by Tom Wacaster
Shortly before His arrest, our Lord prayed to the Father: “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:20-21). In the same breath the Lord indicated why such unity was important: “That the world may believe that thou didst send me” (vs. 21b). Dissension among brethren is a detriment to the progress of the gospel. The more open the dissension, the greater harm to the cause of Christ. Finger pointing, name calling, and character assassination in the name of doctrinal soundness only exacerbates the problem. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Doctrinal accuracy is important; but so is maturity, brotherly love, kindness, and long suffering when it comes to dealing with unsound, unrepentant, unreasonable and ungodly brethren. It might be necessary to “mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions contrary to the doctrine which ye learned” (Rom. 16:17), but even then it is to be done with deep sorrow for those who have chosen to trod the path of rebellion. Wisdom dictates that every effort be made to deal with religious dissension in a way that is becoming to those who are supposed to be brethren in Christ. Rudeness, a rancorous spirit, and raking someone over the coals (the 3 “R’s” of un-Christian conduct) without careful examination of the facts will not do much to unite brethren who are divided. Those three “R’s” are never an effective means of addressing those who are in error. I do not read anywhere in God’s word that an unkind spirit is ever acceptable when attempting to recover brethren who have been overtaken in a trespass (Gal. 6:1). Those who are “spiritual” are to “restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1b). The Lord’s servant is not to “strive, but be gentle toward all” (2 Tim. 2:24). Take as a case study the church at Corinth. Talk about a troubled congregation! Some of the members actually gloried in their fornication. They had a horrible misunderstanding about the resurrection, work of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual gifts, and how to treat a brother in civil disagreements. Morality took a back burner and maturity was almost non-existent among those who were supposed to be a “temple of the Holy Spirit.” The Lord’s supper had evidently been turned into a common meal, and even their common meals had become occasions of stumbling because of what they were eating and where they were eating it. They were divided, deluded, demanding, and destructive to the body of Christ. Heading the list of their disregard for those things spiritual was a divisive mind set that led to sectarianism, schisms, and sinful conduct one toward another. What do you do with a congregation like that? Some would write them off, and others would write them up; but the apostle took the high road and sought to turn them from the error of their way. Chapter 1:10 thru 4:21 contain a rebuke of their divisive, carnal, and immature disposition; a mind set that threatened the very existence of the church in Corinth. Here is how Paul addressed the situation.
First, Paul sought common ground upon which he could then build. The opening verses to this letter (9 verses in my American Standard) contain some wonderful Christian graces that are worthy of imitation. Paul mentions their common Savior (Jesus Christ, vs. 1), their common Father (God, vs. 1), a common authority (“the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, vs 1), a common blessing (“grace and peace,” vs. 3), and a common calling (“called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,” vs. 9). If men can agree on those common aspects of their faith then there is hope for recovery. Undoubtedly some of our apostate brethren have abandoned some, if not all of those common graces; they may not realize it, and they may not admit it, but they have done it nonetheless. Departure from sound doctrine is an abandonment of the common authority found only in the “name of Jesus Christ.” Would any doubt that the brethren at Corinth had abandoned the common authority that would bring unity, moral uprightness, a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit and the resurrection? Yet the apostle gently reminds them of what they had in common before he addressed their abandonment of what was important.
Second, Paul was thorough in addressing the cause of dissension. The fact that some were saying, “I am Paul,” and others, “I am of Apollos” or “Cephas” was only the symptom. What brought these brethren to this point? What was it that produced such a rancorous spirit that would cause one brother to take another brother to law, or drive brethren to intentionally expel others from the communion service of the Lord? A careful study of 1:18-4:20 reveals at least three reasons why there was such dissension and division among the brethren. (1) First, a failure to remember the very nature of the gospel. The gospel was the wisdom of God revealed to them through the preaching of the gospel. “The word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (1:18). When someone says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of….” - you fill in the blank—has he not lost sight of nature of the gospel? Dissension draws a line in the sand over matters inconsequential and demands that men cross that line or else! The only standard by which men can be united is the wisdom of God, provided by the Holy Spirit and recorded by inspired men, “combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1:13). (2) Second, a failure to remember the source of that wisdom of God will produce dissension even among brethren. Evidently the Corinthians had forgotten the source of that gospel. Don’t doubt it! Why would anyone trade the all-authoritative word for the foolishness of men unless they had been deceived into disregarding the divine origin of the gospel. Give the devil his due! He has done a masterful job convincing men that the gospel is not inspired; that it did not come from God; that it is of no more value than the words of Shakespeare, Milton, or Twain. Young men sitting at the feet of professors in some of our so-called “Christian Universities” are imbibing modernism and post modernism at an alarming rate. They drink from the poison of those so-called professors who deny the very inspiration of the word of God and ridicule those who still believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. I see nothing in such ridicule of God’s word that can produce unity of any kind; it is only destined to further divide the Lord’s church. (3) Third, the Corinthians had failed to properly evaluate the place of leaders, teachers, and preachers within the body. I find it interesting that Paul emphasizes that he and Apollos were “servants of the Lord” (3:5), “fellow-workers” (3:9), and “stewards of the mysteries of God” (4:1). While one planted, another watered, but God gave the increase (3:6). Any movement that elevates a man above the gospel of Christ proves itself to be nothing more than the foolishness of men and at one and the same time drives a wedge between fellow Christians. We may have successfully avoided using such terms as “pastor,” “Reverend,” or “rabbi,” but are we not just as guilty when we address brethren as “Doctor” so-and-so in our relationship one to another?
Dissension must be dealt with at its root; but we must be sure to speak the truth in love. I find it significant that Paul ends this section in 1 Corinthians in the same way he began: “Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” (4:21). The question is rhetorical and strongly suggests that Paul’s approach was with the utmost kindness coupled with a deep love for their souls. Such is the only way to deal with religious dissension.
~~~~~