Preacher Squabbles and You

Picture this: you attend a gospel meeting in the area. After good singing the preacher mounts the pulpit and you expect to hear the Word of God explained and be encouraged and exhorted as a Christian. Instead, the preacher launches into a diatribe blasting another preacher. He pounds away at this fellow, urging that all see what a terrible false teacher and threat to all's eternal security brother Target-Tonight really is. While reading some passages along the way and assuring all that he truly loves brother Target-Tonight you go away feeling greatly disturbed. Is brother Target-Tonight really the antichrist? While you certainly agree that error needs to be rebuked, the tone and attitude of the speaker left you uncomfortable. Is it possible to speak the truth without love?

Picture this: you pick up a copy of a brotherhood paper, expecting to read and be edified. Instead you find a series of responses and exchanges in which two brethren alternatively shout that they have been misrepresented and that the other fellow doesn't know enough Bible to find Acts if you started him in John. What are they arguing over? Why are they so upset?

Both of these scenarios portray common episodes of what some call ""preacher squabbles"" or ""preacher fusses."" This kind of activity often leaves conscientious brethren confused and uncertain, or even worse, drawing wrong conclusions about preachers. What can be said about all of this?

First, it is a mistake to ignore everything. The ostrich-in-the-sand reaction is common. ""It's all just preacher talk - it doesn't mean anything to me"" is often heard but is certainly a mistake. While preachers have been known to squabble over matters that were absolutely pointless, there have been times when brethren and congregations were being affected by serious issues. Preachers and preaching on those matters involved identifying those who were propagating error, showing the consequences of the error, and spelling out clearly the ramifications of such error. One cannot help but think of the institutional issues of the 1950's. A serious and determined effort was made to align churches on a national basis with various institutional programs. What if everyone had said ""It doesn't really matter"" and refused to listen to fine men like Robert Turner? The devil is trying to devour any he can (1 Peter 5:8). Some come from within our own ranks to draw away brethren with error (Acts 20:30). While churches today know many positives and have much to be pleased about, there is no doubt that worldliness and apathy continue to creep in and attack us. Timely warnings will always be a part of genuine gospel preaching.

Second, it is a mistake to believe everything. Some preachers seem to be conspiracy and reaction oriented. Everything is the end of the world. Everyone is teaching and writing false doctrine. Everyone is losing their soul now. However, whether we wish to admit it or not, everything isn't the ""next big issue."" Every problem that churches in California or Florida have is not coming here. It may impress some to constantly scream ""the sky is falling"" but the truth is, the sky isn't always falling. Further, we don't want to believe everything about everyone because it may not even be true. Outright misrepresentation and quoting of context seem to be increasingly common today. Some brethren are majoring in labeling, smearing, and disparaging other preachers. Yet often their labels are simply false, are contrived, or represent vast generalizations. For example, while it is certainly fair to point out the end result and logical conclusions of a person's teaching it is wrong to charge that person with all those conclusions and consequences. Yet it is easy to say ""he said X and that is part of Calvinism so he must be a Calvinist!"" Watch out for this kind of ""broad brush"" treatment. Be ready to check sources, read some articles for yourself and always listen with a careful ear of discernment. In short, we do well to remember that just because an article or preacher says that this doctrinal point will divide every church in America or that Brother Target is a genuine bad apple doesn't make it necessarily so. There are brethren who seem intent on ""biting and devouring each other"" (Gal. 5:15). Keep that in mind when you read or hear brother Doberman talk of others.

Third, we should hold those who preach such lessons to very high standards. It is a serious matter to publicly attack (by name) another brother. If that brother is misrepresented, misunderstood, or just plain lied about, his reputation will have been wrongfully damaged beyond repair. This is why when you hear such a sermon you should be unafraid to ask the speaker afterward ""Have you talked with this brother about this matter? How do you know he believes what you charged him with? What does he say about it?"" Some are determined that Matthew 18:15ff (""if you have something against your brother"") does not apply to public teaching. That might be debated but there is no doubt that Matthew 7:12 does. I do not want anyone trashing Mark Roberts in the pulpit or their paper without having discussed that with me first. That gives me the chance to change my views, to explain how I was misunderstood, or to re-center the discussion in a proper context. If this is how I wish to be treated then I must do the same for others! I need to make certain I understand the error I am refuting and the position of the one I am attacking if such is to be done scripturally and in accord with the spirit of Christ.

Fourth, we must not put up with evil done in the name of good. Paul deals with those who think that evil can bring forth good (Romans 3:8) and so must we. It is possible to be right doctrinally but wrong in attitude, and one is not worse than the other. The man who attacks another viciously or unfairly is just as wrong as the fellow he is after. Both need to repent! No one can change that Ephesians 4:15 still says ""speaking the truth in love."" Paul is urging not only what to say but also how to say it. If a man seems to be rejoicing in his ""exposing"" of others, if he is mean-spirited as he does it, then he is wrong, period. This kind of preaching and writing simply cannot be tolerated.

Let's make application of this principle. It is not loving to call people names. I receive a journal (not by choice, it just appears in the mailbox!) that calls those the editors disagree with every name in the book. One either thinks like the editors think or one is a clown, stupid, a ""dunderhead,"" a son of Satan, etc. How do such unkind and vicious labels serve the cause of truth in any way?

It is not loving to question other's motives or motivation. I have seen and heard several attacks where a preacher was a called an entertainer, or it was charged that he preached just to entertain and be popular, or that he didn't use scripture. Even if this was so, how would one go about proving it? How does anyone know why this fellow preaches? Further, I have heard this preacher many times and found his preaching to be scriptural, sound, and dare I say it, interesting to listen to. Why then is he so besmirched? Is it sinful to preach well? No man knows another man's heart. Let us accept one another in good faith.

Further, it is not loving or right to malign an entire group based on what one member of the group does. For example, if one writer of a paper takes a certain stand that does not mean the entire paper should be charged with that error. All papers have writers and columnists who severely disagree on serious matters. But just because writer X says something doesn't mean it is fair for me to go around waving his paper in the air saying ""This paper is not sound.""

Note as well this applies to churches and meetings. Asking brother X for a meeting does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of everything this brother has ever said or done. Fellows have preached here at Westside who later become embroiled in some controversy. It would be wrong to decide that Westside was supporting that fellow on that particular issue. We didn't ask him to come because we agreed with everything he will ever say or do! We asked him because we thought his preaching and teaching would be in line with God's word as far as we knew and were sure we could correct any problems as they develop. Can we do any more? So be careful, brethren, when you hear or read a preacher who is lumping everyone together in one giant basket of ""the unsound"" or ""liberals."" Everyone may not fit in the basket as easily and readily as some might want.

Finally, it is certainly not loving to just out and out lie about others. To say that others don't love the truth, to quote out of context, to put the worst spin on everything done or said, to claim that a paper is all positive and contains little scripture (when even a cursory examination shows otherwise), or that a man said something when he did not - those are carnal tactics that God will bring into judgment.

When brethren see sinful activity going on they need to put a stop to it. It is not right to do wrong for a good cause.

Fifth, we should be unafraid to say ""This is not worth our time."" Years ago I wrote an article chastising a man that urged people to clip uncanceled postage stamps off their envelopes and re-use them. I was certain that such indicated liberalism ""gone to seed"" and ""we are drifting!"" A kind couple gently asked if that was really the most important issue of the hour and if paper and ink could not be expended more profitably. They said it appeared I was just running down the fellow to be running him down. Of course, what made it worse, is that they were absolutely right!

Paul decried vain quarreling long ago: ""But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife"" (2 Tim. 2:23). ""But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless"" (Titus 3:9). It is important when we examine a ""fuss"" to see just what it all means. What are the implications and final ramifications of this discussion? If one brother completely surrenders, admits he is totally wrong and takes the other fellow's position, how will our approach to serving Jesus change? Asking those questions needs to be done more often. In the 1950's the answer was clear: if we adopt the institutional view it will change how a church does its work, what we do with our treasury, what can go on in our building, and open us up for additional departures from God's word. That doesn't sound like a ""foolish dispute,"" does it?

Yet for every dispute that is of value and real concern, we seem to be beset by fifty that do not amount to anything. Endless discussion about why God does what He does, or how the Trinity operates, or how Deity chose to inhabit a human body appear to serve little real purpose. There seems to be little talk about the clear ramifications of either position in such squabbles. Are these discussions purely academic then? Of what value do they have, except to discourage brethren and cause many to think that preachers have no connection to real life as lived by Christians today? When such goes on brethren need to take action to put an end to it. Brethren have put up with the magazines they fund with their subscription dollars being over-run with trivia, academia, and bitterness for too long. Speak up! Write the editor and say you are canceling if it doesn't get better. Explain clearly that while you demand a stand be taken for truth you also expect that stand to be taken in love. Likewise, some pulpits are filled with endless discussion of what ""they"" are doing over ""there"" or endless lessons on this ""new threat"" to faithfulness. Meanwhile, brethren who appreciated (perhaps!) the initial warning now find themselves overwhelmed on the same topic while their souls starve. They ought to say something! Talk with the elders, or talk with the preacher. Explain the need to proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), and not harp endlessly on one subject or ride one hobby. Notice Paul's writings. While he doesn't hesitate to deal with problems and handle issues, his writing moves along decisively from one matter to another, and includes encouragement and commendation as well as exhortation and rebuke. We should expect the same from those who would follow the apostolic model but we will not get it as long as we allow pulpit and print abuse to go unchecked.

Finally, never forget about congregational autonomy. Each congregation is to run its own affairs and own matters (1 Peter 5:2). Particularly in matters of judgment, each congregation must do as it sees best. Several years ago a congregation elected not to put ""church of Christ"" on their sign, thinking that the name prejudiced some in the community against them. Quickly this church and their preacher were attacked and ""written up"" in papers across the country. They were ashamed of the church, we were told. They didn't love the Lord's church, others accused. This sign changing thing was the next big issue, some said. It was all unfair, indecent, and a violation of congregational autonomy. The local church can put up whatever scriptural name it chooses and that is exactly no one's business but their own. For others, thousands of miles from that church's community, to stick their nose in and offer opinions (nay, make pronouncements) is sad and terribly misguided. We need to learn to respect another congregation's right to do differently than we might choose to do. Congregational autonomy receives a lot of lip service but often is trod underfoot. Perhaps the beginning of a greater appreciation for autonomy will come when preachers have less concern about what is going on everywhere else but home and instead more concern about what is happening at home! In truth, while preachers should certainly warn of error and false doctrine, they have no scriptural right to meddle in other church's affairs. I know of some elders who were attacked because they told a potential preacher they didn't want a fellow who would spend all his time trying to run the brotherhood. He was quite put off by that, but he never did get around to giving Bible authority for some new sort of apostle that a local church is supposed to support while he trots around the country taking care of everyone else's business! Some may think that such activity is preaching but it does not meet the criteria the New Testament gives for a genuine evangelist.

It would seem that some amount of preacher fussing is inevitable. By virtue of what they do, preachers have the time to explore some questions that a lot of folks just are not ever going to think about. It also seems that preachers tend to run toward the strongly opinionated and rather self- confident type (this one included!). That is a combination that can be a powerful force for good, or sadly, a terrible force for evil. If brethren will take a more active interest in looking after the conduct and substance of preacher debates, we should be able to press issues that matter and leave at rest those that do not.