How Shall We Treat Brethren with Whom We Disagree?

by Earl Kimbrough
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1996

The "Christians" associated with Barton W. Stone and the "Disciples" or "Reformers" associated with Thomas and Alexander Campbell began to unite in the early 1830s. At the time, the two groups differed sharply over some strongly held beliefs, but they achieved unity despite these differences. This was possible because:

1. both groups desired unity and made it a principal aim of their preaching;
2. there was sufficient common ground for a practical union in local congregations; and
3. they knew some doctrinal differences were unavoidable and were willing to tolerate them charitably, so long as they did not affect congregational work and so long as none tried to impose his views on others.

Stone expressed the view most early Restorers held when he said, "Whatever is not plainly taught in the Bible should not be made a term of union or communion." Later generations often repeated this. Its practical flaw is that what may be plain to one faithful brother may not be equally as plain to another. What some see "face to face," others see through a "glass darkly." It ignores reality to think that one's understanding of the truth is right on every question at any given time. It borders on self-righteous arrogance to think that one's understanding of every facet of truth must be accepted without question, and that none may deviate from it without being marked as "unsound." Such thinking sometimes finds expression in what Benjamin Franklin called "that authoritative style of that class of men who pronounce (pass judgment) on poor, unfortunate, and unlearned men." (Tie referred to Moses E. Lard’s criticism of H.T. Anderson’s translation of the New Testament.)

This is the stuff of human creeds and ecclesiastical bodies. It is also the stuff that creates factions and divisions in the church. It makes no allowance for growth, to say nothing of the unavoidable biases and circumstances of life that naturally and universally shade every person’s thinking, regardless of his honesty or scholarship. And it destroys our cherished freedom to study the Bible for ourselves, which has been a hallmark of Restoration ideology. This right has no meaning if it does not permit each of us to make our own interpretations, even if they differ from what the "leading” brethren, or the "majority" of brethren, think. The alternative is to allow self-appointed protectors of "the faith" to be the official interpreters for the "brotherhood," with the power to tell us what conclusions we can and cannot reach, and what we can and cannot say about them. This will necessarily demand a creed, whether written or understood, drawn by the same protectors. No man among us who is worth his salt does not demand the right to do his own study, draw his own honest conclusions, and be willing to stand by them, trusting God for mercy if he should have missed the truth on some point.

Unity in the Restoration movement, to the extent it has been successful, has come from holding in common the things we can do together as a congregation, with toleration for differences of belief or opinion in things that do not directly affect our congregational work and worship. Regarding the latter, Stone said, "We are determined that diversity of opinion shall not be a bar to Christian fellowship." He respected Campbell’s knowledge and learned from him, but he refused to accept his views purely on the basis of his scholarship. Stone studied and thought for himself, and he sometimes reached "odd" conclusions. The fourteen volumes of his Christian Messenger contain several exchanges with Campbell over matters in which they differed. Yet, this caused no break in their fellowship, nor did it hinder the union of the churches associated with them. It would have been unacceptable to most brethren in either camp to yield to Campbell’s conclusions on all questions where they differed because of who he was. Nor does Campbell seem to have expected it.

From the beginning of the Restoration movement to the present, there has never been a time when all "faithful" brethren agreed on every demand of the Christian’s life. One of the movement's fascinating mosaics, from a historical perspective, is how brethren aligned themselves on various and changing issues. The major divisions have had three primary causes.

1. Majority rule forced an issue on congregations, leaving the minority with no choice but to “get out and start over” or sell out their convictions. This occurred primarily over the missionary society and instrumental music.
2. An issue arose that undermined Christ's authority and kingdom, as with premillennialism. Brethren tolerated "strange" millennial views for a hundred years, until R.H. Boll wove it into a theory that denied the integrity of the prophets, questioned the knowledge of Christ, and effectively changed the whole scope of New Testament Christianity.
3. Influential editors adopted the issue and deliberately pressed it to division among the churches.

B.C. Goodpasture used his power as editor of the influential Gospel Advocate, coasting on its prestige as "old faithful" to successfully urge the breaking of fellowship over centralization (institutionalism). In fairness, it should be noted that some "anti-centralization” writers seem to have charted their course by the same compass. The Advocate, in our opinion, was simply the “firstest with the mostest.”

But dozens of other issues, involving both doctrinal and moral questions, were debated and otherwise fussed about without any serious breach of fellowship. David Lipscomb strongly opposed the Christian’s participation in civil government, but he did not advocate disfellowshipping those who held public office. Nor did he recommend that those who bore arms and killed their fellow man in war should be excommunicated. The "rebaptism" controversy raged for years, but it did not cause a major division. This was mainly because neither side questioned the importance of baptism; both sides recognized it.

Not even the divisive issues of slavery and secession broke fellowship among the second generation Restorers. Historian A.W.Fortune said, "In spite of the bitter controversy, the Disciples remained one body." After quoting Fortune, Homer Hailey observed that, "Such was the joy over their ability to remain congenial, without sectional strife over the question of slavery and the war, that some were led enthusiastically to declare division impossible." (Attitudes and Consequences). Those optimistic brethren were not false prophets. If the attitude that prevailed before and during the war had continued, no doubt much of the strife and division of later years would have been avoided. Of course, division is inescapable when the differences involve the mutual work and worship of a congregation, but differences that pertain to the personal lives of Christians would have softened at least some of the later animosities.

Generally, brethren who hold differences unrelated to collective activity have been willing to tolerate in a brotherly manner those with an opposing view. Neither side (or sides) has allowed their differences to become a wall of separation. However, from time to time, some brethren, for reasons best known to them, declare a crisis, and take up arms against any brother who cannot say "shibboleth.” In their zeal to save the church from what they believe will be sure destruction, they insist that their views are the only ones to be allowed, even though they themselves sometimes speak with a forked tongue on the subject.

The "Remarriage Question," or questions, is currently before us as an issue of this nature. There perhaps have always been differences over the remarriage of divorced Christians, but there have been sharp differences over the matter for at least the last fifty or sixty years. Yet, up until now, there has not been a general break in fellowship over it. Ever since I started preaching, I have known preachers, regarded as loyal, who have held views on remarriage that most would not consider "orthodox." If these brethren were told that they must remain silent or that they must hold their views as opinions to be expressed only as such and in private, and perhaps then only when asked by those astute enough not to be unduly influenced by them, I am not aware of it.

In the spring of 1939, L. R. Wilson sparked a short-lived controversy in the Firm Foundation over the marriage of divorced Christians. The ensuing discussion shows the brethren's attitude at the time. Strong views were expressed, pointed differences were noted, and sharp words were exchanged. But no one tried to discredit or silence other brethren whose conclusions were considered erroneous. Without stating the arguments used or taking sides, a review of that little controversy half a century ago shows the attitude that then prevailed.

Wilson wrote regularly for the Firm Foundation and wrote the advanced Bible school literature of the Firm Foundation Publishing House. In 1939, he wrote an excellent series of articles on "Congregational Development" that the then-highly respected company later published as a book. The March 28, 1939, issue of the Firm Foundation carried an article by Wilson, “Marriage and Divorce." His later summary of the article left no doubt as to where he stood. He said, "I stated that a person who was divorced for unscriptural reasons, and whose companion was married again, might obey the gospel the same as any one else, and thereby become a Christian. I further contended that when a person is forgiven of his sins, they are blotted out forever and that he then stands on the same plane as any other Christian, and has the right to do anything that any other Christian has the right to do." (Firm Foundation, Sept. 5, 1939.)

In the fall of that year, Wilson wrote two more articles, entitled "Divorce and Remarriage,” to answer questions raised in private correspondence by the first one. He said he had received "a great many letters” on the subject, but had been unable to answer them earlier. Of these, he said, "Many endorsed the article in full; others said that they expected to restudy the question; still others who were not entirely satisfied wrote me asking for further information on some points." Available issues of the paper for that year (a few are missing from my file) do not reveal a single article published in answer to Wilson between March and September. And if there was an editorial disclaimer, I failed to find it. Furthermore, the article appeared on the front pages, as did most of Wilson’s articles. From this we learn two things:

1. There were "many" brethren who agreed with Wilson; and
2. Editor G.H.P. Showalter, who disagreed with him, gave him the freedom to express himself fully without any editorial comment or note.

Ray H. Lanier, Sr., another contributor to the Firm Foundation, replied to Wilson in three scholarly articles. The paper carried these on the front page in October issues. Wilson was given space to reply to each article. In their exchange, each highly respected preacher defended his position and showed where he thought the other was wrong. Neither showed the slightest inclination to compromise what he believed to be the truth. Yet neither became alarmed in print by the other’s position or tried to brand him a false teacher. Nor did the disagreement create any apparent ill-will between the disputants. About five years later, when the founders of Florida Christian College looked for a man to lead their new school, they chose Wilson as founding president. If the board did not know his views on marriage and divorce, it was not due to his reticence. As for Lanier, he sent his son to the school to study under Wilson, and his daughter was on Wilson’s faculty.

After Lanier’s articles appeared, a few others wrote on the subject in the Firm Foundation. Showalter prefaced an article by J.C. Hollis with these words: “A kind of open forum is given herewith on the ever new and ever important question of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, etc. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the editor who may have something to say on the same subject a little later." (November 14, 1939.) The editor repeated the note in the following issue. Only about half a dozen more articles appeared then, and only one was printed on the front page, and it received secondary billing. None of the others who wrote were regular contributors to the Firm Foundation. And other than Wilson and Lanier, none at the time were "heavy weights" among the brethren.

Hollis said, "This subject is attracting the attention of many people throughout the brotherhood." Without referring to Wilson directly, he took issue with his contention, saying, “Some seem to think it is all right for such a one to live with his second companion, provided he repents of the sin he committed at the time he united with her." He replied to some of Wilson’s arguments and quoted H. Leo Boles of the Gospel Advocate, saying the parties under discussion "live in adultery as long as the union remains." Both Hollis and Boles said the Bible was very clear on this matter.

Another writer, who simply signed himself as "A brother,” seemed to think the Bible was just as clear on proscribing remarriage for any cause except death. He argued that Christ granted the right to divorce on the ground of fornication, but not the right to remarry. He said: "According to (I Cor. 7:39) one is granted the liberty to be married a second time only in the case of the death of the companion. If this liberty is granted on any other basis, it is not to be found in the language of the apostles nor the Lord Jesus Christ. "

A short piece by Thomas O. Fowler advanced the view that remarried couples (where companions were lost for reasons not limited to death and fornication) were received
into the fellowship of the first-century church. He based his somewhat fuzzy argument on the fact that an elder must be a man "once married," drawing some inferences from that about membership in general. His remarks appear to lean toward Wilson’s view, but he assured the readers that "I give the teaching as formed by God’s word withholding nothing."

In the next issue of the Firm Foundation, Orville T. Rodman said he was "not entirely satisfied with the arguments of either" Wilson or Lanier. However, he leaned toward Lanier’s view and said he refused to baptize any remarried couples who would not separate and live celibate lives. In concluding his "little contribution to the current discussion," he said, "Nothing I have written is meant to reflect on the integrity of the good brethren who began the present series."

Ernest Beam said Wilson had offered a "new" position on the subject. Even so, he seemed torn between the desire to accept it and the urge to shrink back from it in horror. He said, "I have sometimes wondered if the position taken is not an acceptable one as I have prayerfully wrestled with cases coming to my attention." Yet, he expressed the fear that, “if this position be taken, sins of adultery and remarriage will multiply among us whereas they ought not ever to be named in the church of God." Most of his article was devoted to discussing a man Beam knew who remained single even though his wife was guilty of adultery. He concluded that the "practical example" of this man "shows, I think, the only safe course in these serious matters.” Beam’s being torn between a desire to be tolerant and a fear of being lenient may reflect the feelings of many brethren then and now. I heard a scholarly brother, who has been recently quoted on the "hard" side of the question, privately express what I at the time thought was a very tolerant view toward those involved in questionable remarriage situations.

A special issue of the Firm Foundation on the home and family appeared December 19, 1939. Showalter kept his promise "to have something to say on the subject." Although he said nothing definitive about the controversy, he seems to have treated it as moot by strongly affirming that the marriage bond cannot be broken. Regarding the Lord’s original law (Genesis 2:24), the editor said, "The closeness and inviolability of this intimate and holy relationship is not only recognized, but emphasized by our Lord in setting forth the constitutional law of the new covenant... Under the law of the new covenant—the gospel age, in which we live—we find no repeal of the changeless, divine law from the beginning, that marriage is a holy union of man and woman-husband and wife—a bond, a covenant--an inalienable, inseparable union of heart, and soul, and life-an ordinance designed of heaven too sacred to be violated, broken, severed."

Showalter made no reference to the exception the Lord gives in Matthew 19:9. However, in reference to the Lord’s answer to the Pharisees’ question, he said, "If Moses for the hardness of heart of ancient Israel permitted divorce—contrary to the ancient order—there exists no such necessity and hence no such permission for divorce under the gospel age where the very terms of the covenant demand that the word of God shall be planted in the heart to subdue, to soften, and to save.” Showalter also contended in the same article that Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christians. But in neither case did he tell what should happen when the respective rule is violated. If the marriage law is broken, what then? May either party remarry, and if so, under what circumstances? If a Christian should marry a non-Christian, must he sever the relationship to be right with God? The editor did not say.

Some who argue that Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christians have said the marriage is sinful, but the union is holy and should not be broken. It is conceivable that one who takes such a stand regarding a Christian’s "sinful" marriage to a non-Christian might see similar merit in the contention that the act of remarriage is sinful but the union holy. But regardless of the editor’s view of that matter, his strong views on the remarriage of divorced Christians were closer to Lanier’s than Wilson’s. However, his handling of the controversy was so evenhanded that his own views were not at once apparent. When his treatment of Wilson is weighed in the light of his own position as stated in the December 19 issue, it must be regarded as especially generous. Wilson remained a featured writer for the Firm Foundation.

After 1939, the remarriage controversy, either by design or because the "writin’ brethren" lacked urgent interest, almost disappeared from the paper's pages. The Gospel Advocate, which usually kept an eagle eye on the Firm Foundation, did not feel called on to launch a crusade against Wilson’s views, nor to condemn Showalter for retaining him as a writer, although the conservative views of H. Leo Boles seem to have been the "official" position of that journal.

Whether Showalter’s handling of this controversy in 1939 and the disputants' attitude toward one another were correct or not, we voice no opinion. However, both seem to be in keeping with the practice of faithful brethren through the years in regard to such differences. Neither do we condemn brethren today who are alarmed over what they consider "loose" views among us on the remarriage of divorced people. It should be a matter of concern. But I think there are some things to keep in mind.

1. Honest and studious brethren have differed over the question of remarriage of divorced Christians for many years without it becoming a fellowship issue.
2. No person or institution has the right to state the "official" position of the churches of Christ on this or any other subject and expect any who hold variant views to yield to that position or remain silent to avoid censure.
3. Brethren who hold a "minority" view may, for the sake of peace, say little or nothing about it, but the surest way to goad them into speaking out is to tell them they cannot do it.
4. Even when we are sure we are right, a little humility and a touch of mercy in dealing with brethren who differ with us would not be out of place.
5. If the issue continues to be pushed on an "us" and "them" level, and with the attitude that "us" alone may speak and all of "them" must be silent or be branded as heretics, then a rupture of fellowship is inevitable. And the "fault lines" might run in as many directions as the California seismographic map. In fact, a fissure may very well run beneath some of our own houses.
6. Even when we agree with brethren on their position on these questions, we are not willing to let them tell us how to treat those who disagree with us.
7. Raising such issues to the "us" and "them" level necessarily results in "canonizing" learned men on "our" side and "decanonizing" those on "theirs," when both the "saint" and the "heretic" have feet of clay.
8. It is inconsistent, and I think unjust, to be tolerant with some brethren who differ with us over the issue and castigate others who disagree with us.
9. If brethren can be silenced on expressing any view of remarriage except that which is conceived to be "the majority view," whatever that may be when brethren get done fine-tuning it, why cannot brethren be silenced the same way on every question of Christian behavior over which brethren differ as a matter of faith?
10. It is easier to say what one understands to be the truth about remarriage than it is to apply it to individual situations. We should be honest enough to admit that some people will have to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling in this matter and leave such men to be judged by the Lord without our help. We cannot help but be a little skeptical about any brother who claims he can solve any marriage problem with "two verses" in "ten minutes."

More than fifty years ago, F.B. Srygley said, "Too many people are trying to save others by controlling them, rather than by teaching them the gospel and allowing them to be controlled by it." He also said, “If Christ had no more mercy than some of us have, we would all be lost, though we might boast of how sound we are in the faith." In my judgment, David Lipscomb struck the right balance when he advised his brethren to "Be true to the truth, oppose the error, but forbear with humanity."