Peaceable Kingdom

by James W. Adams
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1996

[The following article was recently written by an 81-year-old gospel preacher who has observed what others of us are observing. The Lord’s body is being destroyed by zealots who have no love for the truth or their brethren. Nothing in this article asks for compromise with error; but it does plead for a cessation of the draconian tactics typical of too many who act like jack-booted thugs operating within the framework of churches of Christ. Brother Adams is on the staff of The Guardian of Truth.

by Floyd Chappelear]

Some twenty years ago Henry Gemmill wrote in The National Observer, "I have solved a problem that seems to annoy most operators of bird-feeding stations - raids by acrobatic squirrels. For a while I was baffled; I could discover no deterrent. But the irritation can actually be taken care of easily. I simply decided to run a bird-and-mammal feeder. ״

This solution is what international circles call detente. Détente is another word for compromise through acquiescence to what appears unsolvable and inevitable. However, detente signifies toleration, but not necessarily mutual participation. It is "live and let live," not "live and help live." Mr. Gemmill’s solution in the interest of "peace" is a form of capitulation. In common vernacular, it is, "If you can’t whip them, join them." Mr. Gemmill could have situated his bird-feeders so as to make them inaccessible to the most "acrobatic squirrel." I know, for I have.

The truth is: squirrels, being what they are, will chase away birds and devour all the food. What they do not eat they will scatter to the four winds. If you want to feed squirrels, build a squirrel-feeder. If you wish to feed only birds, make the feeders inaccessible to squirrels. If you desire to feed both, build a squirrel-feeder and separately build a bird-feeder which is totally inaccessible to squirrels. Recognize the fact that some things are not subject to peaceful amalgamation, whereas some are. The key to peace is knowing and respecting the difference.

The Problem Defined

You are wondering: What does this have to do with religious considerations? The answer is: a great deal. Brethren who are equally honest, capable, and sincerely devoted to what they believe to be the teaching of the word of God are, at the same time, not of one mind about many things which are taught in the word of Cod. All agree that there should be peace and unity. All agree that the word of God never teaches two antagonistic points of view on any subject with which it deals. The problem is: How can we have peace and unity in the kingdom of God when such situations occur?

The Ideal Solution

The answer generally given to this problem is: Study the word of God together in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect (not only for each other, but for the word of God and the peace and unity of His people) and arrive at a determination regarding what is the truth concerning the matter and stand together on the "truth." Theoretically and ideally, this is eminently correct, but in practice, it does not always solve the problem. After such study and despite a proper attitude, those holding divergent points of view often remain of the same opinion; hence, the problem of peace and unity remains unsolved. Birds have not been changed into squirrels, nor squirrels into birds, nor has either been converted to unified and peaceful eating out of the same feeder.

Further Analysis of the Problem

Since the ideal solution has not resolved the problem, what is the next step? The next step is to decide whether an individual must understand, believe, and teach the truth about the disputed matter to be acceptable to God and to be saved now and in the world to come. In a word, is it essential to salvation? Obviously, if it is not essential to salvation, divergent views may be safely tolerated. It simply becomes a matter of agreeing to disagree. The difference may be left unresolved provided both disagreeing parties agree not to make an issue of their respective points of view.

If the differences involve matters that could conceivably affect the salvation of souls and cannot be resolved, a solution other than simply agreeing to disagree must be sought. This introduces another significant element to consider. Do the disputed matters involve individual or collective action, are they personal in nature and responsibility as to practice, or do they have to do with group practice?

An illustration of the general acceptance of this principle is apparent in our dealing with the problem of (1) the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of Christians in their assemblies versus (2) the wearing of an artificial covering on their heads on the part of women in the assembly worship. Almost universally, "conservative" and "liberal" brethren have agreed to tolerate wearing or not wearing an artificial covering without allowing the divergent practices to inhibit peace and unity. On the other hand, they have disallowed the use of mechanical instruments of music and recognize such as being destructive of peace and unity. The rationale in this matter is that the wearing of an artificial covering is an individual matter and affects only the relationship of the individual practitioner to the Lord, and does not necessarily affect the relationship of any other person to the Lord. On the other hand, the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship involves all the worshippers in the assembly and violates the consciences of all those who believe it to be unauthorized by the teaching of the word of God; hence, participation in the use of it would cause them to sin against God and bring condemnation (Romans 14:23).

Also, we have dealt with the problem of a Christian’s participation in combat service in carnal warfare or serving as a policeman, state trooper, or sheriff on the same basis, that the matter is strictly personal and involves the individual only. Other Christians may disagree with his right to do so, but are willing to and do tolerate his practice without a breach of fellowship. We have extended this matter further to include the right of preachers and teachers to teach their convictions on these matters (while not pressing for acceptance of their views) without breaches of fellowship.

There is also the question of whether (1) the Holy Spirit personally indwells the Christian (though not exercising direct influence upon the heart) or (2) whether He dwells in the Christian representatively through the instrumentality of the word of God. Many prominent and totally acceptable preachers of the word among "conservative" and "liberal" churches of Christ believe and teach position (1), while just as many equally prominent and acceptable believe and teach position (2) without breaches of peace and unity. The indwelling is not denied, nor the Holy Spirit’s influence. Only the manner of the indwelling is controverted. While it is not denied that the Holy Spirit either does or does not indwell the Christian personally, the matter is not considered sufficiently important to demand a breach of fellowship.

I personally am convinced that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian by means of and to the extent that the word of God is believed and practiced by him or her, and that the personal indwelling view contributes to the susceptibility of Christians to the concept of direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the Christian and the exercise of charismatic gifts by Him. Yet, I highly regard, love, and unfailingly have fellowship in Christ with many brethren who believe and teach the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, yet who do not accept the idea of direct operation or the present exercise of charismatic gifts.

Is Fellowship on This Basis Wrong?

I believe the distinction between opposing concepts relative to Bible teaching among brethren that has been made in this article to be valid, logical, and scriptural. I further believe that fellowship maintained on its basis is not only scriptural and reasonable, but that it fully meets all of the demands of brotherly love, the bonds of peace, and the unity of the Spirit enjoined by the word of God. I repudiate utterly the concept that unity and fellowship maintained on this basis constitutes compromise with error, is dangerous, or that it may legitimately, logically, or scripturally be employed by defenders of unauthorized institutionalism and centralized church cooperation in benevolence and evangelism to justify their activities.

The idea that tolerance of opposing views (views mutually exclusive of one another) in some matters constitutes capitulation to error, and the expression, recommendation, and practice of such is prima facie evidence of a move toward denominationalism, whether it be among “conservative, liberal, or middle-of-the-road churches," is absurd. All of the illustrations which have been used in this article involve positions that are mutually exclusive of one another relative to the truth concerning the matter involved. For example, it is either true that Christians may use mechanical instruments in their assembly worship with the approval of God or it is not, it is either true that female Christians must wear an artificial covering in the assembly worship to please God or it is not; it is either true that a Christian may be a combat soldier in war, a policeman, a state trooper, or a sheriff with God’s approval or he may not. Some of these matters involve collective responsibility, while others are strictly individual and personal. Therefore, some opposing views of Bible teaching may be safely tolerated; others may not. Each case must be decided on its own merits.

It should be noted that other considerations than those which have been set forth in this article may well have bearing upon the exercise of tolerance in the interest of peace and unity. The dispositions of those involved with reference to the liberty they demand to express their concepts in a public manner may have to be taken into account. Do they merely express their convictions or do they press for their acceptance? Do they "despise" those who differ from them or "judge," i.e., "condemn" them (Romans 14:3)? Are they actuated by a "party spirit" (I Corinthians 3)? Also, consider the fundamental character of the particular matter involved. Is it a clear, unequivocal repudiation of absolutely clear Bible teaching? If so, a person who holds such a view may be tolerated, but not allowed to teach it in a congregation without commensurate refutation. Too, if it is taught as an essential point of view rather than the mere expression of a possibility or opinion, this could make a difference. However, these are matters that must be decided by each congregation, and no person or persons can prescribe or seek to impose his solution upon congregations of which he is not a part.

Individual fellowship is personal and congregational fellowship is local. Let no one arrogantly assume the right to prescribe ecumenical bounds or impose encyclical sanctions. This is the essence and spirit of ecclesiasticism and antagonistic to clear Bible teaching concerning the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, the right of private interpretation of the Scriptures, and the autonomous character of local congregations.

A Disturbing Mindset

There is a mindset these days among some professed "conservative" brethren that, in all controverted matters relative to what the Bible teaches, where there are diametrically opposite points of view, there can be no fellowship between such brethren until and unless there is a meeting of the minds - a reaching of complete agreement- that any other course is a capitulation to error. This is based on the fact that a concept is either true or not true, the word of God being the standard. No one known to me disagrees with this fact, but the previously noted conclusion that is deduced from it is not necessary, justified, or true.

Such a conclusion ignores the fact that not all things taught in the Bible, though true, are equally significant in determining whether Christians may or may not be in fellowship with one another. This is not to say that anything taught in the word of God is unimportant, or that all should not seek to know and believe the truth about what is said. It is to say that not all things bear the same degree of importance in reference to peace, unity, and fellowship among brethren. For instance, there is a wide difference among brethren and always has been on the subject of Divine Providence. None known to me has denied the providential care of the Father for His children. However, its extent, the manner in which it is accomplished, and the expectations of the Christian based upon it have been widely disputed. All of which are either true or not true. Yet, I have never known of brethren dividing and refusing to fellowship one another over the question of Divine Providence. Neither have I heard of anyone trying to suppress the expression of one’s views on this subject, or making it a test of whether a brother is sound and suitable to be used in a gospel meeting by a congregation.

I do not presume to dictate to any persons or churches relative to whom they may fellowship or to sit in judgment on them relative to the exercise of this prerogative. However, I do urge that brethren use their "thinking caps" and exercise, to the highest degree, discretion, brotherly love, and respect for the general peace of the brethren and churches in the exercise of their rights relative to fellowship. Christians, preachers, and churches are not clones fashioned by, hence amenable to, the ideology of any paper, congregation, preacher, or combination of preachers. Churches which require a preacher to preach only that which their members know and believe to be true assume omniscience and infallibility and demonstrate their unwillingness to give consideration to anything beyond their "God’s Little Acre" (with no intention of endorsing the lewd character of the novel which bears this title) of mental and spiritual acquisition. This attitude demonstrates that those who assume it are dead between the ears and set in the concrete of their own ordinarily limited capacity. Through more than sixty years of preaching, my rule has been that only the Lord may tell me what to preach. The instances in which churches tried to do this can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and they did not succeed.

May the Lord deliver us from the mindset that would seek to “smoke out" every preacher’s personal opinions and modus operandi concerning moot questions among brethren
as a condition of soundness and fitness to proclaim the gospel. The excuse given for acting on the basis of this mindset; namely, "a church has the right to ask concerning the teaching of those whom it uses and supports," is belied by the fact that the inquiries of those who made them, the names of those receiving the inquiries, and the answers or refusals to answer of those of whom inquiry was made were publicized, circulated, and the practice recommended to other churches. Never in sixty years of gospel preaching have I ever encountered an effort of this kind. My prayer is that it may die aborning!