Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 8
August 23, 1956
NUMBER 16, PAGE 5

Controversy In The Church

Wright Randolph, San Pablo, California

Webster defines "controversy" to mean, among other things, "dispute, debate." The moment we attach "dispute" or "debate" to its meaning it becomes a very ugly thing to a great number of church members. It is difficult to understand how it could be so with any one who claims to believe the Bible and love the Truth. Controversy has been in the limelight since the beginning of God's dealings with the human race. In every walk of life we are acquainted with controversy. In the field of politics we take it for granted; in fact, we think little of the politician who will not debate or dispute. In the business world we expect it, and, even in the social world, we condone it. But in religion it must be taboo.

In recent months I have heard such statements as: "Preach the Gospel and leave the issues alone." "I am sick and tired of hearing so much about institutionalism." "Why talk so much about the Herald of Truth?" etc... Those who don't want to hear more about these things are quick to tell us they don't believe these things are right and they don't go along with them, BUT! I am pretty well convinced that the brother who does not want to hear these things exposed for what they are thinks they are all right. It is rather strange that such brethren have not become tired of hearing so much about the baptism or the instrumental music question. Just about every preacher in the brotherhood every so often preaches a sermon against the instrument. I wonder why? Of course, it is because he knows that is the only effective way to keep it out.

Another expression I many times hear is: "Why do you want to split the church over these things?" Can it be true that anyone is so naive as to believe that those who oppose the unscriptural are responsible for dividing the church? 'Mr. A. W. Fortune, Christian Church historian, in his book "The Disciples In Kentucky," page 372 says this: "The introduction of the organ into the worship of the church was the occasion of a bitter controversy, and WAS ONE OF THE MAIN CAUSES OF THE DIVISION which finally came." (Emp. mine, W.R.) Thus it is admitted by those who use the instrument that its introduction was the cause of division. Those who insist on using that for which there is no authority are the ones who divide the church. So it is today; those who persist on unauthorized methods to do the work of the church are the ones who will be responsible for any division which may come. It is always the one who drives the wedge who splits the log.

May I ask a question? Why were Paul and Barnabas so concerned about Judaism as it was being brought into the church in Antioch ? "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation (controversy, W.R.) with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas . . . . should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this practice." (See Acts 15.) Why say anything about it? Why not just leave it alone and preach the Gospel? And after these brethren, in the wisdom of God, had made their decision as to this matter they, of all things, scattered it all over the brotherhood. Paul and Timothy, leaving Lystra and Iconium, went throughout Phrygia and Galatia telling all the churches about the unscriptural teaching in Antioch, and about how the apostles and elders had issued certain decrees to be kept. (Acts 16:4.) I suppose some of the brethren of today would accuse Paul, Barnabas and Timothy of being "gossipers and church-splitters."

To be controversial is simply being Christ-like. Jesus was a very controversial character. He had quite a discussion (dispute-controversy) with the Samaritan woman. (John 4.) He entered into quite a controversy with the Pharisees on the subject of marriage and divorce as recorded in Matthew 19. He charged the scribes and Pharisees with vain worship and holding commandments of men as their doctrine. He was even offensive, at least the Pharisees thought so, in his opposition. And when the Pharisees were offended the attitude of Jesus toward them was: "Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matt. 15.)

I readily admit that being controversial causes a lot of opposition and incurs the wrath of a lot of brethren. The apostle Paul had a terrible time. He was always in hot water it seems. He contended with the Jews in Jerusalem and almost lost his life. Again disputing with the Jews in Lystra resulted in his being stoned and left for dead. No doubt he could have been much more popular had he chosen to "ride the fence" and refuse to condemn a false doctrine or practice.

Controversy within itself is good and very good. However, an abuse of it is bad, yes, very bad. Personalities become involved in controversy, discussions and debates. Too many times it is the idea of defeating the person rather than the doctrine. We make an extended effort to take vengeance on the person rather than expose his false teaching. I need not fall out with a person just because I disagree with his teaching, or as it has been said: "We need not be disagreeable in order to disagree."

Honesty should characterize our every effort to study a teaching. I have always prided myself in believing I could see a point when it is made or understand anything which is reasonable or sensible. I think I sense a bit of dishonesty in some whom I know are my superiors in learning. When one with ability and learning so blatantly refuses to see a point or understand an argument, it certainly causes you to question his honesty.

Controversy, like death and taxes, has ever been and will ever be with us. When my doctor told me I had an ulcer, he said: "You will have to learn to live with it." So it is with controversy. It has ever been and will ever be. We should not only learn to live with it but to appreciate it. God grant that the day shall never come when men are unwilling to lay their teaching on the line and allow it to be investigated. If our position is not impregnable, it is not worth having.

In controversy among brethren, let the welfare of the Lord's church be uppermost in our minds. Let Truth reign supreme and let honest brethren be respected and appreciated.