Dealing w/ Disagreements #1: A Divisive Man

First of all, I apologize for the ridiculously long title. I couldn't find a way to shorten it. 

Second, this is going to be the beginning of a series of articles on the different kinds of disagreements and divisions that might occur in the local church and how a different response ought to be implemented depending on the nature of the disagreement.

In this article, we're going to consider the worst kind of disagreement or controversy - when an individual, or even a group within the church, pushes a false doctrine all the while knowing it's going to stir up controversy and possibly divide the church.

We see several instances of such disagreements in the New Testament...

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:1-2).

Just as we have our hot topics today, the issue of circumcision was one of the most controversial issues in the first century churches. The Judaizing teachers from Judea knew that by teaching the necessity of circumcision, they were bringing an already emotionally-charged issue to the forefront. And what were these brethren doing in Antioch anyways? Clearly, their objective was to push their doctrine on the church in Antioch, even if it resulted in discouragement and division.

So how did Paul and Barnabas react? They openly and unashamedly debated these Judaizing teachers. Because this issue was being pushed openly, they responded openly. Because it was pushed forcibly on the church, the response merited equal force.

Paul had to deal with other false teachers, too, among whom were Alexander, Hymenaeus and Philetus...

"This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. 1:18-20).

"But shun profane and idle 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. 2:16-18).

Hymenaeus is the common denominator in both texts. Assuming it's the same person - I mean...how many men in the church were named Hymenaeus? - it appears that he was a constant problem in the church. He, along with Alexander and Philetus, were pushing a doctrine that was contrary to one of the core doctrines of Christianity; they were disputing the issue of the resurrection. We know that this was an issue in Corinth (read 1 Cor. 15) and even Thessalonica (1 Thess. 4). So like circumcision, this was another divisive issue in the first century churches, and yet that didn't stop these three men from spreading their error. As a result, many Christians were acting in an ungodly manner, and the faith of others had been destroyed!

In these few examples (and others could be cited), we learn that the false doctrines were not only controversial (and emotionally-charged), but also destructive, or at least potentially destructive. These were not mere academic squabbles; these were serious disagreements over issues that had an obvious impact on the early Christians.

And each time, we are told that Paul acted quickly and forcibly! He openly debated the Judaizing teachers in Antioch, and administered spiritual discipline to Alexander and Hymenaeus, openly withdrawing fellowship from them and marking them as servants of Satan (1 Tim. 1:20).

Also consider...

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple" (Romans 16:16-17).

"For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped..." (Titus 1:10-11).

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition" (Titus 3:10).

These three passages supplement what we've already learned by example. When there is someone in the church propagating error, whether privately ("subverting whole households") or publically (via sermons, Bible classes in the church), the church must be swift in implementing these steps.

If the error is being taught openly in the church by an individual who knows that he's stirring up conflict and controversy, there ought to be a public response. Men (ideally the elders) ought to stand up for the truth just as Paul and Barnabas did in Antioch. But whether the error is taught publically or privately, the divisive man ought to be warned twice, then publically marked as a false teacher (assuming he doesn't repent), and then finally rejected by the church.

It IS worth pointing out that in any conflict, both sides are going to feel justified. In other words, the divisive man may not see himself as a divisive man; the false teacher may not see himself as a false teacher. Perhaps the Judaizing teachers in Acts 15 felt truly convinced that circumcision was necessary, and saw themselves, not as false teachers dividing the church, but as brave proponents of truth. Maybe in their eyes, Paul and Barnabas were the false teachers. I don't know.

So what are we to do when both sides feel like they have the truth?

First of all, from the church's perspective, there needs to be a sense of conviction among the members, and certainly the leadership. Yes, we are all fallible, but we must diligently study the Scriptures, we should know what we believe, and we should be able to defend what we believe (1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:15). We cannot give ground to false teachers on the basis that we may be wrong. 

What if the church is wrong? Or what if an individual believes that the church is wrong, and he has a desire to guide the church to the truth? If we learn anything from these scriptures, it's not that disagreements can't be discussed - we should always be open-minded and willing to admit fault and/or reconsider our position on an issue (Acts 17:11) - it's that we ought to avoid handling our disagreements in a manner that is divisive. 

In other words, if you disagree with your church, instead of getting up in front of the church and preaching a lesson that you know is going to divide and splinter the church, and instead of dividing and conquering the church with your theory (even if you believe it's the truth), ask to study with the elders, or with the leading men in the congregation. Simply put, put the unity of the church before your agenda. If you have the truth, be patient, loving, and understand that it may take time for doors to open.

This article was a bit longer and more intensive, so thank you for your time and consideration.

Click here to read the second article in this series.