STAND FAST OR
COMPROMISE
Dub McClish,
The
whole point of a soldier's being well-armed is not for the parade ground, the
reviewing stand, or mock maneuvers, but for the field of combat. The reason we are to "take up the whole armor of God" is
that we "may be able to withstand
in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand" (Ephesians
We
have a responsibility to stand and fight.
Rather than cowering, compromising, or running from the foe, we are to
"resist the devil: and he will run
from us" (James 4:7). We are not to "give place to the devil" (Ephesians
When
one staunchly stands for the Truth while those about him are retreating,
compromising, and even deserting the blood-stained banner of the heavenly
kingdom, he will encounter suffering. The
Satan-dominated world will see that the faithful soldier pays a price for his
dedication. Like wise, the brethren whose
position of compromise and desertion is exposed by the bold and resolute
soldier will turn their "guns" on him. Among the many perils Paul had to contend with
were "perils among false brethren"
(II Corinthians
The
temptation to compromise Truth and righteousness in order to avoid financial loss
or to favor our kindred, close associates, or those in places of prestige and
power in the kingdom is very strong. Some
have found one or more of these temptations irresistible. We have seen men who once taught the Truth on
marriage, divorce, and remarriage suddenly "discover" a
"loophole" concerning Matthew
19:9 when a son or daughter became involved in an unscriptural divorce and
remarriage. We have known of preachers
who at one time boldly preached the Truth on such moral evils as dancing,
drinking, and immodest apparel, suddenly become mute, deciding these were not
important "issues" when worldly brethren threatened their employment.
We have known elderships that have
sought to muzzle preachers on certain subjects for fear of losing brother and
sister "Moneybags" whose money they were counting on to help pay for
the church building. We have seen school
administrators betray faithful brethren and loyal friends in order to placate
certain contributors to their schools.
We
are also aware of brethren who at one time faithfully exposed and opposed
various errors in doctrine and practice (and blushed not to name their
perpetrators), but who abruptly ceased doing so. These not only grew silent concerning certain
errors (e.g., elder reaffirmation/reconfirmation), but they began pronouncing
said error harmless and endorsing and embracing its principal perpetrator. They have gone so far as to say now of the
error they once opposed, "It is not worth dividing the church over."
(By this statement they imply that they still consider it to be error, but just
not "serious" error. They are also implying that those who do oppose
it are guilty of dividing the church.) Instead
of continuing to confront this error and its chief advocate in the church (who
continues boldly to say, "I would do it again"), several brethren
have compromised not only their former convictions, but the Truth of God's
Word. If the elder r/r practice
constituted doctrinal and practical error from April 1990 until early 2005,
what caused it no longer to be error after that time? If that doctrine and practice no longer
constituted error after the spring of 2005, what rendered it unauthorized before
that time?
The
case of compromise described above involves the desire of certain brethren to
support an institution so much that they are willing to call
"darkness" light and
"good" evil. They
have proved themselves unwilling to withstand the director of the institution
in his error by calling on him to repent. Those who have thus compromised have depicted
those of us who have refused to compromise on this issue as "radicals:'
unbalanced," "toxic," "a negative faction,"
"neo-antis" who are afflicted with a "devil disease," and
similar complimentary terms. They have
accused us of causing "rupture in the fellowship of the church."
Contrary
to the behavior of all such compromisers, Paul perfectly exemplified the trait
of deter mined faithfulness, yea, heroism, even when personal and public
confrontation were required. When he
addressed those who compromised with error in the Galatian churches, he pointed
out that he sought not the favor of men, but of God, and that were be seeking
to please men he could not be Jesus' servant (
“To whom we gave place in
the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the troth of the gospel might
continue with you. But from those who
were reputed to be somewhat whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me:
God accepteth not man's person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted
nothing to me (vv. 5-6)
Note the noble example of
Paul: He gave no place to the grievous
error of the Judaizers because the Gospel Truth and
the destiny of souls were at stake. He
was not swayed by those in lofty positions "who were reputed to be somewhat," not practicing respect
of persons, even as God refuses to do. Paul cared not about protecting or
preserving anyone who was in error, regardless of his connections, academic
qualifications, abilities, or the value of the organization he might direct. The Truth was at stake, and he refused to
compromise it, regardless of the friends or associates he might lose in the
process.
Paul
was so completely loyal to the Lord and His Word that he would not even allow a
fellow apostle to compromise the Troth without opposing him:
“But when Cephas came to
We have seen in a year's
span a lamentable tapestry of compromise woven by and among some once-stalwart
brethren. Instead of resisting him to
the face, because he stood condemned," a few who are “reputed to
somewhat" have given their imprimatur to a documented false teacher in
order to support the institution he directs. As Peter did till Paul confronted him, these
compromising few have carried away a large number of brethren in a long parade
of compromising dissimulation behind them. Had these "reputed-to-be-somewhat"
brethren withstood the false teacher after the manner of Paul (as some of us
have continued to do), our combined efforts might have
brought about his repentance. Instead, because of the compromisers, the false
teacher feels secure and comfortable in his error, once-congenial brethren have
become estranged, and the kingdom suffers.
CONCLUSION-Compromise
on matters of obligatory Truth is not an option for faithful soldiers of
Christ. It represents spiritual treason
and sedition. There is no place for it in the