“I withstood Peter to his face…”  (Galatians)

 

There should be a comforting and settled acknowledgement between Christ-ian brethren. That acknlowledgement is loyalty and faithfulness in accordance with the truth of Scripture and Christ-ian composure and conduct. In other words, I should be able to have a knock down, drag out fight with a Christ-ian over important issues and not have a fear of any kind of broken fellowship or backlash. And having said that, that brother and i should have an understanding that we will still remain Blood bretheren and though we might go head to toe, if anyone outside the blood-bought fellowship “lay hands suddenly” upon either of us, we both will stand with the other. Certainly one must never abuse this bond or Blood-binding, but it must be present.

I have a brother that has a problem with C.S. Lewis. I understand that a lot of believers from a certain camp are greatly prejudiced against Lewis so I know not if my brother is simply using their bullet points, having never read Lewis, or if he has read Lewis and has specific and precise points against Lewis. I completely understand if he is the former.  I was there once.  I remember legalists speaking against Billy Graham and reading articles ands booklets fundementalists put out against Billy Graham and I believed it all, why wouldn’t I….these are my brethren telling me he’s a bad man…he’s a puppet of the vatican.

But…but…BUT…On the day of my ordination, still thinking ill of Billy Graham, I heard a man I respect speak well of  Graham in a passing comment. This caught me by surprise, but I was in a place where I have been starting to see problems with my legalist brethren. This really stuck with me. I bit the bullet and purchased some books by Billy Graham.  I felt duped but learned a lesson. Billy Graham, was a sound and faithful servant of Christ.  I did not find any of the things the legalist spoke of.  I was angered. My anger grew when I realized how they denigrated a great servant like Graham while holding up an apostate and adulterer like Jack Hyles.  I understand that comments like that may hurt people, but God Bless it….Do we judge righteoius judgment or do we have respect of persons?  To defend a sociopath like Jack Hyle and denigrate a man like Billy Graham is ungodly…..it is what Ezekiel spoke to, They are strengthening the wicked while tearing down the righteous.

These persons would right hateful rhetoric against Grahan and then wear idolatrous buttons saying, One-Hundred percent Hyles (100% Hyles). WHAT???!!! CAN ONE (1) serve two (2) masters? how can one (1) be One-hyndred percent Hyle (1oo% Hyles) and still be One-hundred percent Christ (100% Christ).  HOW??? HOW??? HOW???  You cannot. One can only follow another person as the former follows Christ.  When someone meanders of the “Way” we do not follow them.  I understand that one may be thinking, “I thought we should be loyal and faithful to the brethren.”  You are right,  However, how can I consider these persons that are following a man off the path as my brethren.  One hath to come to a point and “with[stand] Peter (or whoever) to there face.”  Why? because they are “to be blamed.” Paul tells us to “withdraw [ourselves]” and to “Have no fellowhip.”

I can still be a loving brother to the brother that has a problem with Lewis, but it is something we will need to discuss and understand.  We’ll need to understand his specific issues with Lewis and address them.  I trust this is making sense. But to clarify, we, as brethren can disagree on issues….of course not cardinal issues and we cannot stand with others who have been compromised and a spirit, not consistent with Christ-ian love, that manifests itself. While I may agree on many doctrines with a legalist, I cannot have a real and consistent fellowship with one (1) that can speak ill of a good man while bearing false witness and overlooking real sin in another….this is blatant pharisaical hypocrisy Christ spoke against.

Having written all of that, let me explain further, while I cannot have a sincere and honest relationship with the type of persons I spoke about above, I can have fellowship where real love and consistent Christ-ian character, exists even in the face of disagreement on secondary issues.  The man I spoke about above that has a problem with Lewis…if he supported a man like Hyles…we could not have a pure and real brotherhood. His character and judgment would be greatly compromised. However, though he once was a supported of the legalist pope, Hyles, he has seen reality and turned from it.  This man, though he may have a problem with Lewis (whether right or wrong) I find in him an honest and open willingness to consider issues from a point of purity.

There are other brethren that are difficult to get along with due to personality clashes. However, a personality clash cannot be a sound, good, or wise reason to break fellowship with another.  This is where I say, one (1) must love a brother even if one (1) does not like the brother. This of course cannot be a cloke of mistreatment.  One (1) cannot say to another “I might have to love you but I do not have to like you and therefore, I am going to treat you in an un-Christ-ian manner.” No. No. No….You may not like a believer but you cannot treat them poorly and then pretend to love them with a Christ-ian love….it does not work that way. In a situation like this, one (1) must curb their dislike for another, be couteous, and always be prepared to be a very present and honest help to that brother. There is no getting around this.

Personally, I do not think Peter and James got along with Paul and Paul did not get along with them. They all had very strong personalities and when you see them together there is usually some kind of “this world is not big enough for the two (2) of us to get along.”  I think this is why the Spirit sent James and Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

Don’t get me wrong they work together and supported each other in their writings and speaking, but I think it obvious that they worked well together from a distance.  This I understand so well.  I love my brethren to the death, but I am one (1) that works better with others from a distance. Look at Paul again….he had issues with Peter and James at different times…not in doctrine but in personalities.  Also consider Paul and Barnabas, they worked well together, but again issues arose and they too broke their working relationship. Their love remained, I am certain, but personality got in the way. This happens and should be accepted.

Many of the servants of Christ have strong personalities. This is a boldness they have been filled with and sometimes that mean distance needs to be kept, though their hearts are knitted together and their minds share a likemindedness. There is a reason for this.  I love to be around the people of Christ….I love my brethren and if we could all move into a huge Christ-ian compound, I would do it in a second. And there in lays the problem.  It is not Christ’s will that we all remain in the upperroom together. He has filled His servants with a boldness that would not make this possible.

We see this in Scriptural example.  Abraham and Lot had to be split up.  Saul and David would not be able to get along.  Elijah would not get the spirit of Elijah or Elijah’s mantle until Elijah was taken. In the case of the prophets, God would send them to different areas, though they were contemporaries of one another.

An example or an analogy: When I was in the world, I worked in the landscape industry. I was very good at my job as God had provided me with the faculties to do well and he gave me favour with the persons that mattered to my career. They were others with the same skills, we were friend and enjoyed each others company, but if we all worked together and send them men under our watch to work over there, while we worked together, the work produced would not be consistent. If we stuck together we would work faster and our work would be better than the unexperienced.

We that had the experience, knowledge and experience had to divide ourselves to supervise and train those that we were to supervise. By doing this, the work produced would be consistent and would move along at a good pace. We see this in the case of Moses and the twelve (12) spies. The twelve spies influenced one another and the outcome was negative. Joshua learned from this and when he sent spies, he would send only two (2) Joshua learned it was better to use his resources differently.

I trust the above makes sense to you, Reader.  It is our hope to be a help to you in your walk with God, while sojourning in this world. We also hope to show you a great God that is worthy of your love, trust, and can be completely relied upon.

Godspeed.