Not Peace At Any Price:
We are not by any means an advocate of peace at any price. We do not believe that principle should be sacrificed for the sake of harmony in the ecclesia. In these articles we are writing not so much about principles of Faith, but about principles of Conduct; about attitudes of mind which should and must govern our Walk in Christ.
A brother wrote recently words that demand our fullest consideration and meditation: “The term `brethren’ ought to evoke the kind feeling shown by Abraham when he said to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee . . . for we be brethren’. Contention for principle there must always be, as there will always be those who go out from us because they are not of us: indeed, separation in sorrow not in anger could be necessitated by irreconcilable disagreement upon fundamental facts about the faith. But conflicts of personality, or man-made distinctions, or points of view should never so obscure him who is the Head that we ignore the implications of the towel with which he girded himself . . If Paul need to withstand Peter because he is to be blamed, then let it be to the face, not by more devious methods, and in such a way that Peter can still call Paul ‘our beloved brother’ “.
Again we ask: Who is going to be wise?
Who is going to heal?
Responsibility Of Strong Brethren
There is only one answer: Not simply the weak brother. Not simply the brother who has been offended. It is the strong brother, the brother who has done the offending. He is the one who should have the wisdom, the meekness, and the mercy to demonstrate Truth in action in his life. How can we be living in Truth, for example, when we know we have offended a brother or a sister, and placed a stumbling block in their paths; and yet excuse ourselves from going to him or her and being reconciled, because we feel we are in the right?
How can we be walking in Truth, when we, who through the mercy of God were reconciled unto Him while we were yet sinners, show no genuine concern — no compassionate concern for our brethren and sisters in Truth? When it comes to disagreement, brethren, when it comes to strife: think on these words from The Guiding Light: “Is it not possible to be firm yet gentle . . uncompromising but courteous, strong but kind ? . . Is it not possible to discuss an important subject without heat? To be fair even when we cannot approve, to help even if we are not helped, and to be just, although not treated with justice?’
In his Letters to Corinth. Bro. Barling has this to say about the proper attitude of mind regarding serious points of disagreement: “knowing the weak brother’s difficulties to be so real and therefore his need of sympathetic consideration to be so much greater, Paul pressed the strong brother to be the one to yield. if yielding there had to be. In vain would the strong brother protest that he was after all the one who was intellectually in the right and therefore ought to stand up for himself as a matter of principle. Paul saw beyond the desirability of standing up for the intellectual rightness of a point of view (Brethren, can we read that again: Paul saw beyond the desirability of standing up for the intellectual rightness of a point of view). He knew how easily it could quench love and banish joy for both disputants . .
Did the strong brother feel that it was all wrong to concede what seemed a vital principle by doing as Paul urged? Well, let him console himself with the thought that God appreciated his understanding even if he were thus denied the opportunity of obliging others to recognize it . . Although his sympathies were with the strong, Paul was not the inflexible advocate of policies which are right because they can he justified intellectually. Paul was a passionate champion of whatever best helped men and women attain the Kingdom of God”.
The strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, making allowances, without expecting any in return (Is that the way it is done in our ecclesia, brethren?). When no principle is involved the strong should be prepared to give way, for only they can yield (can heal?) without the fear of appearing weak.
Refusal of brethren brethren who are considered as pillars of the ecclesia, brethren who are respected as being among the strong – — refusal of these brethren, of all brethren, to follow these principles of conduct in their walk in Truth, generates which ultimately is perpetuated in the form of strife.
Are there those in the ecclesia whom we cannot shake hands with Sunday morning? Are there others we shake hands with in a rather hypocritical show of courtesy? Are there some members of the ecclesia we avoid? Are there some brethren whom a presiding brother will not call on to give a prayer, even when others do? If the answer to these questions, and a host of others, is “yes” then we should examine ourselves to see whether or not we are walking in Truth, exhibiting compassionate concern and forgiveness to all members of the one body. Math. 18:35: “So likewise shall my heavenly father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts, forgive not every one his brother their trespasses”.
3 Courses Of Action:
There are three courses of action taken by sincere, strong brethren, embroiled in strife and concerned enough to take action:
- They will make a phone call to the offended brother, hoping that is all that is necessary and feeling that the call then passes the responsibility to the other.
- They will write him a letter.
- They will confide in a third party, perhaps with the unspoken hope that the third person will go and straighten out the other brother.
None of these three courses of action are acceptable:
Bro. Robert Roberts in the Ecclesial Guide under the heading of “Individual Offences” lays down the operative principle hard and fast: “The brother is not at liberty to mention the matter to a third party, and he is not at liberty to stand aside in a state of alienation. A communication through a third party, or still worse a letter, is no fulfillment of the law of Christ; offers none of its opportunities of reconciliation, and is rather calculated to prolong and aggravate the irritations of the case. The brethren, refusing to listen to the merits of the case one way or the other (how often do we apply this principle when a brother or sister comes to us with a tale of woe?), ought to insist upon the offended seeing the offender (and the reverse applies as well), or, if he refuses, to disassociate themselves from his company.”
“Unless individual offences are strictly treated in this way, the community will constantly be in danger of disturbances and even disruption . . . Even in the interests of self-defense, Christ’s rule ought to be insisted on. Who is safe from slander if a brother may pour his evil thoughts in to the ear of a third party? What righteous man would suffer if every complainer were first compelled to make known his complaints to the person against whom they were directed? Nothing will more effectually secure peace in a community than the maintenance of Christ’s rule for dealing with offences, personal or otherwise.” These are strong words, but if followed, how they would stop strife in its tracks!
Responsibility Of Elders:
Particularly does this responsibility fall upon arranging brethren, recording brethren, and other elders in the ecclesia. If these rules of conduct were followed to the letter, nearly all the murmuring, whispering, back-biting, jealousy, dissension and strife would be eliminated. Our efforts should be directed far more towards these ends than they are now.
It was again the Wise Man who said: “Better is a dry morsel with quiet, than a house full of feasting with strife”. RSV Pro’.. 17:1.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One