HOW MEN USE THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR DIVISIONS
by Leroy Garrett

There are a few passages of scripture that are referred to with great frequency by some of our brethren as an excuse for alienation. These passages are made to mean either that division within the body of Christ is sometimes right (and of course each faction among us is convinced that its own separate existence is justifiable) or that it is proper to reject some brethren on the ground of doctrinal error.

We question whether it is ever right for Christians to divide. A group of saints may be correct in their interpretation of the scriptures, and they may be right in their opposition to what they consider to be a serious doctrinal error, and yet have no scriptural right to alienate themselves from the others and start another congregation. We likewise question the practice of rejecting any brother on the basis of his misunderstanding of scripture. There are surely grounds for excluding a brother from the fellowship of the congregation, but a sincere and well-meaning misinterpretation of the Bible is not among them. Whether a brother is right or wrong in this or that interpretation of scripture is beside the point of whether I receive him as a brother beloved.

And yet the Bible itself is used to defend both of the practices. Our brethren divide and sub-divide; we sometimes have as many as six or eight different groups of disciples in one town, each of which struggles against the others for its existence, and each considering itself the loyal church, pointing to the Bible, of course, as justification for its existence. We go on rejecting each Other on the basis that we do not see things alike, insisting that oneness of opinion is essential to fellowship, and the Bible is suppose to sustain such a viewpoint.

If unity is to be enjoyed by these various factions, these obstructions must be removed. We propose to show that these passages do not teach what is claimed for them, but that they are rather in each instance part of the scriptural plea for the unity of the saints.

Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.”

This passage warns against those whose purpose it is to wreck a church for their own selfish ends. One who tries to disturb the peace of the brethren has a lot to answer for. The next verse further describes him: “Such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.” He is a deceiver who pretends to have the church’s good at heart, but who really wishes to wreck it. William Barclay in Daily Bible Study on Romans describes such a man: ‘There are people who take pride in making trouble, and who like nothing better than to sow the poisonous seeds of dissension and to await the coming strife. The man who is a disturber of the peace, the man who has brought strife to any band of brothers will answer for it some day to Him who is the King and Head of the Church.”

The Christian is a peacemaker and he seeks for those things which make for peace. He will not create schisms within the body of Christ, and he will not permit others to use him for such a purpose. The man whose heart is set on peace will not be the cause of a split in the church. He will remove himself from the scene before he lets such happen.

Romans 16:17 is clearly an injunction against those who are schismatic. Paul probably was referring especially to the Judaizers who sought to destroy all Christian work that did not conform to their own brand of orthodoxy. The Roman saints were to keep their eye on such men and see to it that they did not pull any of their schismatic tricks. Men who have wicked deeds to peddle are to be avoided. They were to have nothing to do with such men.

Now that we have an understanding of what this interesting passage means, let us see how it is so often interpreted to the havoc of Christian oneness.

1. The most serious abuse of this passage is the view that it is all right to cause dissensions and divisions so long as it is done in keeping with “the doctrine which you have been taught.” There are those who cause divisions over false doctrine or their own opinions or over things that do not matter, and this is wrong. But if one causes division by standing for the truth, this is all right. So they make the passage read this way: “Mark them which cause divisions and offences that are contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.” In other words the division is warranted if it is caused by standing for the truth, each one of course deciding just what determines truth.

Much was made of this interpretation in a recent conversation I had with brethren who are associated with the anti-Herald of Truth segment of our brotherhood. They were complaining that the “liberal” brethren were quoting Romans 16:17 against them, but that they would only use the first part of the verse, “Mark them which cause divisions and offences,” leaving out contrary to the doctrine which you learned. These brethren admitted that they were causing division, or at least division was the result of their labors, but that such is right and proper so long as its purpose is to preserve the doctrinal purity of the church.

I cannot believe that Paul is saying that division and dissension are all right if they are the result of being loyal to doctrine. The man who says, “I’ll wreck this church for the sake of truth,” cannot look to Romans 16:17 for his defense. This is a misunderstanding of the phrase “contrary to the doctrine which you learned.”

Paul is simply saying that the spirit that causes divisions and dissension is contrary to the teaching that I have been giving you. He does not mean that some division is caused by error and some by truth, and that division is all right if it is necessary to preserve truth. If this were the case, doctrinal problems would be solved by the disputants going out and starting churches of their own, which is the very practice that must stop.

MacKnight’s rendition of Romans 16:17 is helpful: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who set up separate assemblies for worship, and who occasion the weak to fall by false doctrine, or by enjoining things indifferent as necessary, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned from me in this epistle, and avoid them.” Barnes likewise understands “contrary to the doctrine” to refer to “the teaching which you have received in this epistle and elsewhere, the teaching that these divisions should cease.”

When men make peace their prime object they will not think in terms of division. This is the plea in Romans, especially the latter chapters. Notice the emphasis that Paul gives this.

“Let love be genuine.” (12:9)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” (13:8)

“As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.” (14:1)

“Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” (14-13)

“Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” (14:19)

“Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.” (14:20)

“We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves; let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.” (15:1-2)

“Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you.” (15:7)

People who have this spirit, who are motivated by this doctrine, will not think in terms of alienation and separation as means of preserving what they believe to be true interpretations of scripture. If men truly seek peace and mutual upbuilding, if they truly love each other and welcome each other as Christ welcomes us, then they will not draw lines on each other over doctrinal differences.

Men who put their own interests first, and who are willing to divide a church in order to carry their point are the ones to be marked, for they serve not Christ but their own appetites. Such a divisive spirit is contrary to the teaching Paul gave the Romans.

2. Another misuse of Romans 16:17 is to apply it indiscriminately to all controversial men and issues. If strong teaching, or perhaps something that sounds unorthodox, is presented to a congregation, there are those who will cry, “Romans 16:17”, as if to suggest that anything that is the slightest variation may cause division. Some congregations need to be shocked and disturbed; some need to be strongly rebuked for their sins. One who thus “reproves, rebukes, and exhorts with longsuffering and teaching” may have no intention at all of causing dissension, and it would be unfair to level such a charge against him. The man Paul speaks of in Romans 16:17 is one who is malicious and vicious in his intentions to harm the congregation.

A more serious feature of this kind of misuse of Romans 16:17 is the connection that is made with fellowship. There is no indication in the passage that the apostle was instructing the Romans to excommunicate such men. To “mark” means they were to watch out for them, to be on their guard against such; “avoid them” means they were not to follow them as teachers. Since this had reference to outsiders that were coming into the congregation, it is unlikely that the question of fellowship enters at all. The passage is therefore unrelated to the question of fellowship. It is a gross abuse to use this passage in such a way as to make it teach that we are not to have fellowship with any-one that would teach doctrines contrary to what we believe to be the truth.

2 John 9:11: “Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;

for he who greets him shares his wicked work.”

No passage is used more than this one by some of our people to promote and sustain sectarianism. It is often appealed to as a justification for bitter and arbitrary line-drawing that keeps brethren separated into cliques. Typical is the use made of this passage in Gospel Advocate (Jan. 31, 1963):

If I believe instrumental music in worship to be a sin, I cannot practice it, neither can I honor anyone else that does it. John (2 John 9-11) warns me that if I “bid godspeed” or give my blessing in a definite way to the preaching or teaching of a false doctrine, then I become guilty of such teaching myself.

The “doctrine of Christ” is here made to refer to any and all Christian truth. It is interpreted to mean that if any brother is in error on any point of doctrine, he is void of both the Father and the Son. One wonders how anyone could possibly believe such a thing, but I will assure you that the argument is often made in just such a way.

This means that we are asked to believe that John is saying that if a brother uses instrumental music (or departs upon any item of truth as we see it) he has neither God nor Christ, that his work is wicked, and that we are not to receive him into our home or give him any greeting. Can we really believe such?

If a brother is a premillennialist, then he has not God! I cannot even invite him into my home! I cannot even say “hello” to him, lest I partake of his evil deeds!

If a brother supports the Herald of Truth radio-TV program or if he believes in orphan homes or missionary societies, then he no longer “abides in the doctrine of Christ” and is therefore unfit for Christian association in our home! He has neither Christ nor God since he supports societies!

A doctrine that would cause one to be so unchristian and crude, as well as downright stupid, could not be scriptural. Surely brethren are nor thinking when they make such arguments.

The context makes it clear as to whom John is referring: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the anti-Christ.” (verse 7) In 1 John 2:22-23 he says much the same: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti-Christ, he who denies the Father and the Son.” Then he adds: “No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

Such is the burden of all three of John’s letters. He is instructing against the wandering teachers called Gnostics who were a threat to the church in that they denied the reality of the incarnation of Jesus. These were the ones who denied the Father and the Son. This is “the doctrine” that one had to bring — that Jesus had truly come in the flesh — if he were to be received into the home and be given blessing. It was the anti-Christ, therefore, who was evil and had neither the Father or the Son. It was the Gnostic teacher who denied the uniqueness of the Christ that was to be denied hospitality in the home.

It is farfetched indeed to make this apply to brethren who have divergent views on colleges, preachers, orphanages, TV programs, instrumental music, and millennial theories. The doctrine that John speaks of is that Jesus has come in the flesh, that he is indeed the Son of God. It is the man who denies this that is the anti-Christ; and this is the man that has neither God nor Christ. The Gnostic heretics who were seeking to foist this destructive teaching upon the saints are the ones that the Christians were not to invite into their homes.

It is a travesty against both the Bible and decency to apply this passage in 2 John to people generally who happen to interpret the scriptures differently from ourselves. It is hard for me to see that my brethren really believe that they cannot invite a man into their home if he happens to use an organ in worship or believes in supporting Herald of Truth. Yet in almost every issue of our brotherhood journals just such use is made of 2 John 9!

1 Cor. 1:10: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

The passage is used to support the notion that all of us are to see every-thing alike if unity is to be realized. Agreement and division (or dissension) are placed against each other in such a way as to suggest that if there is agreement (“all speak the same thing”) then there will not be division (“that there be no divisions among you”). But this is not true: you can have division that is unanimous and you can have unity that is divisive. A church can “speak the same thing” and still be divided; it can be united and yet not “speak the same thing.”

But more to the point: it is not possible for any group of people to “speak the same thing” the way my brethren interpret this passage. Just as men do not look alike, so they do not think alike. No two men approach a problem the same way. As our fingerprints are all different, so our thought patterns are different. In 1 Cor. 1:10 the apostle is not even suggesting that it might be possible for all of us to see the Bible alike. There is no indication anywhere that God ever expected or required it of us. We can be thankful for that!

Yet this passage is used to uphold the idea that if any of us disagree on any point that we’d better hurry up and get together on it, for the Bible commands us to speak the same thing. No division and speaking the same thing go together: if we’re divided it is because we’re not thinking and talking alike; if we are not thinking and speaking alike it is a sure thing that we are not united.

One wonders how much thinking people do who make such an interpretation, for it is apparent that no one in the Bible or out of it ever achieved such a thing. The church has never had unanimity of conviction on anything, much less everything. One might also wonder if this would be desirable even if possible.

What does 1 Cor. 1:10 mean then? As is usually the case, the passage becomes clear in the light of its context. The dissension at Corinth was around men. There were various cries: “I belong to Paul”, “I belong to Cephas”, “I belong to Apollos”, “I belong to Christ.” But there should be but one cry since there is but one Savior. Paul’s appeal that they “all speak the same thing” was an appeal to loyalty to Christ as the only Lord. They were not to follow men, and it was an insult to the Christian’s concept of the Lordship of Christ for a congregation to be divided by party cries. This is why Paul castigates them as he does in I Cor. 3, calling them “men of the flesh” because of the strife, jealousy,

and party spirit, which found expression in such cries as, “I am of Cephas.”

In telling them to be of “the same mind and the same judgment” and to “speak the same thing” he was insisting that their devotion and loyalty be only to Christ. This is made clear by Moffatt’s rendition of this passage in his Commentary on First Corinthians: “Brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ I beg of you all to drop these party-cries. There must be no cliques among you; you must regain your common temper and attitude.”

Moffatt observes that there are always in the church some who are too young to be wise, too generous to be cautious, too warm to be sober, or too intellectual to be humble. He says such persons will be very apt to attach themselves to particular persons, to use particular names, and to say things merely because others do, and thus act in a party-spirited way. This was the case.

Paul is not telling them that they have to see everything alike, nor is he suggesting that unity is dependent upon doctrinal agreement. When he says, as he does in 2 Cor. 13:11, “Mend your ways, heed my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you,” he is telling them to be Christ-minded instead of party-minded.

Barclay in his Daily Bible Study on First Corinthians suggests that verse 12 could read: “I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas-but I belong to Christ,” which may mean that the last group was more wretchedly sectarian than any. “If this does describe a party,” says Barclay, “they must have been a small and rigid and self-righteous sect who claimed that they were the only true Christians in Corinth.” Barclay adds: “Their real fault was not in saying that they belonged to Christ, but in acting as if Christ belonged to them. It may well describe a little, intolerant, self-righteous group.”

In the light of the real meaning of 1 Cor. 1:10 we can appeal to the many dissident groups within discipledom that they too stop these party cries!

Let us all speak the same thing, that is, let us say we are all one in Christ together. Christ is not divided. He is our Lord, and our loyalty is to him rather than to any group of men, and we belong to him rather than to any institution of men. Our devotion is to him, not to any party. This is the force of 1 Cor. 10, and it is wrong to make such a verse mean that all Christians must see everything alike and that they must say everything the same way.

Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

With amazing frequency many of our brethren use this passage to teach that if two men are in fellowship with each other they must be in doctrinal agreement. It is made to mean that men cannot have unity (that is, men cannot walk together) unless they believe alike. This makes the prophet Amos lay down a strange principle of brotherhood. You and I cannot enjoy Christian fellowship with each other unless we see eye to eye on everything! One wonders if any two people in the entire history of the human race could ever have walked together — including husbands and wives!

The prophet could have meant nothing so irrational. The truth is that many people walk together, loving, respecting, and enjoying one another, who are poles apart theologically. The prophet would simply be wrong if he affirmed such a proposition. If you see two men walking together the chances are that they are discussing their differences!

Some of the translations since the King James makes such an interpretation of Amos 3:3 impossible. The RSV for instance: “Do two walk together, unless they have made an appointment?” But even with the King James open before one the context will reveal that the prophet was making no reference to unity or fellowship whatever. He was rather justifying his role as a prophet, and this he was doing with a cause-effect argument sequence. A lion roars only when it has a prey (verse 4); the young lion cries out only when it has something (verse 4); a bird falls into a snare only because of the trap (verse 5); a snare springs up from the ground only when it has taken something (verse 5); the trumpet sounds and the people are afraid (verse 6); evil befalls a city because of the Lord’s judgment (verse 6).

It is in this context that the prophet says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” It simply means that two men will not show up at the same place at the same time unless they have arranged it previously. So with all the other metaphors: the lion roars when it has a prey; the bird falls into a snare because of the trap — and so I am prophesying because the Lord has called me. Just as two men cannot walk together unless it were pre-arranged, so I cannot be speaking as a prophet if God had not called me. “God has spoken, how can I but prophesy.”

This gross abuse of this passage illustrates the harm that can come by lifting passages from their context so as to make them mean what we want them to mean. It should cause us to question the “proof-text” method of handling the Bible. It is not true that one can prove anything from the Bible, unless he permits himself to abuse the Bible by taking verses from their context, and making them mean what they were never intended to mean. It reflects on one’s intellectual honesty as well as his scholarship.

2 Thess. 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

This passage has been made a kind of “catch all” to be used on any brother who does not toe the orthodox line. This verse is often quoted in bulls of excommunication that are published in brotherhood journals. Some brother is “withdrawn from” for “walking disorderly” — and this is made to apply to most anything. There is little evidence that those who make such use of this passage ever took the trouble to read the context and discover what the apostle meant by “walking disorderly.”

The language of the King James translators is in this instance most fortunate for our brotherhood practices. It give us every wide latitude to do with dissident brethren what we want to do. “Walking disorderly” can be made into the Mother Hubbard dress that covers everything but touches nothing. However peaceful and loving a brother may be in his attitude, he becomes guilty of “walking disorderly” when he violates the status quo. An interesting case in point is the lamented R. H. Boll, who for a half century was the strongest voice in the premillennial wing of the non-instrument brethren.

While brother Boll sincerely believed and taught premillenial concepts, he insisted that no view of the coming of Christ should be made a test of fellowship, and he never made his own views a test of loyalty. He was adamant in his conviction that churches should not divide and that brethren should not draw lines on each other. He was against any premillenial faction or amillenial party, but rather he felt that each brother should be allowed in a spirit of love and goodwill to interpret the scriptures as he sees them and let it go at that. But it did not turn out that way. Brother Boll was eventually forced to withdraw from the Gospel Advocate staff, and he was “withdrawn from” by the non-instrument brotherhood for “walking disorderly.” Today there must be some 150 “premillennial congregations” within discipledom. In my association with them I have found them to be the most peace-loving and the most eager to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” of any of our groups. And yet they are completely shut off from the rest of the churches. While they desire the fellowship of all the saints of God, they are rejected on the grounds of being premillenial, which is one way of “walking disorderly.”

What I have said about the banishment of the premillennialist by the “main-line” Church of Christ, can be said, more or less, of us all. Lines are drawn on cups, classes, open membership, colleges, congregational cooperation, orphanages, missionary societies, etc. The phenomenal thing about this is that in all these factions you have those who look upon all the others as “walking disorderly.” We are thus obeying God, each of us, when we go our separate way, withdrawing ourselves from all the rest because they are “walking disorderly, and not after the tradition received of us.” We have biblical authority for our splintered sects!

In my home town of Denton, Texas, a university city of only 25,000, the disciples are split six different ways. At this moment two new groups are trying to get started, one meeting in a bank building and the other in a lodge hall. Both are non-instrument. When the instrumental Independents come in to cast their lot against the liberal Disciples, which we are looking for at anytime, the disciple menu will be filled.

An interesting point about one of these new groups in Denton is that their recent visiting evangelist was formerly the minister for one of the other churches in town. Since the minister left Denton a few years ago, he has cast his lot with the anti-institutional persuasion, which is the newest faction in the non-instrument wing, and which is rapidly crystallizing into what Professor DeGroot of Texas Christian University is going to have to call “Church of Christ No.3.” This evangelist, who is an able and affable man, was completely boycotted by his former associates in the main-line churches. They would not announce his meetings, and those who heard him preach in their own congregation years ago would not now so much as visit his services. He in turn believes that they are in error, and he argues that they should “come out from among” their apostasy into the loyal church. Denton is therefore a mission field with each “loyal church” seeking to persuade all the others who are “walking disorderly.”

This conglomerated tragedy is something like an army marching to the front with each soldier insisting that everybody is out of step but himself, and breaking rank and “going it alone” when the others will not see it his way. The two new congregations in Denton are both small and struggling, both will spend years saving and sacrificing for buildings and preachers of their own, both insisting that such separation is justifiable on the grounds that they are walking according to the traditions of the apostles while the others are “walking disorderly.”

An interesting and revealing way of looking at this tragically abused passage is in some of the modern versions.

Revised Standard: “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

New English: “Hold aloof from every Christian brother who falls into idle habits, and does not follow the tradition you received from us.”

Barclay: “Keep yourselves from every brother who behaves like a truant from duty and who does not conduct himself in accordance with the teaching which they received from us.”

Goodspeed: “Keep away from any brother who lives in idleness, instead of following the teaching you received from us.”

It is important to notice that the apostle makes no reference whatever to disagreements on doctrine or to erroneous teaching. The disorder he speaks of is walking, that is, it has reference to the way some of them were living, and not to any differences of opinion that may have existed between them. Yet it can be observed that this passage is nearly always made to apply to some brother who is “out of line” on some doctrinal issue.

Paul is dealing with a problem of indolence at Thessalonica. Some of them who were downright lazy were using the second coming of Christ as an excuse for not working. They had given up their jobs and had quit the routines of everyday life in order to await in excited idleness the Lord’s coming. This caused Paul to lay down the injunction: “If a man refuses to work, neither let him eat.” Paul gave them orders not to impose on each other. Whether Jesus comes soon or not, he urges that they “should quietly go on working and so eat their bread.” He then explained how he himself worked in their midst so as to be a burden to no one. They were to do likewise.

Now those that refused to follow such instruction were to be avoided by the others: “Don’t associate with him that he may be ashamed. Don’t reckon him as an enemy, but give him advice as a brother.” (verses 14-15, Barclay) There is nothing in this passage to suggest a “withdrawal of fellowship,” as if this were ours to barter with as we please. To the contrary, Paul makes it clear that these brethren who are “held aloof” are still to be treated as brothers: “Give him advice as a brother”; “Don’t treat him as an enemy.”

The phrase “walking disorderly” means “living in idleness” (see 2 Thess. 3:11: “We hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work”). He started working on that problem in the first epistle when he told the Thessalonians to “admonish the idle.” (1 Thess. 5:14) Paul makes no reference to exclusion from fellowship nor does he give any justification in this passage for our loveless art of drawing the line on our brethren for every conceivable thing.

2 Thess. 3:6 might apply in any case where a brother’s life is not exemplary, whether he be indolent, careless about his language, or shady in his business dealings. In all such cases, I would do well to follow Paul’s instructions and keep away from that kind of brother, lest he ensnare me with his questionable practices. Yet I am to keep on loving him and helping him as I may; yea, treating him as a brother and not an enemy.

It is possible to use the passage in this way, but to use it as a club against every brother who is different from myself is to abuse it. There are scriptures that teach that it is sometimes necessary to excommunicate brethren from the fellowship of the congregation, but 2 Thess. 3:6 is not one of them. It seems that men want to exclude others when they will force meanings upon passages that are not there. Surely evil days are upon us when we will use the Book that God gave to unite us as a defense for our divisions.

God’s word frees us to welcome each other as Christ welcomes us. The Bible is a charter of liberty that unites men who might otherwise be alienated. Our efforts to restore unity in our own ranks will be greatly enhanced when we see the Bible as the source of that unity rather than a justification of the prevailing division. — the Editor