Click Here for the Latest Edition of the Auburn Beacon

Type Your email address here

The Beacon is sent weekly

Planning to Visit Us?

What to Expect
Current Class Information

You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Evangelist

Cell:    (334) 734-2133
Home: (334) 209-9165

Contact Us

 University
church of Christ

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830

Or directly e-mail us at:
LarryRouse@aubeacon.com

The Danger of Splintering

by Bobby L. Graham
 

From childhood most of us have experienced that prickly point of a splinter, whether resulting from work, play, or casual activity.   Oh, how it does hurt, both upon entry and during removal! The splinter considered here—even more hurtful and damaging—is that which separates from an established congregation when members, for a variety of reasons, decide to remove themselves to form another group.

Legitimate efforts to form new congregations, based upon a need necessitated by numerical growth or unscriptural collective activities requiring the violation of conscience, are not the splinter groups that we here condemn. Such unauthorized groups remove themselves when there is unrighteous pressure or ungodly influence exerted from within or without. The contributing influence might take the form of some novel idea, a charismatic leader, or opposition to established practices (“traditions” is the current term), or a combination of the previously named influences.

It is a pity that the faith of many is so shallow and their convictions so superficial that almost any new thing can catch their imagination and excite their fancy, thus becoming the focal point for a splinter group. That novel idea is sometimes a never-before-heard theory on divorce and remarriage, a new approach to the eating of the Lord’s Supper, an untried effort to reach the lost, the desire to fraternize with the denominations, or—you name it. If the people favoring the “new thing” think their preference will never “fly” in their local church, they “fly the coop” so they can believe or practice what they wish. The terminating of congregational ties, the financial impairment of the church’s ability to function effectively, the hurt inflicted on existing relationships, the loss of influence in the community where they labor for the Lord, and the myriad of other consequences—all negative—never deter the splinter driver.   In his self-interest and self-adulation he drives away so that he can achieve his personal goal, for selfish ambition is the fuel that moves this splinter driver. He is the “new Athenian,” somewhat like the old Athenians:

And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee? Thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) (Acts 17:19-21, ASV).

A charismatic leader, blessed with speaking skills or just the “gift of gab,” can sway the uninformed and the immature. Emotional ties or the power to organize and get things done never hurt in the advancement of such a cause. Many a congregation has been fractured and another one put on its feet to limp along when such a leader seized a novel idea and effectively promoted it in an atmosphere where opinion surpassed faith and emotions outweighed truth. The only person deserving such esteem and credence is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.   Paul said that He is God’s gift to the church to be head over all things (Eph. 1:22-23). In all things He deserves the preeminence—first place or first rank (Col. 1:18). No human is worthy of such standing in any local church, neither in the time of the debacle at Corinth over human leaders or in our day.  Paul urged the Corinthian saints not to think of men (or even to think) above (beyond) what is written in 1 Corinthians 4:6.

Opposition to established means of operating, frequently called traditions, is often the justification used to oppose the old and to advance the new. Traditions have become acceptable, not because they are the sole means of executing the Lord’s will, but because they provide effective and practical ways of obedience to God. Many have cited “our traditions” as their objection and cause for their destructive work. Let it be noted that the Bible never sanctions or condemns anything on the basis of its being old or new, especially expediencies (helpful means or methods of doing the Lord’s work). Matters of faith were often upheld as being in harmony with the Lord’s will, and other matters were condemned because they lack the Lord’s backing (Col. 3:17). Matters of expediency (keeping of vows and circumcision) were practiced by Paul, even after the Law of Moses, which had bound them upon Jews as necessary, had lapsed in the divine administration. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find an instance where the Lord or His apostles ever opposed a harmless human tradition. In spite of the divine attitude here affirmed toward such, it seems that some are bent upon such opposition; they seem to enjoy the label of “iconoclast.” So much disparaging talk about “our traditions” in recent years has usually been founded on the shaky foundation of misunderstanding/ disbelief of the Scriptures; the talkers don’t know enough to even talk about the matter or they don’t care enough about the harm they leave in their wake. Divine traditions are never subject to human change (2 Thes. 2:15), whereas human traditions can and often do change as new situations and circumstances make them obsolete. Those traditions originating with man need to change when they cause us to set aside the way of the Lord (Mk. 7:9, 13). What such novices little understand is that after a week or two they will have established their own traditions, which they must then oppose if they maintain their present attitude.

The weak and juvenile status of one’s faith is displayed when he contends to break down a tradition such as a formal dress code for worship. In the first place, no situation known to this writer has such a code, not even an understood one. Some might generally practice more “dressing up” than others, but none enforces such a practice. The use of such justification amounts to subterfuge; it is a cover for something else that the person has in mind. Some other agenda (some new thing in teaching or practice) is the real driving force behind such efforts. In a county with nearly fifty congregations, surely the person could find one where the people dress more to his liking without having to start a splinter group. Congregations based upon such a flimsy spiritual base can not long endure or prosper in the Lord.

Another justification recently used fits into the same category—the desire to try another approach in reaching the lost that seemed not to produce results in the old environment. In the church-saturated environment just described, how likely is it that some new approach, tried after separation from an existing church and formation of another church, will succeed? Astute observers will quickly question the motivation of the new group, which could not seem to “get along” with their former associates.

Another tradition which some have sought to eliminate is the “pinch and sip” observance of the Lord’s Supper. Even one of them has conceded to this writer that the Bible nowhere mandates a certain amount of the bread or the juice, yet they just must leave and form a new work where they can eat and drink as much as they desire. While the love feast and the Passover meal have both been cited to justify this new way of eating and drinking, both fail the test of new-covenant authority (Passover meal) or clear, adequate information (love feast) to justify their practice.

One last idea that seems to be driving such efforts is the hair-brained notion that our only reason for gathering together is to edify each other. Without discounting such as a legitimate scriptural purpose, let it be pointed out that by our singing we make melody in our hearts and sing with grace in our hearts—both to the Lord (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). When we eat the supper of the Lord on the first day of the week, we remember Christ (1 Cor. 11:25, 29). Is not prayer an expression of praise and adoration to God (1 Cor. 14:16-17)? One must be trying to miss it to fail to see the vertical dimension of our assembling with the saints, though the horizontal is surely there (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; numerous uses of “edify” in 1 Cor. 14). If they are not careful they will rule the Lord out of their efforts even more than they have already done.

It is simply not right to leave a congregation for such flimsy reasons! Civil law allows it but divine law forbids it! Splintering falls into this category! Personal preference, apart from personal conviction, never appears as justification for any practice in the New Testament. Self-interest is not more important than the oneness of the Lord’s people (Phil. 2:1-4). All of us need to study this part of Philippians to learn of the oneness the Lord desires that we achieve through humility, not the separateness accomplished through self-esteem. It is a serious matter to regard so lightly all of the appeals for unity found in the New Testament.

 

Other Articles by Bobby Graham
Can We Have Common Cause With the Denominations?
Why No Instruments of Music?
Me-Centered Religion

 

 Would you like others to read this article?

                    Please share!