1
AVOIDING CONTROVERSY
At an annual meeting, where Christians gather numbered among them are many preachers. As a result, it has been common practice that as many preachers as possible have opportunity to speak on a topic that each one feels needful. This past year it was made known that the Church where the meeting is held wanted no brotherhood problems or controversial subjects addressed. Needless to say, this evoked some controversy itself. As Christians have been in the habit of attending this meeting at great expense and wearisome travel, many of whom come from small congregations, where they feel like they are alone in standing for the truth, have gone away refreshed and built up, realizing they are not alone in the struggle to teach truth and live right. Now, they cannot and will not enjoy the same encouragement, as they will be left to wonder whether others are with them in the battle. The same spirit has been seen in other such meetings as some congregations have adapted the policy of selecting certain preachers to speak at each service and assigning them a topic (non-controversial) to make things go along smoothly. I recall one instance where a brother was given a topic which he prepared However, upon arrival he was told that the topic was unacceptable and given another instead. Those of us who know the situation have little difficulty in judging regarding the change; it was within the congregation a controversial subject.
In light of these developments, I have decided to avoid controversy if at all possible. This is not as easy as some people may think, especially since it has been my life long practice to follow the example of the Lord and His Apostles by speaking the “whole council of God.” However, determined, as I am to avoid controversy, I will avoid certain topics and subjects. Let me share with you some of these things. (These resolutions are said “tongue in cheek”—BO).
I shall cease to be as clear and repetitive when presenting the way of salvation. Oh, yes, I will talk about salvation by the grace of God. But, when it comes to telling people that one must believe the gospel, repent of every sin, confess Jesus Christ, and be baptized by the authority of Christ, I will name these things less frequently and with less emphasis. To stress baptism is out of the question. Asking people to confess that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” will not be encouraged as I have done for more than forty years. Apparently, I have had it all wrong, as there is controversy about it. If I mention the confession at all, I should ask people to confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Of course, to keep down controversy I’ll have to make this confession myself and be baptized following it, since anything less would be inconsistent. Surely my brethren who are so stoutly advocating that very confession have themselves made it and were baptized following it. Seems to me, if the confession made by them in years gone by was not right, the baptism following would be ineffective.
From this time forward, I will exercise great care to avoid controversy with denominational neighbors who may be present. I will avoid saying anything about denominations or sectarianism being sinful. And, of course, I will never say words that demonstrate way of error like Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Disciples, or Christ or Christian Church, etc. Such statement might throw the brethren in the congregations into neighborhood controversy.
As hard as it will be, I must refrain from preaching about error involving the Lord’s Table. I cannot even refer to it as “The Lord’s Supper” since this is a controversy with some. I must not insist that we are to be present each Lord’s Day with disciples to eat, since this evokes a controversy with brethren who wish to work or vacation hindering them from being at the Table of worship. I will not even insist that we are to eat every Lord’s Day—but only once on that Day, because some brethren have (without a scriptural command, statement, example, or necessary inference) practiced meeting several times communing each time. This I understand has taken place especially in work outside the USA. It now is trickling within the borders of this country. I suppose if one went to enough services in a single Lord’s Day, he could eat so much that he would have no need of a common meal, which would be controversial. Also, I cannot talk about the time of worship, I mean, eating the Supper on Saturday night or after sundown on Sunday night, as this has become controversial.
I must harness my tongue regarding the specifics of the language of the Lord’s Table. I cannot say, “this cup is the New Testament.” Some disbelieve the statement contending that Jesus did not mean what He said “the cup cannot possibly be the New Testament.” So, to make the statement would be controversial. I cannot point out the necessity of following Jesus’ example precisely as I have been told that some sing a song occasionally between eating the bread and giving thanks for the cup. One brother told me he believes it would be all right to give thanks for the bread, then give thanks for the cup and pass both at the same time. If I should bring that up, it would evoke controversy on my part.
From now on, I must decidedly avoid teaching about Elders. One does not even have to be an older man, as many young men have been appointed, so if I say “elder” when speaking of the office, I would be controversial. There are many differences about qualifications. If I say one must be married, there are those that disagree. If I contend that his children must be faithful, a controversy will spring up. If I teach that one wife means just that, there are those who contend he can be divorced for scriptural reasons and still be appointed to the office. Researching “apt to teach” I have discovered it means a “skillful teachers,” but some of my brethren say he doesn’t have to teach himself, he just sees that the congregation is properly taught. And, with so many “resigning the office” I bring up the thought that I never read of an elder doing that in New Testament times. It seems to me that an elder should be an example to the flock in using one’s ability. However, if he can just decide he is not going to use his talent, why can’t the rest of us desist using our talents too. With so much controversy surrounding the subject, I will do better leaving it alone.
I’ve come to my senses about preaching on such things as long hair. The Bible says that women must have it and men must not, but it always causes controversy when preached on, so, I will just leave it off. Oh, I might say, “women should have long hair” once in a while, but I certainly will not elaborate on what the expression means. In addition, never will I talk about the dress of a Christian. Women in trousers, low cut blouses, and high hemlines cannot be brought up. And, since I am usually way behind on what is or is not fashionable, I will not discuss the tight fitting garment. Nor shall I any longer talk about the example men should set for their wives, boys and girls by refraining from nakedness. Let them wear their cut-off's, shorts and go around with bare chests. I cannot believe the Lord is pleased with such dressing or lack thereof, but I will not cause a controversy by bringing it up, especially in public. I still may discuss these subjects in private occasionally with those who are in agreement with me. But, I refuse to be controversial.
Of course, there will be no preaching on the long referred to “Marriage Question.” There are a number of controversies surrounding it. What if any conditions necessary for one to divorce and it be permissible in the eyes of God to re-marry. Then the question of fellowship regarding those without such conditions. This will be too controversial for me in the future.
All other subjects that border on “worldliness” must be carefully avoided. I suppose it will not cause controversy if I just use the word “worldliness,” so, I will continue to use that word without getting into specifics. Care will be taken not to say things regarding the language a Christian should use, the places and events we should refrain from, and even the associations we are to company with. These surely are controversial.
I do not know how I am going to get by without speaking on the “mission of the church” once in a while. I suppose I will strive to be like Paul and “keep under my body and bring it into subjection.” You see, some advocate spreading the Gospel apart from the church. Little groups are formed that do this work for/or in place of the church. It may be an organization of women, a “camping group,” or others keeping company together to do what they seemingly think the church is not sufficient to accomplish. But, far be it from me to bring it up again, as controversy will surely follow. None of us want that, do we? Any subject (even if true) can be sacrificed for peace.
Spare me from preaching against such things as Sunday Schools or Bible Classes, as I cannot talk about these without bringing up other hybrids. When congregations systematically meet in homes to study the Bible and will not follow the rules scripturally given from assemblies and often classify these for the men, or for the sisters, or for the young people, although I know this is erroneous, I must bite my tongue rather than speak out against such. Why such failure on my part? Because I cannot cause a controversy.
Moreover, when a church openly violates the scripture in the worship, I am determined to say little or nothing negative. It will preach on positive themes, or not preach on a theme at all from this point forward. A congregation decided that it would read/recite a passage of scripture, men, women, children, believers and non-believers. If I am called there I must take care that I do not stir the matter because I would become controversial. Yes. I would like to say something but I must not. I visited a young church some time ago. It was a weekday evening; they were going over the book of Acts. The leader would read a verse and then each member would give their interpretation of that verse including the women. When they had gone around the room and it came my turn, I shook my head “no.” When the service was about to close, the leader asked if anyone had anything to say. I asked if I might say something. Granted the privilege, I arose with New Testament in hand. I read a few verses and commented, showing their practice was contrary to the scripture and was therefore sinful. The leader insisted that the preacher who established the congregation told them that their practice was all right. Of course, I suggested that regardless of what he said it was not right as it violated God’s Word. Also, I suggested that I would happily meet with that preacher in their presence to discuss the matter. You see, before I knew it I was in the middle of a controversy. If that happensagain, I must sit silently because it is controversial. Attending some of the meetings that take place around a holiday from work, I cannot even bring things like this up as it might create a controversy there.
Being an avid reader, I must now be more selective with my reading material. I have tried to keep up with current religious thought and the teaching that others are putting out there. Now I must back into my shell and refrain from reading controversial material. If I feed on such material, likely I will also become (remain) controversial in my preaching. I have decided that I cannot read the New Testament books written by Paul, as these are much too controversial. Likewise, I must leave off James, I & II Peter and Jude. Some people speak of John as the disciple of love; have you read his epistles? He even calls people liars and murderers. I just cannot read his writings any longer; they are much too controversial. Everyone knows of the controversies about the book of Revelation, I will have to leave it off my reading list. I am able to read the first 17 verses of Matthew, although I have trouble pronouncing those names—maybe I’ll get better in time. After verse 17 I must stop, because it gets controversial. Joseph is about to divorce Mary, babies are slaughtered, and when John the Baptist comes upon the scene…well, he’scontroversial. Then there’s Jesus. Everywhere He goes He is involved in controversy, so I just will not read about all that. The other Gospels are similar to Matthew—they must be left off my reading list. I thought I could use most of Acts, but to my dismay always there is controversy. Selecting one to replace Judas, then Peter accused the Jews of crucifying Jesus with wicked hands. Peter and John were brought before the council in a disruption. The problem with Ananias and wife Sapphira, the murmuring of the Grecian widows, and poor old Stephen was so controversial, they killed him. On and on and on it goes never getting any better. Christians that dislike controversy will not like reading the book of Acts. When people ask me what is good reading material? From here on I am going to suggest that they read the twenty-third Psalm as there is little if any controversy in that well-known scripture. It is also safe to read the obituaries, the announcements and the “Back Page” of Old Paths Advocate, as these are free from controversy.Maybe one day we will learn our lesson and we will not need admonition to avoid controversy in our preaching.
Barney Owens 0602