A strategy was attempted at the Joplin Unity Meeting in 1984. The purpose of getting 50 members of the Christian Church and 50 members of the churches of Christ together was not to discuss differences between the two groups; it was to attempt to unify men “from both sides of the keyboard,” as it was often expressed. The ten discussion groups, each containing ten members were always split 5-5 for the sake of “balance.” But the groups did not generally discuss whether the use of instrumental music was right or wrong, but instead commented on the speeches made previously to the whole assembly. The attitude was more one of, “How can we get along? How can we work with each other?” Suggestions were made and later reported to the entire group of men present. Afterward, comments about the value of the meeting included, this assessment: “Well, we learned by the two diverse groups being together that neither of us has horns.”
It was a clever strategy and may have encouraged some to compromise. It is harder to oppose someone you are familiar with. Gratefully, some saw through the attempt and realized, “Whether or not I personally like a certain individual is irrelevant. Is his teaching true or false?” There’s a reason wolves wear sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15); if they looked like wolves and snarled, “I’m about to devour you,” they probably would not get many takers. But by blending in and appearing personable, they gain the sheep’s confidence.
Alexander Pope, famous for his mock-epic, The Rape of the Lock, and An Essay on Criticism, penned the verse below. Usually only the last four lines are cited, but the first four prior to them are exceedingly interesting and relevant to this topic. Carl Garner included them on page 94 of his chapter for Studies in Jeremiah (Volume 1); the emphasis is mine:
We don’t go down with a quick, hard fall;
We just glide along.
Little by little we lighten our load,
Till we cannot tell right from wrong.
Sin is a monster of such frightful countenance,
That to be hated needs but to be seen.
But seen too often, familiar with its face,
We first endure, then pity, and then embrace!
Observant souls quite often have lamented, “Brethren, we are drifting.” The way the poet would have said that is, “We are gliding along.” We have become accustomed to certain men from the denominational world, who have put together materials that fit the category of Christian evidences or who have produced popular books or videos on marriage and the family. But we must remember that many of these are Calvinists and will tell people to recite “the sinner’s prayer” (which cannot be found in the Bible) and then assure them that once saved, they cannot possibly be lost.
A greater danger, however, is the problem within the church. Many of the wolves are quite personable, and some apparently cannot bring themselves to think that underneath the sheepskin are wolf hides. It is not the outward demeanor by which brethren ought to be making judgments; what is the doctrine of the person in question. The same volume of Jeremiah has a number of interesting and vital comments, due to the nature of the Biblical book it is reviewing. Below are some of those. Don Walker wrote:
In my generation I have seen the forming of another denomination among many. It is sad enough that there would be the establishment of another body that stands in opposition to God’s way, but even sadder still, this denomination formed from within the Lord’s church. A failure to follow God’s will abounds and yet weak preachers proclaim that all is well. “Peace, peace,” is the mantra of the day for far too many (134).
This phenomenon happens when brethren refuse to take false teaching seriously. So we have a little annihilation doctrine here, a little direct influence of the Holy Spirit there, a little elder re-evaluation here, a little instrumental music or handclapping there. But many quickly assure us that the best course to pursue is not one of objection or criticism, but one of “peace.”
Wayne Jones wrote that Judah was taken captive by Babylon because “they trusted in a covenant that they had not merely broken but willfully shattered” (227). Interesting. If we know what the New Testament teaches and we willingly violate it on any subject, are we not today shattering our covenant? Sean Hochdorf made an incisive comment, also:
Whenever a message is preached that does not originate with God, unity will always be hindered (358).
The result of heeding the false prophet’s words is that “they make you worthless” (359).
This last reference is to Jeremiah 23:16. Both it and its succeeding verse are reprinted below:
Thus says the Lord of hosts:
“Do not listen to the words of the prophet who prophesy to you. They make you worthless: they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord.
They continually say to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You shall have peace”’; And to everyone who walks according to the imagination of his own heart, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’”
How’s that for a deal? You can do whatever you want, and nothing bad will happen to you. Few are the ones to whom that message would not appeal. Are we far from that today? The only difference is that what some brethren are telling us today is, “You can fellowship anyone you want, and no one will hold you accountable for it. Nothing bad will happen to you.”
Dave Rogers, in analyzing Jeremiah 26:4-7, cites William S. Cline’s three sermon points on the passage from a previous Firm Foundation Commentary on Jeremiah, published in 1986 (2:77):
First [is] an appeal for obedience by the people in order to facilitate God’s desire to forgive and bless them. Second, the notion that absolute submission to God’s word is indispensable to this objective, which entails the people both hearing and heeding Jeremiah’s message. Third is the observation that there is no room for “compromise” on these points…” (392).
What was true in Jeremiah’s day remains true; we have no more of a license to rebel against any portion of the Word of God any more than they did.
Jeremiah pointed out that Judah’s problem was that the nation would not obey God nor receive correction. Jeremiah 7:28 closes by declaring: “Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth.” Jason Rollo, commenting on this verse, says: “They did not love truth. They did not adore truth. They did not care about truth. They did not value truth. They did not speak truth. They did not want truth” (151). Commenting on verse 30, Rollo declares that “anything contrary to God’s Law is evil” (152, emph. his). How true this is. Attempts to rationalize sin fail utterly. Whatever disagrees with God’s Law in speech or in practice is evil. There can be no two ways about it.
Rollo continues to observe from Jeremiah 2:35 the way the people “felt about themselves.” They claimed they were innocent! Seriously? Yes. He writes:
Amazingly, these rebels had rejected God’s teachings by doing the exact opposite of that which was required. They did not fear Him, which tells the reason for their departure. Yet, when Jeremiah rebuked them, they in essence said, “Who us? You must be joking; we haven’t done anything amiss” (152).
They must have graduated from the school of King Saul who, when he returned from the battle against the Amalekites, told Samuel, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13). He had not, but in effect, he was saying, “I am as obedient and as innocent as I know how to be.” When Samuel challenged him, he began to give excuses for his failures, but Samuel rejected those and implied that he was stubborn and rebellious.
Judah did that which God “commanded them not.” Rollo correctly points out that this phrase means that what they were doing was “wholly unauthorized” (155). God never approves of mankind doing what He has not authorized. The same thing was said of Nadab and Abihu. They “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1). This phrase once again means that what they did was “wholly unauthorized.”
But here is the application. The truth of the New Testament includes what it teaches concerning fellowship. 2 John 9-11 and other related passages are the Law of God. Why, then, do some who insist that we only do what is authorized and stand for truth without compromise suddenly become mute on this subject or begin to make excuses for what they are doing, declaring their innocence? Something is not adding up.
Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, meaning that he withdrew fellowship from them. Why? The answer is that they had drifted so far away from the moorings of the faith that they had suffered shipwreck with respect to it. In the course of either propagating or defending their error, they were actually guilty of blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:18-20). Now, if some brethren had invited them to speak on a lectureship or workshop, does anyone believe that Paul would have been a co-speaker at that event—unless he took his time to expose their false doctrine?
Such individuals and their teachings are to be shunned—not promoted. Paul wrote:
But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2: 18-20).
Did they not believe Jesus was Savior? Probably they did. Were they teaching something weird about salvation other than Acts 2:38? Nothing so indicates. Had they perverted the worship of the saints? Paul provides no evidence of such. But in teaching that the resurrection was already past, they strayed concerning the truth. Error is no substitute for truth. How many errors did it take for Paul to mark these brethren (Rom. 16:17-18)? What would be the difference between inviting F. LaGard Smith to a lectureship and asking Hymenaeus?
Now what are brethren supposed to think of those who invite false teachers and those who appear on the same program without objecting to the presence of Hymenaeus among the speakers? Are we going to ignore standing for the truth when it insists that we refuse fellowship to some? Do we really love, value, and care about the truth? Or will we compromise and then insist that we have not done anything amiss?