;)
A Factious Man
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
It was almost a year ago that our church confronted a “factious man”.
Titus 3:10-11 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, (11) knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
This important and sobering command given through the Apostle Paul to Titus is not to be ignored in the church. Yet, it is one of the most heart wrenching commands to be administered as we seek the edification of the body of Christ and afford instruction to the attention of the unrepentant “factious” sinner.
I share this with you in hopes of edifying and encouraging the church in a broader context. The names within the letter have been changed (I used the name Dave…how appropriate), as it is our hope that this man will repent and return to fellowship with the church, whether it is ours or any other group of Christ followers in the community. Our church has no reason to believe that this man is lost, as it appears to us he is only a man confused, contentious, and unwilling to love the bride of Christ.
Dear Dave,
I have re-evaluated the purpose and wisdom of yet another meeting. So, I have concluded that it will not be necessary to meet with you on Monday night as was trying to be arranged.
It is with deep sorry, yet tempered with obedience to Christ that I write this letter to you. The Apostle Paul has insisted that overseers have an obligation to serve the body of Christ with respect to the commands of Christ and the common good of His adopted family who freely choose to gather to worship and to engage in mutual edification. Paul, in his letter to Titus, gives clear and specific instruction to ensure that the body of Christ is edified while confronting the motives and actions of a factious man. By definition, it has become clear to me that through your actions, your lack of submission to authority, and your continued insistence upon debate, that you have caused harm to the body of Christ and have placed yourself outside the fellowship of our local body.
Titus 3:3-11 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (4) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, (5) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (8) This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. (9) But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (10) Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, (11) knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
The Apostle Paul makes it extremely clear that….. “we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (4) But……” ….we that have been shown mercy, are regenerated, and are being renewed. To pretend or think otherwise, or to debate that it is “more honest” to think otherwise is evidence of one being deceived and not understanding the reality of Christ’s redemption and the work of the church. It is clear from the Apostle’s instruction that we, Grace Church at Hermitage, have no other choice but to reject a man that is engaging in such unrealistic disputes.
It is for the benefit of the church that the Apostle Paul uses specific language here, and only here with reference to why a “hairetikos” is to be dealt with earnestly. Since most of us are heretics in some form or fashion, the Apostle makes it clear that this individual is one that does not promote unity in the church. This “hairetikos” is one that promotes divisions for whatever reason instead of aiming at unity. This man prepares and separates on points of doctrine on which he differs from others, or on some minor custom, or religious system, or special practice where he makes some unimportant matter a ground of distinction from his brothers and sisters in the body. Such a man, according to the scriptures, is a heretic, and not simply one that holds to a different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy.
You have continued to amplify this same sort of activity that the Apostle Paul has identified as one pertaining to a “hairetokos”. We have all been patient and longsuffering with you in an attempt to extend our love as best we could in our time together. You have rejected the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, by continuing to argue, debate, and now even demand that it is more a problem of the receiver than the giver, while using scripture out of context in an attempt to cement your point and opinion. That type of banter is unsatisfactory in the life of the church and must be confronted whether it is conducted by you or by anyone else that chooses to remove himself from the unity of the Spirit in this way.
The Apostle Paul also makes it clear that we should “reject” you. I want to be clear though, that this does not mean that we are to be demeaning to you. But, in contrast we are to love you as best we know how. Although you have offended many of us, it is not and should never be our intent to execute any retribution against you whatsoever. Grace Church at Hermitage has no other option than to abide by the Word of God. That does not mean that we should even oppose you in your private opinions. You are certainly free, as any man, to live where you wish; think and believe whatever you are willing to believe.
A wise reformed theologian put it this way…..
“it demands that there should be the utmost kindness towards him, in order if possible to reclaim him. We should not begin by attacking and denouncing his opinions; or by formally arraigning him; or by blazoning his name as a heretic; but he is to be dealt with in all Christian kindness and brotherly fidelity. He is to be admonished more than once by those who have the right to admonish him; and then, and then only, if he does not repent, he is to be simply avoided. That is to be an end of the matter so far as we are concerned. The power of the church there ceases. It has no power to deliver him over to anyone else for persecution or punishment, or in any way to meddle with him. He may live where he pleases; pursue his own plans; entertain his own opinions or company, provided he does not interfere with us; and though we have a right to examine the opinions which he may entertain, yet our work with him is done. If these plain principles had been observed, what scenes of bloody and cruel persecution in the church would have been avoided!”It is my hope that at some point in the future you will treat the church differently, reconcile and be able to join us once again in the pursuit of our mission to the Hermitage area. Even though at this point you are to be rejected by those who choose to serve one another in the unity of the Spirit, we will continue to extend our love to you as we live in the Hermitage and the Mt. Juliet community together. Obviously, this rejection will impact us all emotionally.
Angela has completed, as she did last year, all of the giving statements for 2008. I will mail both yours and Diane (wife) to your home address.
If it is your intention to reconcile with our church in the future, please feel free to contact me. You should have all my contact information.
In Christ Alone and to the Glory of God,
Chris
Is protecting the church in this way important enough to stimulate action? The abrupt action required against this man and as described in the letter came to a head over a period of about six months. He had been a part of the body for approximately two years.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I want to get connected to this chain and see other comments before making mine. Are you able to reveal what the man’s point was or what he was factious about?
Great post, Chris.
I think this was a firm, measured response. What was this individual’s trajectory over the two years he was with the church? Was he endeavoring to pursue followship in the bonds of peace or was he looking for occasions to initiate strife? Is this a recent issue or one that has been escalating over his time with the body?
Chris,
By no means are the following questions an attempt to be factious.
However, I think this example may be a good case study on practical implications of biblical ecclesiology.
Here are a few questions that come to my mind to help to tease this out:
1. In general, I think I agree with your description of a “factious” person as “one that promotes divisions for whatever reason instead of aiming at unity.” What procedure was used to determine this man was indeed “factious”?
2. I notice the letter is written in first person, and signed by you personally. Is it also written on behalf of others (i.e. the elders, the church as a whole…)? If so, were they made privy to the content of the letter before it was sent? Why, or why not?
3. Was the entire church made aware of the content of the letter after it was sent?
4. What if this man were to try to “move his membership” to another church? What would be your response to that church (if they were to contact you about him)? What if he were to start another church (with his family, or a group of people who were sympathetic to his position)? Would you regard them as a legitimate church? If this hypothetical church were to take root, grow, and establish itself in the community, would a point ever come in the future when you would recognize them as a legitimate church? What would be the determining factors in such a decision?
David brought up some questions I had as well.
The word “reject” seems to have a different meaning in the greek. I’m no greek expert, however, Strongs presents a different definition from what seems to be stated here. It doesn’t carry the same meaning as Matt. 18:17, either.
Thank you all for being patient with me…. I have been in meetings all morning and was unable to respond to any of the posts so far. I will begin with David’s questions since they bring out some of the answers to the others and then we can move on from there.
First of all David,…I love the first line “By no means are the following questions an attempt to be factious” …because that truly is at the center of the issue of a factious man as I understand scripture.
But, more specifically to the questions:
1. Your first question is a difficult question….since we are all heretical in some sense and are good at sinning on our own, as I stated in the letter. In this instance, Dave was actually doing some teaching within the congregation; even though he had not been affirmed as an overseer by the congregation (many have the gift of teaching). He is a seminary graduate and during a few instances he offended many in the congregation with his use of crude language. Dave was warned by me and others of why that is not to be done….and at the time he recognized and agreed that his use of certain language was not suitable within the congregation. Everything seemed fine. A couple of months later,…the same language, with additional emphasis was used. Dave was warned again with a slightly different response on his part. He recognized that some may be sensitive to the language and he would be careful. But soon thereafter, Dave began to argue that the language was not the problem and that the hearers needed to change their expectations. This simply language problem became the “pinhole” in the balloon that revealed a much more orchestrated motive which escalated during the last few months he was with the congregation.
2. The letter was not given to the congregation before it was sent to Dave, even though the congregation was very aware of the initial warnings. The escalation of additional motives toward the congregation and toward those affirmed by the congregation as overseers, allowed me the freedom to act. The congregation was sent the letter at the same time that Dave received the letter. So, yes…everyone in the congregation knew of the action that was required and why.
3. First of all,… Dave had no position he was arguing for… He was acting out against his brothers and sisters and those men that the congregation affirms on an ongoing basis as overseers. So, Dave’s actions were not so much a debate on theology for instance (which can be very healthy),…but moreover, a deliberate act to divide and to deliberately cause disunity in the body that began to escalate quickly. In fact, oddly enough, he agreed with our actions and simply said he had not been patient enough with us. But in order for that to be a truthful statement, he would have to make good on his attempt at “patience”, which he never has. I think there were and still are additional motives.
I think a little more on the question you pose on the forming of a church by this man….that is an important question; because our goal is that he would repent and be restored to fellowship with a congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m not sure I like the use of the name Dave.
I may start a factious argument with me about that name.
Dave,
Anyone who posts a post which gets 455 comments must, de facto, be a factious person.
Brother Bruce,
I take the instruction given to Titus as something that is different with respect to restoration as seen in Matthew 18, yet there can be some similarities and ultimate restoration. Rejecting or “having nothing to do with” this man is predicated upon actions.
For instance, if a man is caught in adultery, and is confronted by his Christian brother to restore him back into the fellowship….things flow differently since the offence is past tense and the restoration is in view. A factious man is engaged in deliberate ongoing acts against the brothers and sisters that are in the congregation. For instance, he does not hide the sin in order to get caught, he is forthright with the sin in the congregation in order to persuade and divide. Therefore, there is no other option, but to warn this man and if he persists in his forthright mode of division, he is to be rejected by the congregation.
You bring up a very important point! More importantly, as David has brought forward, does the church know or are they capable of making the distinction and following through with action as commanded by the Apostle, with respect to their policy and procedures.
Blessings,
Chris
I had another “Dave” in mind anyway
Brother David,
This is how I would try and answer question number four from your comment at post #3.
What if this man were to try to “move his membership” to another church? What would be your response to that church (if they were to contact you about him)?
We would be honest with any church about the actions of anyone in our congregation. In fact, it would be malpractice not to give other church families the truth concerning this man. The doctrine of “autonomy” is not realized by protecting sin.
What if he were to start another church (with his family, or a group of people who were sympathetic to his position)? Would you regard them as a legitimate church?
The only evidence that we have of a legitimate church is if they love the brethren as the Apostle John has taught us….
3 John 1:3-6 “For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. (4) I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. (5) Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; (6) and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.”
If they are doing these things, we would regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
If this hypothetical church were to take root, grow, and establish itself in the community, would a point ever come in the future when you would recognize them as a legitimate church? What would be the determining factors in such a decision?
This is kind of summed up by the Apostle above,…but I would also add, that the offending party would be expected to forgive as we have already forgiven him. In other words, it is not good enough to just exist side by side for the sake of religious expression. There is a bond that is realized by those that love God and are called by Him. So we would pursue that love with this man even in his new digs(congregation), speaking the truth in love.
Blessings,
Chris
We have friends who share many of the truths that we do and our family has good fellowship with them. Neither the man or his wife teach, publically instruct or influence other believers in their belief of falling from grace (loss of salvation), but that is what they believe. They are members in good standing in a SBC church that we use to be members of. Based upon what these verses are saying, these people should, first, not be accepted as members of a SBC church and, second, this should be addressed much like what you did to “Dave”. The reason for saying that is because Thayer’s lexicon uses one definition for hairetikos that stands out to me, “follower of false doctrine”. This family displays Spiritual fruit where many (most) traditional SBC members do not. They are very active in AWANA and other places of service in the church and know more scripture than 90% of the other church members. They have a clear “faith” direction when it comes to finances and their daily walk. We have discussed this issue and he does not hold to it 100%, but, because we, as SBC, declare “once saved always saved” and most do not live it, he has difficulty understanding or comprehending the concept. He leans toward Armenian beliefs as well. Based upon what I see in Titus 3:10 I should reject this man. Can you give more insight or add some additional light here? Thanks
I would guess that any pastor who reads this has a mental picture of a person forming in their minds. I think God allows every church to have one or two of these kinds of folks, just to keep us humble.
I think the key is that we act for the glory of God and good of the church, not out of anger or any selfish motive. You seemed to do the right thing.
I would guess that this man has made the rounds of the churches of your area on a regular basis.
Chris,
I think the answers you give are, in general, good answers to my questions. I guess that the biblical practice of church discipline is, in many ways, more of an art than a science. There is no textbook answer for every case that comes our way. We must continually seek the guidance of God’s Spirit, while we, at the same time, immerse our understanding in the principles of His Word.
However, it seems as if many of the difficulties we have with inter-church relationships root in a gray application of these principles. What, for instance, if one congregation considers an individual to be “factious,” and another congregation disagrees? Does that mean that automatically the two congregations must not be in fellowship with each other? What if one congregation admits into its membership a factious person, not because they agree with them, but just because they are negligent in discipline? Does that mean that congregations, and believers in congregations, that are more consistent in their application of biblical discipline, should separate from these negligent, but otherwise orderly brethren?
Like I say above, I guess finding the correct answers to these questions in everyday life is more of an art than a science. We must, while recognizing our own fallibility, seek to be guided by love and by the Word of God, as best as we are able to understand it. It does help you to see why some are attracted to more black and white systems, such as that of the Roman Catholic Church, though.
This whole conversation reminds me of a book I read years ago by Jay Adams on Church Discipline. I don’t have it in front of me now, and I don’t remember the exact title. But, he has an interesting chapter towards the end on the inter-congregational aspects of the practice of church discipline.
I would be interested to know if anyone out there is familiar with that book, and what they think of Adams’ position on inter-congregational church discipline.
I Googled it. It is “Handbook of Church Discipine.”
Here is the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Church-Discipline-Privilege-Library/dp/0310511917
Brother Dave,
“I would guess that any pastor who reads this has a mental picture of a person forming in their minds. I think God allows every church to have one or two of these kinds of folks, just to keep us humble.”
I’m not sure God intends for the church to tolerate factious people. Is there every a time to reject a “factious man”?
If a man is deliberate in his activity and dividing folks,…isn’t it the responsibility of the overseer to lead the congregation to obey the word of God in the matter?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Your answer to Dave in comment #17 belies a lot of what I had in mind, when I asked you my first question in comment #3: “What procedure was used to determine this man was indeed ‘factious’?”
Is there, perhaps, sometimes a fine line between “factious” and “cantankerous”? Some weaknesses (character flaws, sins…?) we are to be patient and forebearing with. Others we must directly confront. Right?
Brother David,
I almost hit enter, then I saw your last comment…..
Cantankerous people are great…it makes life exciting. Factious and Cantankerous are better defined in the purpose of the warning. Some Pastors warn their church members based upon a new list of laws, instead of what is creating disunity in the body. Knowing the difference is critical.
Additionally, I think how we conduct restoration (Matthew 18,..some call this discipline) is seen in a somewhat different way than rejecting someone that is intent on or deliberately involved in creating disunity (the act of factious).
As Bruce brings ups, a couple that is in the congregation that is confused about their salvation, or certain practices, or a host of other things, should not be seen as “factious” (just confused and in need of discipling) unless they begin to separate and deliberately teach something that is against the Word of God, and become belligerent in their right to do so as a “voting” member of the body. In other words,…I have folks that may not understand in great detail how God holds them (perseverance). But, they are not acting out, creating disunity and the like…which is what a “factious” person will do. Folks that are not confident or they are confused about some doctrine need to be taught and should be encouraged in the church.
Church restoration is not for weeding out those that are confused, and don’t look like us,… nor is it the same purpose for the action taken toward a factious man.
Blessings,
Chris
I just found the Jay Adams book in my Dad’s library, where I am working. Here is the quote I was referring to:
“Divisive persons. Let me say a word about schism. In Titus 3:10 Paul writes, ‘After counseling him once or twice, give up on a divisive person, and have nothing more to do with him.’
This is a vital direction. There should be provision to speed up the disciplinary process in cases of divisive persons. If you linger too long over the process, you may find your church divided. Paul is clear: if the divisive person does not cease his divisive ways after one or two confrontations, remove him.
In cross-congregational discipline, therefore, it is not enough to do what you can at your own church. It is essential, also, to hold other churches responsible to follow Christ’s directives. When another congregation refuses to follow the discipline that Christ provided for your member and you do nothing about it, it is not only that other congregation that is lax. If you fail to make every effort to get that congregation to satisfy Christ’s demands, you too are guilty, and the care of your own member is seriously lacking. If the other congregation refuses to listen to your biblical directives, then that congregation, no less than an individual believer, should be ‘removed from the midst.’
It is imperative that all these disciplinary steps be taken—and taken with the right attitude.” (pp. 108-109)
Wow! Pretty strong, huh? Anybody have an opinion about this?
In response to comment #19:
I love 1 Thessalonians 5:14:
“And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.”
I think this captures well the idea of discipline being an art and not a science. We must constantly—as members of the Body of Christ, but especially as pastors—seek to discern what category the people in our flock fall into: idle, timid, weak… And, we must be careful to not treat people who are really timid or weak, as if they were idle, or factious.
David Rogers, Dave Miller and Chris Johnson are factious men.
CB,
Would you care to elaborate?
I was wanting to use CB in the letter, but that would have been too obvious a metaphor for some…so I just used “Dave”…
Blessing my brother…and cantankerous one. I mean that in the best possible way!
-Chris
Brother David,
I believe that Jay steps a bit further down the path than scripture allows for him to venture. His motive seems to move beyond the reason for encouraging the congregation to “good deeds” as the context of the Titus passage reveals….and can venture into retribution.
He is correct to raise an important command though. If the Christian church is serious about unity, each and every church must pay attention to maintaining unity of the Spirit.
There is little doubt that churches in America tolerate “factious” people for several reasons; money, status, family, no history of church restoration, etc. But should we continue in sin that grace will abound… I think I remember the Apostles blurting answer.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
In the context of his book, Adams makes clear that the motive of church discipline is always restoration and never retribution. I think, if you are not aware of this context, it may be easy to misinterpret him on this point.
In Baptist churches, sometimes, we make such a big deal about the autonomy of the local church, it is easy to sweep under the carpet the implications of inter-congregational discipline. But, biblically, I think there is something to this. However, it can be a very thorny issue to sort through.
See David,
You are just dying to get into a ruckus over one little innocent comment.
Simple deduction: You are a factious man.
Dave berates the SABANATION.
Chris is a fan of the KIFFINATION.
Obvious conclusion: Both are factious men.
cb
CB,
I had already consigned Dave to “factious” status because of his 455-comment post.
David,
Relating to your ‘cross congregational” discipline comment.
Examine this.
At the SBC it is brought to the floor that beyond a shadow of a doubt that a church is in willful contradiction to the plain teachings of Scripture in allowing immoral sexual conduct among its members.
Should the SBC take an action to remove that church from among its ranks as a cooperating church until the church satisfactorily deals with its problem in a biblical manner?
cb
CB,
That is a very good question. If you said yes, the logical follow-up question would be: Should you apply the same rubric to churches who allow factious people to remain members? And, then… etc., etc.
Also, I have some questions (honest questions–I am not sure what I believe here) as to what degree the SBC is, or ought to be, a church disciplinary body. We may well remove congregations from participating in our cooperative agreement, for whatever reasons our bylaws, and operative principles, stipulate. But, does the SBC have biblical authority to “de-church” a congregation? I am not so sure that it does. Neither am I sure that a local Baptist association has that authority.
This, I suppose, is where you come back to the autonomy of the local church. Perhaps, each local congregation must make its own decision on how it regards the status of other local congregations.
But, I do think that we are not to adopt a “live and let live” approach to other congregations. We are to treat them as fellow components of the Body of Christ, and act accordingly.
There is much more to say (and reflect about) regarding this. But, I will leave it there for now.
to CB,
Hello, Mr Pot. May I introduce you to Mr Kettle?
I apologize for turning Chris’ excellent post into a factious-athon.
Of course, Chris started it!
Chris, my history has been to tend to bend over backwards for the factious – probably too far.
I have a ministry friend who had driven many very good people from his church by basically declaring that anyone who disagreed with him or his agenda for the church is a trouble-maker (I’m not sure he used the word factious). If you do not go along with his ideas, you are divisive.
On the other hand, far too many churches tolerate divisive, strife-sowing folks. I have probably been more guilty of that fault.
Its an art to distinguish dysfunctional (which is the new normal), cantakerous, and factious.
CB, relative to your question to David.
If you tried to institute something like that, you would have to spend a decade disciplining churches.
I think we have a conflict between the ideal and real (which is often a reality when church discipline is at stake). Ideally, I think the answer would be yes. In reality, it would be a logistical nightmare.
You would also have issues like I have discussed with folks about homosexuality. I actually don’t know where you stand on this one, CB. I have had people in my churches who admit to being homosexual, though they are not active. Some (one blogger in particular comes to mind – no, none of the prominent “BI” guys) would call that sin. These “homosexually-tempted” folks have been active and even held ministry positions in the churches I pastored. But others have said we should exclude them for their propensities.
Once we open the can-o-worms, we are going to have to deal with issues like that.
I wonder if a factious person could also be defined as an antagonistic personality?
Antagonists are individuals who on the basis of nonsubstantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership position.
Dave,
A person who has practiced the Sodomite life-style, yet is now repentant and ceases to practice that life-style is no different than a former “lot-of-things” who is repentant and has ceased to practice the sinful life-style from which God saved them. Will they ever struggle with temptation? No doubt.
We all struggle with our personal and private temptations. At least that is my opinion.
Here’s what I am finding, CB.
I think the downward moral spiral, the consequences and effects of sin, and the destabilization of the family have left people messed up. Dysfunctional doesn’t even describe it.
Because of all that, people are angrier, more irascible, cantankerous, whatever.
My dad (who is even older than you!) says that you see things on a weekly basis today in ministry that you wouldn’t see in a decade or more in the early days of his ministry.
Sin chews people up and we have to deal with broken people – many of whom become factious or act up in some other way.
Dave,
The SBC has unseated churches for condoning obvious immoral sexual sin.
Those were pretty extreme cases that dealt with homosexuality, right? I was at that one.
Brother cb,
I think the antagonist can often be restored with what Christ was teaching in Matthew 18. Most antagonist’s offend, but many never follow through with divisive motive to separate believers from Christ or the pursuit to cause disunity supporting their purposes.
The problem is, with the respect to an most antagonists, is that most believers that are offended by the action,…tend to learn to put up with the offense instead of depending upon the Spirit to work in the life of their brother or sister by going to them. Like Adams would contend…it is more unloving to leave the antagonist to his own demise.
-Chris
In Matthew 18:15-17 and in Titus 3:10, I do not see where it says that we expel people from the church or church membership, fellowship; yes. I’ve always thought these people were to be kicked out of the church (I mean that in a nice way). The only thing I see in scripture now is that we “tell it to the church”, “treat them like heathen and publicans”, “reject” and so on. I just do not see where it is telling us to expel them. If you know the verse, please let me know. Thanks
Dave,
I tend to agree with your Father.
Today I deal with people in congregational life who have a tolerance for things they would never have tolerated 25 or even 15 years ago.
Also, I deal with some children and teens who have as many as four sets of people they call mother or father.
Last summer I baptized a young lady who invited three men to come to the baptism. They all came. Her mother had been married to each one of them and she (the young lady) called all three by “Dad.”
BTW, none of the three had actually “fathered” the young lady. The biological father was unable to attend the baptism due to “church obligations.” I kid you not.
You know…it could be that the churches within the SBC may be looking to the convention action once a year to mitigate what they should be doing in their community.
It seems to me,…that church restoration (discipline), and calling out factious activity is very, very rare in the SBC.
Either the SBC is tremendously gifted at teaching, and sin is at a minimum, or these commands are being ignored.
With 16 million members (ok 8 really) and probably 3-4 show up on Sunday, this may be indicative of why these commands are moth-balled for a lot of folks.
-Chris
Chris,
I need to clarify that I am not speaking of the display of antagonistic behavior. We all do that from time-to-time. I am not talking about mere criticism or healthy conflict in the church.
I am talking about a specific personality. They are persistent in antagonistic behavior. For them, antagonism is a necessary part of their identity.
Brother Bruce,
Good point,…Matthew 18 is about restoration. If that restoration is exhausted, by all attempts,…then the person is simply treated as a tax collector. In other words, you love them and share the gospel with them.
Paul’s instruction to Titus is that the church has nothing to do with this man (reject). Since this man is dividing and causing disunity as his motive to rule and argue for authority. The pursuit of the activity is a good clue to the motive and purpose of the heretic.
-Chris
Chris said:
“Either the SBC is tremendously gifted at teaching, and sin is at a minimum, or these commands are being ignored.”
I vote, “commands are being ignored.”
Bruce,
Another key passage to study in this context is 1 Corinthians 5. There, it actually uses the language: “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Brother cb,
antagonist – One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.
If that definition is accurate for who an antagonist is…then I would say that person probably offends many folks,.. and often,.. if their identity is wrapped up in that definition.
They would need to be confronted often, in hopes that they would repent and not be an adversary to their brothers and sisters in the family. The Holy Spirit can certainly renew the mind of a habitual antagonist.
-Chris
How does the typical SBC ecclesiology effect the actions taken against a heretic (factious man) or the pursuit of restoration? Are most SBC churches set up to deal with these commands or are there obvious policy or procedural rules that create roadblocks for the church to follow these commands set down by the Apostle?
-Chris
Chris,
I am talking about a specific personality profile.
These people seek our communal alliances, entrench themselves and then fulfill their “calling” so to speak.
Here again is the definition of the type personality I am identifying:
“Antagonists are individuals who on the basis of nonsubstantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership position.”
I haver to now go and antagonize the saints at church. Back later.
This may turn out to be a 500 comment post. That is, if we all are fractious and antagonize each other enough to keep it alive.
Of course, I also have to watch the Phillies beat the Northern Aggressors when I get back home.
Eat your heart out Dave. Pedro is on the mound tonight. And he is certainly a fractious man.
cb
No it’s not!
Brother Middle E,
What’s not?
Brother Chris,
Apologies, I was trying to be factious. Apparently my humor is not working today ;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
FTME, the Yankees are not something to joke about! We are three outs away from a championship. I am trying to decide whether to be gracious or to rub CB’s nose in it.
Chris, any advice?
Course, if it goes horribly wrong, I’m moving to Zimbabwe.
Ballgame over. Series over. Yankees win. The-e-e-e Yankees Win!
I’m waiting on CB’s congratulatory phone call.
New York Yankees; World’s Champions.
They deserve it. They were the better team this year.
Congratulations Dave.
cb
It has to be a spiritual failing for me to be this stressed out about a baseball game, like I have been since the loss Monday.
Brother Dave,
I fell asleep in the 8th…. got a call from Obama congratulating me this morning. Then Gibbs called back and apologized,…they had got the wrong number. Of course, now I am in the White House database and have no power to espunge any of the data. Oh well.
Strider,
You factious one you…. btw, how would a factious man fair in the communities where you minister? Does this come up in those bodies that form within that region? Sometimes persecution will keep this type of disunity to a minimum, if at all. Just curious.
Blessings,
Chris
Hey everyone, if you want to hear me preach, go to my blog… fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com and you can hear me preaching last Sunday. I just figured out how to put videos on my blog. I know, I’m computer challenged. But anyway, I just figured that some of you might like to hear this, that you might be interested in putting a face to volfan007, and hear him preach in a Church setting. I’m preaching thru the book of 1 Corinthians at my Church right now, and this sermon is part of my preaching thru chapter 1.
Anyway, I just thought I’d let yall know.
http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com/
David Worley
Good stuff,… thx David W.
Brother cb,
In comment #50…. are you saying that these folks are not able to change, or that they believe the manner in which they engage is constructive?
I’ve known some antagonistic folks that fall into both of those categories.
Blessings,
Chris
I had a great comment all ready to go and then the power went out for the day! Sorry. What I wanted to say was that yes, there are fractious folks here too. Paul warned the elders in Acts 20 that the wolves would be after the sheep and the shepherds were to watch for them. Not enough of us have taken that warning seriously.
Many pioneer M’s are very antagonistic people by the way. They are hard to work with but a fractious man is distinguished by his drive for disunity and his need to elevate himself. It is amazing to me that even in the context that I am in where the national church is so small even here wolves come in. Be vigilant my friends and do not hesitate to take a rod and chase off the wolves. You will know the rightness of what you are doing by looking to your own heart. Are you protecting you or are you loving the sheep?
Brother Strider,
Yes!, very well said….I’m glad the electricity came back on.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Strider has identified the antagonistic personality I am speaking of in the various comments I have posted here.
Notice this in his comment:
“They are hard to work with but a fractious man is distinguished by his drive for disunity and his need to elevate himself.”
I would say that the truly antagonistic personality is ultimately impossible to work with over an extended period of time. His “core” personality will surface eventually.
cb