptance of us. So local fellowshipping becomes a matter of decision making by the individuals who are involved in that fellowshipping. God really doesn't add you to the local congregation. He adds you the to church in the universal sense. And then you participate with a local group and they accept you into that fellowship. And that makes you part in that local congregation. I hope you don't infer from that, that I'm saying, you don't need to do that latter, certainly you do. God organized it and structured it that way. But one of the things that alarms me, is what may be a disposition for us to become more concerned about the universal concept of brotherhood, than we are the local congregational arrangement of fellowshipping. And although I go hither, thither and yon, at opportunity and preach the gospel , and try to preach the same things everywhere, and although I fully believe that the law of God is the same for all of us everywhere, God has not organized us into the brotherhood. He organized us in local congregations. And I think we should be wary of those who would try to spend their time and effort directing the brotherhood as opposed to simply preaching and teaching truth.
I won't take the time, you could enjoy it, because it would be an interesting Uh, uh, trip, but in 1986, the Boston church in its weekly bulletin carried a series of articles entitled "Progressive Revelation." And that title ought to scare us to death. Progressive Revelation. And in that they argued that one of the greatest, one of the greatest weapons in Satan's arsenal, was the concept of congregational autonomy. And they proceeded to argue that we needed to be thinking in terms of brotherhood leaders, and brotherhood preachers, rather than the idea of local congregations. Do I need to tell you where they've gone with that kind of concept. We need to be warned.
I'm talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I'm doing it in a context of a series of discussions on the marriage question. Maybe many of you came tonight expecting me to take all of the old problems in marriage and to go down the check list and tell you what ought to be done in each of these problem areas. I don't have all those answers. And even if I did, that's not the intention of my approach tonight at all. But lest anybody lift anything that I say and try to imply from it that I am soft on some certain issue, or that I am at variance maybe with the speakers that you've heard here with regard to the marriage question, I want to state briefly, that it is my conviction that marriage is for life and that the only scriptural basis for the breaking of the union and forming another while the partners live , is that of fornication. Only unfaithfulness gives the party the right to put the other away and to be married to another. I further believe that God's moral laws are applicable to all men. And that the gospel of Christ is the power to answer the problem of sin that comes upon mankind as a violation of the general premises of right and wrong that God has always had. And I concur with the views that have been expressed that from the beginning, God has made marriage for life, for one man and for one woman. Now whatever I may say with regard to the other issues tonight, I hope no one takes it and tries to imply a suggestion that we ought to ignore, vary from, or be soft on the issues of divorce and remarriage or any other doctrinal problem in Scripture.
But brethren we are talking tonight about the question of fellowshipping. A very good friend of mine, and a man that I admire and respect greatly, wrote a little tract that is called "How shall we treat brethren with whom we disagree." That's exactly the topic that I am dealing with tonight. But brother Earl Kimbrough, who's with us tonight and on the front row (maybe he's here to defend himself, I don't know), wrote this tract some time ago, sent me a copy recently right after I got this topic for the church. And I thought maybe he'd heard what I was supposed to do and, and, just sent me my information. I called him immediately, and he said , "No," that was not the case. Brother Kimbrough is an excellent student of the word of God. He is also a superb historian, particularly with regard to Restoration History, and the history of our brethren. And sometime ago, months ago, years ago, perhaps, he sat down and wrote this little paper, against the backdrop of the marriage and divorce issue. And this particular paper tracks, I think in a very brief, but and concise but clear way the general problems that have existed among our brethren and what we historically have done with those problems. This, divorce and remarriage is not a new issue. It's an old, old issue. I heartily endorse the material that brother Kimbrough has in this little paper. I bragged about it. He had just put it together. Some people had said they'd like to have a copy. I think he printed a hundred copies. He gave me about half of those. I brought a box of them tonight. They're up here on the platform. That's not fair to the ones that sit in the back row, but we've been telling you all the time you ought to sit on the front row. (Audience laughter). And I would recommend that at least a copy or two get in the hands of the elders of the congregation here, but a couple of them are right down front, and if they can't move fast, well that's their trouble. But he allowed them to be handed out. I've suggested that he 's going to have to print some more, because everybody is going to want a copy, it is excellent material. But it presents some material primarily from the aspect of here is what brethren have done. Here is how they have handled this problem in the past. I'm dealing with it tonight, not just on the basis of historically what have we done, but I'm trying to look, and you hope it will be briefly, I'm trying to look briefly at the issues of what is a false teacher, and what are the parameters for congregational fellowshipping. Now in our context, I know everybody's mind is on marriage and divorce. I'm not going to specifically address those issues, or only those issues, but to talk in general terms about the premises and teaching of the scripture with regard to , uh, fellowshipping issue.
I want to begin with the discussion of the matter of what is a false teacher. Words are labels. And words can change their meanings. And they can be used in different ways at different times. And labels can take on unique or special implication and meaning. Just think about what's really there when you say, "I'm going to eat a hot dog." When I was a kid growing up, way back in the dark ages, brother Cunningham, when I was a kid growing up the word "gay" was a very commonly used and a very acceptable term. People were complimented when they were described as being gay people. And often you would hear the expression, we had a gay ol' time. That was one of the ways you said you had a good time. We had a gay ol' time. It describes somebody who is happy. Who is pleasant. Who is out going. Brother Buddy Payne preached here for a long time. And in my association with him, I'd pick him as one of the people that I think of when I think of people who are really happy all the time, and pleasant, and nice kind of guy. The term gay, in its legitimate sense would certainly belong to Buddy Payne. What if I sat down and wrote a letter to somebody across the country, and certainly went out to an editor of a paper, but, or , you know, but, what if I wrote a letter to somebody across the country and said it just these words: Temple Terrace church had a preacher who is gay, but he's gone now.
The term "false teacher" has sometimes been interpreted to mean well, huh, if anybody teaches anything not right. And taken on the surface, that's what those two words mean, isn't it. But the term "false teacher" is used in Scripture very sparingly and it's not used in the context of just somebody who teaches something that you don't agree with, or that is wrong. As a matter of fact, there's really only one passage, 2 Peter 2, and we'll get there in a moment that specifically talks about the term "false teacher."
But the same concept exists in some other places. For example, in 2 Corinthians 11, Paul talked about those who were enemies of the gospel and who were troublesome to him and said, "and no marvel for such men are false apostles deceitful workers fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ, and no marvel for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It's no great thing therefore, that his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness whose end shall be according to their works." Paul describes in this false apostles and adds the definition or description , they were deceitful workers. In Philippians the first chapter, in verse 15, Paul said, "some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife, and some also of good will." Here was somebody preaching Christ but doing it for a totally wrong motive. He was doing it of envy and good will. Look if you will with me at Titus the first chapter and a longer description is given of some people who fit this category. In Titus one, beginning in verse 10, Paul says for there are many unruly men, vain talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped. Men who overthrow whole houses teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake. One of them, a prophet of their own said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true for which cause reprove them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure. To them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure. But both their minds and their conscience are defiled. They profess that they know God, but by their works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work, reprobate." What's Paul describing? Is he describing somebody that just differs on some issue? Or is he describing people who are unruly, vain talkers and deceitful. Who are laboring for filthy lucre's sake. Whose very character is described as abominable and disobedient and who are unto every good work reprobate. Those were called people to be warned against. They were false teachers.
Now open your Bibles to 2 Peter the second chapter. I have no idea that you could read the text from that, but you can read your text as we read. It's a lengthy chapter. And Paul, or Peter in it is describing some that he uses the label, "false teachers." And we are raising the question, what is a false teacher? It would be a simple matter and say, anybody teaches something not right. And under a technical definition, that would fit. Look at the use of the term in this passage. "for there arose false prophets also among the people. As among you there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the master that bought them bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious ways or their lascivious doings by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of and in covetousness, shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you, whose sentence now from of old lingereth not. And their destruction slumbereth not." In verse four, he starts some illustrations that God doesn't tolerate this. He casts down angels, He destroyed the world in Noah's day, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Drop down to verse 9, "The lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment. But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement. And despise dominion, daring, self willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities, whereas angels, though greater in might and power bring not a railing judgment against them before the Lord. But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant shall in their destroying surely be destroyed. Suffering wrong as the hire of wrong doing. Men that count it pleasure to revel in the day time. Spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceivings while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin enticing unstedfast souls having a heart exercised in covetousness, children of cursing forsaking the right way, they went away after the, and followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the hire of wrong doing. But he was rebuked for his own transgression, a dumb ass spake with a man's voice and stayed the madness of the prophet. These were springs without water mists driven by a storm, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of vanity they entice in the lusts of the flesh by lasciviousness those who are just escaping from them that live in error, promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption. For of whom a man is overcome for of the same is he also brought into bondage. For if after they've escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse than the first" and so on...
Peter's description is a very strong one. Would it be fair to say, a false teacher is anybody who teaches something that I consider error or that you consider error? You may not be able to see all of this overhead, but I will read the appropriate words. In no particular order, I have collected a few, not a lot, and by no means all, of issues that have troubled brethren for generations. Questions like artificial coverings for a woman in a worship service. Every service? Prayer only? Carnal warfare. Can a man participate at all in the military? Can he , must he be a conscientious objector? Can he go and serve just in the medics? non-combatant? Or, the use of the church building for weddings or funerals? What about having a television in your house.? I hadn't heard many sermons on it recently, but I remember sermons where it was wrong to have a TV at all. Now if you got one, is it all right to watch a PG movie? What about a R rated one or how about an afternoon soap opera? When I was a kid growing up, there used to be extensive discussion on whether it would be right for the kids to get out and play ball on Sunday afternoon. That was the Lord's day, and we had enough carry-overs of the attitude of the , uh, of the Sabbath day that you weren't suppose to do anything except cook and eat chicken on that day. How about the Christmas problem? Can Christians observe that pagan holiday by exchanging gifts? How about having a tree or singing carols? Or have the observance of a Halloween, can your kids go trick and treating? and wear a devil's suit? How about Christians singing a hymn along with a piano, in the home maybe? Or listening to one on the radio? Or using the piano while they learn a song's tune? Serving in the government, can you vote? hold office? be a policeman? What about women's roles? In the market place, can she be in management? Could she serve in the government? Could she be Governor? What about Madam President? And modest apparel, who defines how long is long, huh, how short is short? or whatever? Now brethren, I want to ask you a question. What's the law of God on those things? You know just as well as I do Scriptures can teach something now. And if I were to write on one side of this board, faith and the other side opinion, or law and indifference, you know and I know that there are brethren who are on both sides of every one of those issues. And probably, there are brethren in this audience tonight who are on different sides of many of those issues. Now I want to ask a question. Is the guy that teaches something different than you a false teacher? You have to say, you don't believe he's teaching truth, huh. Does he deserve the label, he's gay? Or has the term false teacher been used in scripture as descriptive of a particular type of person? I believe that to be the case. Now we're going to come back to this list in a minute. Don't forget it.
What did Peter say? 2 Peter 2, where the label false teacher is actually used, Peter talked about people privately bringing in destructive heresies. The term heresy is a lot stronger than just somebody that may differ on a topic. Denying even the master. Think of the attitude and the character of the people that are described here. Lascivious doings. So lascivious that their behavior is such that they cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of. I've got some dear friends with whom I differ over the covering question. It is absolutely incredible to say that because those people differ with me over the covering issue, that they fit the description that's given here, and that their manner of life would cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of. And that they are covetous , and they act with feigned words, that's fake words. And that they make merchandise of the brethren. And walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement. Because he differs with me over whether you can give a Christmas gift or not? Or that in the further definition, that they despise dominion. Here's the picture of a ranked rebel, whose attitude is you're not going to tell me what to do. Daring and self-willed, who rail at dignities. The term dignity there is not talking about the President or the elders. It's talking about their attitude toward God. And uses the illustration that the angels wouldn't even do this kind of thing. And yet they hesitate not to do it. They count it pleasure to revel in the day time. The idea is they're sensuous, their hearts are not tuned to God at all. Eyes full of adultery and so on... Would it be fair in light of the Biblical use of the term, to say everybody that teaches something that I differ with or we differ with on all of those issues, bears the label, quote, "He's a false teacher" ? Brethren, there's a world of difference in a conscientious, godly person reaching a different conclusion from a careful and prayerful study of a passage than I've reached. There's a world of difference in that and the description that Peter has given. Now if somebody else listens to that it may sound like I have just joined Carl Ketcherside, and I'm saying that we ought to just throw the blanket of kindness and love over everybody and there ought to be no problem with just accepting anybody that believes anything. I hope you know in advance that I don't believe that. And I hope you know that I know the Scriptures don't teach that.
So we're going to turn our attention for a moment now to the issue of congregational fellowshipping, and the matter of withdrawing of fellowship. Somewhere up here there's another di..., there's a, uh, uh, an overhead that I had awhile ago that disappeared like they do in my office when I put something down, it's just gone, and I don't know where it went. Through the years we've differed over a number of matters. We've differed over instruments of music in the worship. Christians in carnal warfare, or head covering, and Christmas trees and Halloweens. And church donations to organizations like the orphan homes, and the use of missionary societies. Why is it that on some of these issues, a division has occurred among brethren? On other issues, we have had differences for years and years and years, and yet congregations have not divided over them, not generally. And that brethren have been able to work and worship together in the framework of the same congregation even though they differ over some of these matters. Why? Brethren, one of the explanations is there is something different in the very application or nature of those topics. The three that are on this side, the use of instruments of music in the worship, donations to the homes and the use and support of missionary societies necessarily involves group activity. We're talking about congregational action. The ones on the other side, are talking about matters that are practiced on an individual basis. Where one Christian might go in the military and the other Christian might file as a conscientious objector, and stay home. One Christian lady might wear an artificial covering in the worship service as a conviction before God, and another lady sitting next to her just as honest and sincere has her head uncovered, and feels that she is doing what God teaches. Neither of them compromises the other. Now they differ. They don't believe the same things. And if the question comes up in a Bible class, each could express her own view. And unless one or the other or both of them become factious, and demanding, and wedge driving, they could express their views, continue to practice individually and not compromise each other and not divide the church. But you can't bring a piano up here, and put it on this side of the building and say now everybody that thinks it's all right sit over on this side of the building. And the ones that think it's wrong, you sit on the other side, and we'll play it on this side. It obviously involves all of us at the same time. When you take money out of the treasury and send it to the missionary society or to the orphan home, you necessarily commit the group, it's group money, not private money. There is a difference between individual action and collective action. Now can we step back and say, "OK, we ought never divide over private matters, or individual matters? No, that's not a sufficient answer.
So let me suggest in the Scripture there are some cases discussed in detail where brethren had some differences of conviction. They differed in their belief. They differed in their practice. And yet they not only could continue to fellowship, but they were taught by Paul, the Lord through Paul, that they should continue to fellowship. I Corinthians 8 and 10 is usually the more familiar passage. There was a time a few years ago that if you went to a congregation on Sunday morning and sat in the adult Bible Class, if they weren't studying the book of Acts, you knew they were in I Corinthians. Or if they weren't in I Corinthians, you knew they were in Acts. We have gotten a little broader in recent years, and I am glad for that. But the First Corinthian letter has been a frequent topic of study, and well it should be. It deals with a lot of principles and teachings that we need to be constantly on guard for. In I Corinthians chapters 8 and 10, Paul dealt with that issue of eating of meats that had been sacrificed to idols. I don't have to discuss this in detail, you remember the case. Some brethren felt that if they ate that meat that had been sacrificed to an idol, that they were indirectly therefore, worshipping the idol. So they thought it was wrong to eat the meat. Paul said, there's really nothing wrong with the meat. But if you think there's something wrong with it, and you eat it, you would be sinning. Violating your conscience is a sin. And he further warned, let not the one who knows it all right to eat, behave in such a way as to prod the other fellow in to doing it in violation of his conscience. That's causing him to stumble. It's not just a matter of , don't you ever eat it again, but don't let your behavior become something that pushes the other fellow to a violation of his conscience.
In Romans the fourteenth chapter, a similar a principle is discussed, two illustrations are involved. One was the eating of meats. Now these were not meats sacrificed to idols, but meats in general. Maybe a hangover of the Old Jewish prohibition of the eating of blood and the theory being, that if you ate any kind of meat you would be getting the blood, therefore don't eat any kind of meat. I don't know just how they arrived at their conclusion, but some brethren thought it was a sin to eat any kind of meat, so they ate herbs. They were vegetarians. Others came along and said, no there's nothing wrong with that meat, and they ate it . And Paul describes it that when they practiced these things, each does it to the Lord, and out of his own conviction and conscience. So, one man sits down to eat the meat, and thanks God for that meat. The other fellow sits down at a table, and out of respect to the same God, refuses to eat meat, and he eats only vegetables. Paul's analysis is, let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, judge or condemn him that eateth. That each one would stand or fall unto his own Lord. And many brethren today have come along and have said, "These passages can not be applied to any matter where the Scripture teaches on it." The only thing that they, that this, these passages can be used to answer, are matters of indifference. Those are our terms. And I have heard this preached. I can show it to you in print and you can too. You know it. They say it's only on matters of indifference. The brethren who think any or all of those things are wrong, and by the way there are some on that list that I think are wrong. I'm not going to go down give you the check, I'm not going to give the church of Christ creed. The brethren who think things on that list are wrong, believe it on the same basis that that fellow in Rome thought it was wrong to eat meat. He believes that's what God teaches. That's what the Scripture teaches. Now others come along and say, "oh well those are matters of indifference". Now I want to ask you this, whose got the list? Who has the approved list. And I have asked that to some people and they'd say, "Why the Bible." Well, of course that's true. But who's got the definitive list that tells me which is right on each one of those, and all the other questions that exists before us. The brethren who say that the principles of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 and 10, can only be applied in matters that are matters of indifference, have effectively eliminated those passages for any application within our brotherhood. Because the difference that exists among brethren, exists because one says its a matter of Law. And the guy who says it's a matter of law, cannot come along and say, " Well, we'll fellowship because it's a matter of indifference." He doesn't think it's a matter of indifference. He thinks it's a matter of law, a matter of faith. And it's his conviction of God's word that leads him to that point.
I understand Romans 14... (end of side one of tape) ...I didn't say all things. I understand there are some things where brethren might differ in their belief and in their practice, and yet could continue fellowshipping together in a local church. But I hope you know that I know, there are some things that demand a break of congregational fellowship. Now the question comes...(tape breaks up)... teaches the withdrawing of fellowship, when does fellowship have to be broken? What are the parameters, what are the bases that demand that you not fellowship somebody. Is it a matter, "anybody that you disagree with"? If that were the case, those brethren couldn't continue to fellowship in Corinth , at Rome, because they didn't agree and Paul assumes that his letter wouldn't convict them all. So he told them, even though there's nothing wrong with the meats, or those days there, he told them how to behave when they still thought there was something wrong with those days and meats. It's not sufficient to just say, "Anybody that doesn't agree, we'll have to withdraw from them."
Brethren, there are some Bible cases that demand withdrawal of fellowship. And I think we can draw the principles of that from those Bible cases. In first Corinthians 5, the familiar case, a man had his father's wife. Here was a case of incest. Don't make too much of my statement right now, please: This was not a matter, that somebody thought maybe that marriage is not really right in the sight of God. This was an open and shut case of outright fornication, openly being practiced. It was so open, that Paul says in verse one, it is named that there is fornication among you and such that is not even practiced among the Gentiles. Even the world wouldn't sanction what this fellow was doing. And the world's not our standard, God is. But there are some things that are wrong in the sight of everybody. And if somebody is saying, "Well, not today, nothing's wrong," ask Jim Baker, or Jimmy Swaggart. The world may practice a lot of things, but they still know you're not suppose to be doing it. Paul is talking about a situation of immorality that was a clear- cut case of ignoring the principles of God and living in such a way that even the world knew it was wrong. Now, is incest or fornication the only thing that you can learn from that? No, later he expands the list. If any man that's named a brother be a fornicator or an idolater, or a covetous or, so on... But all the things named there, I believe are a kind of thing that fall in this avenue of moral issues. Paul did not say if any brother is doing anything that you think is wrong. It's a matter of fact over in I Corinthians fifteen he's going to talk about...Pardon me, in Second Corinthians, he's going to talk about some brethren in the church at Corinth who were in fornication. And Paul was saying, I hope they correct that before I get there and so I don't have to come to them with a stick. Don't interpret that to say you're suppose to ignore fornication. That's not what Paul was doing. But every case didn't get the identical treatment. This one, he said, withdraw your fellowship from him. Here was an open case of immorality. And if a church harbored somebody doing that, it would destroy the influence of the church, even in the eyes of the world. Shame the church in the eyes of the world.
In Romans the sixteenth chapter, Paul says mark and avoid them that cause divisions and give occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which you learned. Did Paul say, mark and avoid everybody that differs? Two chapters earlier, in Romans 14, he had brethren differing over the eating of meats and the observing of days. And they did it out of conscience. You and I can look at it and say well there was really nothing wrong with those days but they felt there was something wrong with them. And they were just as convicted on that as you and I are on some of our issues today. Paul didn't say withdraw from everybody that differs with you. He says mark and avoid those that are causing division. Not everybody who teaches something that I disagree with does it in a manner that it drives a wedge in a local church and causes people to be divided and split and factious. You don't tolerate the disunity in a local church. Does that mean you've got to agree on every single item according to the Scripture? No. But there's a difference in differing and dividing.
In Second Thessalonians 3, I used to use verse 6 as the catch-all passage and teach everybody is suppose to say exactly the same thing. I'd read First Corinthians One, speak the same thing that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment and I came with the view that why you just to have to all to do it in exactly the same way. I ignored the fact that in First Corinthians one Paul says that there be no divisions among you and first Corinthians eight and ten he tells them that they may be divided over the eating of meats and continue to fellowship. Now does God want division? Of course not. And the division in First Corinthians one was not denominationalism, the problems of churches up and down the block. The division in First Corinthians One was a factious situation where one say's I'm of Paul, another says I'm of Apollos, and they really weren't using those names, they were using names in Corinth, chapter four says. And they had a factious party spirit, so much so that when they got together on the Lord's Day when group "A" got together they ate their Lord's supper, and they didn't care whether anybody else had any or not. And when group "B" got theirs, they went on and they had their little party group. And brethren, clicks and party's and schism's and divisions in a local congregation have always been wrong. Paul says in verse six, withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not according to the traditions that you received of us. And there it is, every brother that walketh disorderly. You grab your little Vines Book, and he tells you that that word disorderly is an old military term that meant to be out of step. So anybody that's out of step he's either going to get into step or we're going to withdraw him. Wait a minute. If that is the accurate interpretation of Second Thessalonians three and six, it would not harmonize at all with what Paul, the same writer said by the same inspiration in Romans and Corinthians. When you read on in Second Thessalonians Three, I believe that "disorderly" is defined in the context. Paul says we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you neither ate we bread at any man's hands, but there are some among you who walk disorderly who work not at all , but are busy bodies. There were some Christians in that congregation who may have been as straight as they could be on Acts 2:38. They may have been right on track with regard to instruments of music in the worship, but they were parasites and busybodies. I don't know of anything that would be more destructive to the peace and the harmony of a group than for somebody to be a parasite and a busybody. And Paul said, don't tolerate someone who is destroying the peace and the harmony in the congregation.
Now brethren look at something. In each of these cases, the person was in the group. He was perceived as being part of the group. He perceived himself as being part of the group. Yet his presence became harmful to the group. Withdrawing of fellowship has a goal of restoring the sinner. But that's not the only purpose of withdrawing. I don't even believe it's a primary one. I understand the primary purpose to be to protect the group from an insidious or destructive member. It's not just a matter of saying to him, " If you don't straighten up we're going take care of you", with any kind of an attitude or spirit like that. But it's a matter of we cannot tolerate you further because you are harmful to the group. How could they be harmful to the group? Like the guy in Corinth who brought shame on the church by his immorality. It's not just a matter of whether it's individual. It's not just a matter of whether its practiced personally or individually. All things don't have to be group things to demand withdrawal. This was personal. But he was shaming the church. Or, if they cause division, or were disruptive to the peace and harmony of the group. Now sometimes an individual can practice something that I differ with or that you might differ with. Yet it's not something that drives a wedge in the congregation or shames the church in the eyes of the world, or upsets and destroys the peace and the harmony of the group. Does the church have to withdraw from a brother who differs over something like that? No. And that's not a complete list, brethren. But the reason that we can have some differences on those matters without withdrawal of fellowship is not because well, the Bible doesn't teach that very clearly. Or because well, that's a hard question. The reason is, the individual practices do not necessarily compromise others or shame the church and unless we become factious about it doesn't necessarily drive a wedge of division in the group. The congregation in fellowshipping a Christian is not the same thing as saying the church has voted that that person is right on everything. It's not the same thing as saying, "we believe that brother is on his way to heaven." As a matter of fact, don't we all fellowship brethren when he have serious question as to whether they're really serving the Lord faithfully or not? Maybe somebody that only shows up for services on Sunday morning. Evidences no attention to growth. And never does anything that we can see, of course I hope we know God sees things that we don't see. But we never see him doing any of the things that we think Christians ought to do to grow and to teach others. Would you want to have that fellow's chances in eternity? Your presence here in this meeting tonight is indicative you're not that kind of person. Does that mean that if you think he's in danger, he's in jeopardy you ought to just ignore it? No sir. He's the object of discipline. He needs to be taught and encouraged and exhorted. But does that mean that if he doesn't start coming to all of the services now we're going to withdraw fellowship from him? Or if he doesn't evidence that he has grown in the Scripture, we're going to withdraw fellowship from him? There might be somebody whose spiritual condition I question, but it's not compromising me, or shaming the church, or dividing the church. Rather than trying to get rid of him, I ought to be encouraging him to stay in the fellowship of the family, so that we can continue to work with him and pray to God that someday he will turn around. When do you withdraw fellowship? When that person's behavior becomes destructive to the group.
Now, I'm going to return momentarily to the marriage question.
I started to make a list like this and I didn't do it. I was going to make a list like this, and list from what I consider to be the most conservative views on marriage and divorce and remarriage to the most liberal. The most conservative that I know would be I know some brethren who do not, who do not accept any means for a remarriage other than a death of a spouse. Brother Curry really didn't say that the other night. He showed you that that is a very distinct possibility from Scripture. And I know some brethren who hold that view. That there is no scriptural basis for a divorce and remarriage. I know some other brethren who teach that any person who has divorced under any circumstance, if he repents, is cleared by God and he can go out and remarry. Now your head is in the sand brethren if you think there's only one or two positions between those two extremes. I don't have the list, but I know one preacher that put together fifteen, what he considered fifteen different views on the divorce and remarriage issue. If I had that list up here, you might want me to come along and say now here's the point and I could do that for my own conscience but there are some involved questions. The whole question is not a matter of what about the aliens' who divorce and remarriage and come to the Lord, the whole question is not just a matter of a Christian repenting. Brethren differ over such things as this. Does the divorce decree have to have the word adultery in it? Does it have to be publicly stated at the time of divorce that I'm getting this divorce because of adultery? Or, is it necessary that the innocent party be the one that initiates the divorce action? And you've heard discussions on what if the other guy's got a faster car. And I'm not being facetious. But brethren, there are differences among honorable, sincere, devoted, gospel preachers of great respect and reputation who differ over that matter. And one says, that if the guilty party initiates the divorce even if the innocent were heart broken and was praying to God that maybe we can keep the marriage and make it work, but he's been guilty of adultery, but he goes out and he files for the divorce and gets the divorce, now this innocent party can never remarry, because he or she which ever the case is, did not instigate the action. Brethren differ over that. I want to ask you a question, In a local congregation, if brethren differed over that question, do you think they could continue to fellowship together? Let me tell you where the answer lies as I understand it. And that is, each local congregation has the responsibility of passing its judgment and making its decisions on each individual Christian and each individual case on marriage or the other questions that are involved. And although there is nothing in the world wrong with teaching something publicly and saying, "Here's what I believe and here's why I believe. There's nothing wrong in writing it , and putting it in a gospel paper. But brethren, let's never forget God organized us congregationally. And the application of these principles has to be made on a congregational basis. Let's carefully avoid the concept of brotherhood decisions, brotherhood fellowship and brotherhood directors, and stay with what the Scripture teaches in our duties and responsibilities. May God bless us to know his will, and may God bless us to do his will. If you're not a Christian you could become one tonight by believing in Jesus, repenting of your wrongs, and being baptized for forgiveness of your sins. If you're a Christian, out of duty and want the prayers this group in your behalf we would invite you to come while we stand together and sing.
Tape transcribed by Jerry Fite