One does not have to be very astute, to understand that
longsuffering is not the present-day American’s long suit. We just do not like to wait. At the restaurant,
we want instant service. At the doctors office, we expect instant cures. If we have a problem, we expect an
instant solution. If we go to war, we expect instant victory. Generally, we do not like to hear “it takes
time.”
This propensity for instant results may have spilled over into our handling
of problems in the church. We tend to forget that preaching the word requires longsuffering, and that
dealing with opposition also requires longsuffering:
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:2). “ And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men,
apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves (are in opposition-nkj) ; if
God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Tim. 2:
24-25).
“Longsuffering” is from “makrothumia” (noun) and “makrothumeo” (verb). On the
noun, Vine says “forbearance, patience, longsuffering.” Of the verb, “‘to be patient, longsuffering, to
bear with,’ lit. ‘To be long tempered.’” Then he adds this note, “Longsuffering is that quality of self
restraint in the face of provocation, which does not hastily retaliate or promptly punish; it is the
opposite of anger, and is associated with mercy... Patience is the quality that does not surrender to
circumstances or succumb under trial, is the opposite of dependency and is associated with
hope.”
It is evident that while God expects us to be firm in our convictions and to
be “set for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1: 17), He also expects us to be longsuffering in our
dealing with those who may stand in opposition to us. In this, He asks no more of us, than He has done
toward us. (2 Peter 3: 9).
History tells us that every generation of Christians has been beset with
controversy. Some of these controversies have had a major impact upon the church, while others have not
affected it all that much. Our own generation is no different. We have some controversies that have been
around for a long time and have had little or no effect upon our fellowship. Others have had a major
impact. Each generation has had to wrestle with how best to handle these differences when they arise – and
they will arise (1 Corinthians 11: 18). Some have chosen, no matter how grave the problem, to just ignore
it and think it will go away. Others have chosen to stifle opposition, the quickest way possible, by
immediately drawing lines of fellowship against any who differ with them. Still others, have a hard time
finding any grounds for breaking fellowship.
Our generation is no different – even among those who consider themselves
“conservative” relative to the institutional controversy of the past 50 years. There are two or three
controversies that have the potential of once again dividing local churches and causing a rift in the
brotherhood in general. These are not over matters of “personal conscience” or “individual application.”
These are matters that affect the very nature of the church and institution of marriage. I am speaking of
the present ongoing discussions over what constitutes an “individually supported missionary society,” what
constitutes a scriptural reason for divorce, and what constitutes a scriptural marriage and/or divorce.
These are serious problems and the feelings run deep among those of all sides of these questions. They go
beyond the purview of Romans 14. Frankly, I am not optimistic about the outcome of these discussions. I
pray that I am wrong about this assessment, but history is not encouraging about such matters.
However, I will say that I do not see the damage from these issues having
quiet the devastating effect that the institutional issue had on local congregations. Nor do I see them as
having the effect comparable to the missionary societies and the instrumental music issues of 1800s. These
issues affected the very structure, worship, and work of local congregations. When the institution,
society, or instrument was introduced into the churches it forced a division. It gave brethren who opposed
those things the choice to either directly participate in that which they believed to be wrong or withhold
their contributions. Or as in the case of the instrument to sing with it or not sing at all. Neither option
would have been acceptable.
In the present controversy over the right of brethren to build and maintain
individually supported collectives that some believe displace the church, as serious as that is, no
churches are being asked to contribute to them. If they do indeed displace the church by usurping the role
that God has assigned to the local church in work that they do, they need to be vigorously opposed by
brethren. But unless they call on the churches to support them, I do not see their existence to be as
damaging to the fellowship in local congregations as were the benevolent institutions and sponsoring
churches.
In the questions concerning cause for divorce and what constitutes a marriage
or divorce, things are more complicated. If there is just one cause for divorce, then those who are
teaching multiple causes are teaching a doctrine that will likely result in adultery. Likewise, if those of
us who believe that both marriages and divorces must conform to the norms of the society in which one lives
to be scriptural, then those who teach otherwise are encouraging adulterous arrangements. Ultimately it
becomes a question as to whether or not we can continue indefinitely to fellowship one whose teaching
results in adultery. We are specifically instructed as to what the congregation is to do about a fornicator
(1 Corinthians 5). So, anyone influenced by that teaching and puts it into practice puts themselves in the
position of forcing the congregation where they attend to take disciplinary action against them. So these
are serious problems that need to be addressed.
Would I be too presumptuous if I injected a plea for the longsuffering, of
which Paul wrote to Timothy, to all involved in the present discussions? Being longsuffering does not mean
that you endorse, encourage or sanction in any way the position of the one with whom you are longsuffering.
It simply means, as Vine said, you do not “promptly punish” the one you believe to be wrong. Yes, I know
that longsuffering does not mean ever-suffering – longsuffering will at some time have to come to an end.
This is true even of God’s longsuffering.
It is not easy to determine just how long our “suffering” should be toward
one that we believe is either teaching or practicing that which is contrary to the gospel of Christ and a
detriment to his church. This is probably one reason why we should all pray often for wisdom. (James 1: 5).
For my part, I had rather err on the side of being too longsuffering than on the side of being too quick to
break fellowship. If we have learned anything from the past, it is that once the lines are drawn,
reconciliation is hard to come by.
Can we not, yea, even must we not be longsuffering enough to see whether our
open and frank discussions can bring us together in our convictions based upon the word of God? Must we, at
each juncture of these discussions, either threaten to break fellowship or try to force others to make the
break? Of course, neither side can afford to participate nor encourage the error of which they believe the
other is guilty. In such cases, to say the least, they would be sinning against their
consciences.
Now before someone cries “you are teaching ‘unity in diversity’,” let me deny
that this is the case. The “unity in diversity” concept sees it as the permanent solution to religious
division. Scriptural longsuffering is nothing close to the “unity in diversity” concept. Scriptural
longsuffering buys time for brethren to work through their differences, if possible, and correct what needs
correcting. The time may come, and likely will in some cases, that lines will need to be drawn to preserve
both the unity and purity of the Lord’s church. But given the emphasis that the Scriptures places on
longsuffering it behooves us to exercise more patience than we sometimes do – this writer
included.
One sure way to hasten division is for one party to turn dialog into
monologue. If one side refuses to participate then the other loses any hope of agreement and goes ahead and
draws the line. Or if one party makes it clear he is not listening and that his side is the only side that
deserves to be heard, then a division is sure to come.
In the present controversies I am assuming that all parties firmly believe
that their position is the scriptural one. I also assume that each party believes that the other is
teaching and/or practicing error. Somebody’s mind will have to be changed for there to be permanent unity.
Somebody has to teach somebody the truth. This is unlikely to happen without a free and open discussion of
the issues involved. And that is unlikely to happen with the threat of an eminent break of fellowship over
the dialogue. Hopefully, both sides will be open-minded enough to give a fair hearing to what the other has
to say. And hopefully, neither side will be swayed from his convictions by anything other than “what saith
the Scriptures.”
As with past controversies, the time may very well come that any hope for
productive dialogue will have passed and the brethren will go their separate ways. But let us not let that
happen without first giving the longsuffering that the Scriptures bind upon us a chance to facilitate a
meeting of the minds. edbragwell@gmail.com
The Course of
This World and Bible Causes of Divorce
and the Role of Government in Divorce can be purchased
from Truth Books or from most major
online book-stores. Go to the bookstore website and search "Bragwell".
