"If You Remain Silent..." : Intolerance of Controversy (by Gary P. Eubanks)

If apostasy is afoot, or imminent, then surely one of its signs, if not causes, is the intolerance of controversy among brethren. This resistance to controversy expresses itself in the avoidance of anything which might give occasion for it. This often means focusing on topics which are not controversial.

The careful observer may most readily discern a shift away from controversial topics in the kinds of sermons, articles, and books being produced among brethren. Polemics have been replaced with literature and preaching of a hortatory or devotional nature or having to do with personal development. Perhaps one could for decades, listen to sermons, either where he is a member, or as a visitor elsewhere, but never hear one, for instance, on instrumental music in worship. Preaching on the errors of denominationalism is largely part of the past. Indeed, one might expect to attend “gospel meetings” for years without hearing much, if anything, which, aside from the reference to baptism in the invitation, could not be well-received in a typical denomination. Furthermore, “controversial” topics which are addressed, are not those which are controversial within the speaker’s circles. Instead, they are “settled doctrine” and not likely to provoke dissent among the hearers. This is why one could hardly expect to go to a “gospel meeting” and hear a sermon on divorce and remarriage.

Aside from a natural indisposition to controversy, other factors account for this reorientation in preaching. First, this re-emphasis has occurred so subtly and gradually that brethren may not perceive its occurrence except by a comparison of what is with what was.

Second, conflict in the religious realm, no less than in the world, eventually makes combatants “war weary.” After the ordeal of the divisions over “institutionalism,” brethren were probably looking for respite from struggles which had left them with “battle fatigue.”

Third, a call for “balanced” or “needs-based” preaching effectively disguised this shift. In principle, of course, the preaching of the gospel must be balanced and practical, as expressed in Paul’s reference to the fact that he had preached “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:20,27). Yet, the irony is that this principle was hijacked to cover a move which produced the very imbalance it was intended to rectify and favored preaching top-heavy with themes hardly any could dispute.

Fourth, this shift also found respectability in the call for more “expository preaching,” which has the appeal of sheltering exclusion of controversy under the benign appearance of more intensive and correct Bible study. Of course, there is nothing wrong with expository preaching, but a rigid commitment to it has the effect of hampering a timely and thorough exposé of error, which is more effectively confronted by topical preaching.

This assessment will seem unduly harsh, or not, depending on readers’ varying experiences. Yet, this opposition to controversy may also be verified in brethren’s literature. One popular magazine, despite acknowledging the “risks involved in positive thinking,” in its initial editorial, announced its affinity for what “Johnny Mercer’s great lyric suggests, ‘You gotta accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative; latch on to the affirmative; and don’t mess with Mister In-between’” (Christianity Magazine, Jan. 1984, pg. 2).

That this meant the exclusion of controversy or dissent was made clear when another of its editors used the paper’s policy to suppress publication of a viewpoint contrary to what he had written. “____________ Magazine is not intended for the type discussion brother __________ suggests, but … an exchange on this subject … will be published in [another magazine]” (Ibid., Sept. 1990, pg. 7). A refusal to publish dissent in the same forum in which the objectionable material appeared, thus denying readers ready access to “the other side,” raises ethical questions and does them the disservice of conditioning them to be intolerant of controversy.

This anti-controversy attitude eventually issued in the outright mockery of, or attacks on, “traditional” preaching. One instance occurred, not in “a liberal rag,” but in a magazine reputable among “conservative” brethren. Under the title, “A Wake-Up Call for the Church,” one author submitted, “… There is also another type of preaching malpractice going on today … that says there are only certain subjects that should be preached on exclusively: Baptism, Denominationalism, the Church, and Authority. With only minor variations, the congregation hears essentially one of four sermons twice every single week (morning and evening). This is what I call the ‘only four things really matter’ school of preaching. You might be hearing an ‘only four things really matter’ preacher if all of his sermons could always have one of the following titles: The Necessity of Water Baptism; The Sin of Denominational Division; The Nature of the Church; or How to Establish Biblical Authority. These may not have been the actual titles, but could they have been?” (Focus, Dec. 1999, pp. 12,13).

This author proceeds to say, “God has charged us to preach His word. I submit to you that the only truly effective way to do this is with verse-by-verse, systematic, expository preaching. Start in chapter 1, verse 1 and preach His word one verse at a time. By systematic, I mean progressing through the text of scripture as it was given without skipping any of it” (Ibid., pg. 13). He then proceeds to condemn en masse all but a minute fraction of preachers when he says, “There are three major categories of preaching: Topical, textual, and expository. … Around 80% of all preachers are topical preachers. … Around 15% of all preachers fit this category [i.e., textual]. … Around 5% of preachers are expositors. It is my firm belief that neither the topical nor the textual method represents a serious effort to interpret, understand, explain, or apply God’s truth in the context of the Scriptures used” (Ibid., pg. 15). Yet, what may be even more remarkable is that, not only did the editor agree to publish these preposterous ideas, but he actually singled out the article for recommendation for its emphasis on “a steady diet of expository preaching” (Ibid. pg. 2).

In this writer’s experience, this concept of teaching has flourished in some circles in the last decade or so. A very recent example came by way of an invitation to a series of expository studies justified on the grounds that they are intended “to create an environment in which the goal is to study a whole book of the Bible (or multiple related books), not merely individual topics. This is an approach to study and preaching that is lacking in too many places” (email received by the author February 1, 2012).

In such words, older brethren may hear a chilling echo of an idea expressed in a report for “Churches of Christ” by the Britannica Book of the Year for 1962: “Increasing emphasis was placed on expository preaching of the Bible and study of the Bible in classes.” The writer was M. Norvel Young, president of Pepperdine College.

The relevance of this point to controversy is that a strict adherence to the philosophy of expository preaching inhibits the ability of preachers to address error effectively. As a result, controversy subsides, not because error itself has retreated, but simply because of a failure to confront it. Yet, rather than admit this or have it known, especially in those terms, brethren cloak it under the guise of an intensified commitment to study Bible texts in their contexts. Who could fault such a “noble” goal (cf. Isa. 5:20)?

Peace or Polemics?

There is nothing virtuous about controversy per se. It is never controversy itself that the Christian seeks; rather, he endures it for the sake of truth. Any virtue in a controversy lies in the righteousness of a disputant’s cause and in his courage in overcoming an aversion to controversy to defend the truth.

Lack, or intolerance, of controversy ought to raise immense concerns, since controversy can only cease when either people or Satan bow out of the fight, and he never will. Men can never trust Satan to leave them in peace, except the peace they might find in complete capitulation to him. “There is no discharge in the time of war” (Eccl. 8:8), and he who thinks there can be anything but unrelieved warfare on the fields of faith is terribly deceived. Satan is determined on unrelenting warfare. He is an implacable “enemy of all righteousness.” He will never seek peace, except as a temporary truce to gain advantage. He has an insatiable hatred for God and everything and everyone good. Men may surrender or compromise, but he never will.

Despite the many wars and quarrels which suggest otherwise, people probably prefer peace. Except for a few odd characters who “enjoy a good fight,” the average person is a conflict-avoider. Life virtually demands it. Society could hardly function if people were not willing to ignore or excuse provocations.

Furthermore, the Scriptures make the avoidance of personal conflict a virtue. The Christian finds any natural inclination to peace ennobled and encouraged in the many Scriptures which teach him to seek peace. Representative Scriptures to this effect can be amassed. Christians are to be forbearing to ensure unity and peace (Eph. 4:2, 3). Listed among the deeds of the flesh are various forms and causes of strife (Gal. 5:19-21). Church leaders must not be contentious (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7). Paul said, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18), and “So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Rom. 14:19). He also said that the God of peace “…has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15c; 14:33a) and to “… live in peace with one another” (1 Thess. 5:13b). He stressed, “And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all…, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition …” (2 Tim. 2:24,25a). The Hebrews writer echoed this: “Pursue peace with all men” (12:14a). Peter also said, “… seek peace and pursue it” (1 Pet. 3:11b).

On the other hand, this is far less than the whole story the Scriptures have to tell about peace. As precious as peace is, any idea that it is to be so prized as to be had at all costs is grossly simplistic. The gospel is, by its very nature, controversial. It will necessarily and frequently embroil its preachers in controversy. If they think not, they are deceiving themselves and would do better to find a kind of work better suited to what they seek. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household” (Matt. 10:34-36).

How the Bible’s statements on peace might be qualified is suggested by some of its texts. For instance, Paul says peace is to be had if possible, not by whatever it takes (Rom. 12:18). Therefore, where this qualification is not explicitly stated, it must be understood. Peace with men cannot always be had short of the sacrifice of something more valuable. Thus, when the Scriptures speak of peace, it is typically peace between God and men they offer and urge, for only that kind comes with neither qualification nor limitation.

Yet, perhaps the most imposing indication that the Scriptures’ call to peace with others is a qualified one comes from the need to reconcile it with the fact that so many Biblical characters often engaged in fierce controversy with God’s approval and urging. Jude saw nothing inconsistent about combining a prayer for peace with a call to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 2, 3). Also, the apostle who had so much to say about self-restraint in the interests of interpersonal peace was himself one of the most polemical characters in the Bible. Paul thrice described his labors in the gospel as “the good fight” (1 Tim. 1:18; 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7). Thus, he is found resisting false teachers in “great dissension and debate” (Acts 15:1, 2). He later said, “But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you” (Gal. 2:5).

Therein lies the reconciliation of these two sets of Scriptures. The command to seek peace with others is not absolute. Rather, its interests are overmatched by those of truth. That truth should enjoy precedence over peace is most easily discerned from the fact that, while one can be a party to disputation and division and still be right with God (Acts 15:1,2; 1 Cor. 11:18,19), no one can ever compromise the truth and be. “Buy truth, and do not sell it …” (Prov. 23:23). The obligation to adhere to the truth admits absolutely no exceptions.

Some may take exception to this picture by claiming that brethren should save their fire for the world and spare their brethren. Yet, this overlooks the fact that Satan infiltrates the church and uses brethren. Among the “wheat” are “tares” (Matt. 13:36-43). “Dangers among false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26; cf. Gal. 2:4) threatened Paul and generated much of the polemic in his letters. After all, if Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), is it beyond him to masquerade as a Christian?

When Esther cited a threat to her life as the reason for unwillingness to intervene in behalf of her people, Mordecai reminded her that remaining silently in the background while genocide loomed upon her people would not save her. “For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” (Esth. 4:14).

It has been said that “silence is not always golden; sometimes it is yellow.” Peace can be so pleasant and its results so impressive that it can easily beguile one into thinking that whatever makes it possible cannot be anything other than right. Yet, God said of the false prophets among His people, “And they have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ But there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14). There is no place and time for the Christian to lay down his arms this side of heaven. Jesus told His disciples, “… In Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation…” (Jn. 16:33). Instead, unrelenting conflict is part of the hardship the good soldier of Jesus Christ must suffer (2 Tim. 2:3).