"Peaceful Co-Existence"
We are hearing a great deal these days in the political arenas about the ideology of "peaceful co-existence." This theory may or may not work in the realm of politics — this is not our primary interest in this paper. Our point is that this doctrine or ideology has permeated the religious realms. The philosophy of the religious leaders of this day is "peaceful co-existence" of all doctrines. The prevailing theory is that it is entirely out of order to question the scripturalness of another's religion.
The religious leaders seem to frown upon any thought of controversy. Some people have actually been misled into thinking it sinful to "debate thy cause with thy neighbor"! (Prov. 25:9) In their efforts to justify their refusal to engage in controversy denominational preachers often quote Rom. 1:29 and pervert it. However, it is not controversy itself to which they are opposed, but rather the exposing of their false doctrine. Americans are willing to have debates on almost any other subject. They do not oppose, but rather endorse, debate in such "high places" as the U.N. And the nation generally approved the Nixon-Kennedy debates. If such can be engaged in politics, why cannot we meet in similar efforts and discuss religious topics? Why this strenuous opposition to controversy in the realm of religion? Is it not that the denominational preachers realize that their doctrine and practice cannot be defended by the word of God?
Worse than division is "peace at any price." (Acts 15:1, 2) Just as this is true; so is the fact that worse than controversy is ignorance, error, bigotry and sin. If standing for truth brings division, then we are not to blame. If turning people from darkness to light, from error to truth; from bigotry to open-mindedness and from sin to salvation necessitates controversy, then controversy must come! These things do not maintain a "peaceful coexistence" with one another. As Paul said, "What fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Behar." (2 Cor. 6:14-15) These things are wholly incompatible, and cannot find lodging in the same heart. The prophet said, "How can two walk together except they be agreed?"
Dangers
There are definite dangers in public controversy. When one takes a stand for a particular false doctrine publicly it is all the more difficult for him to see the truth, and extremely trying on his pride to humble himself and confess the error he 11 as publicly taught. There is also danger of lack of self-control. It is not infrequent that the disputants and members of the audience lose their temper and site and do things which they aught not. When such things happen there arises another danger — that of holiest people becoming disgusted with the whole affair, and thus becoming prejudiced against honorable controversy. Not the least among these dangers is that of our failing to keep our heart right with God. (Acts 8:21) Our only desire should be to "know the truth." However, it is very ease to allow our personal feelings and desires to be elevated above the desire for truth, thus often the scriptures are perverted in order to gain a point. Because of these dangers a stigma is sometimes placed on honorable controversy which is difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Though controversy is fraught with these problems, they do not begin to offset the good which is accomplished by honorable controversy.
Controversy Is Unpleasant
We all realize that controversy is unpleasant. Only the deviate revels in controversy. But sometimes necessity demands it. Time and again we observe Jesus as he engaged in polemics with the false teachers of his day. We are sure that such was not pleasant for him. It is not easy nor pleasant to go against the majority and popularity. But we must realize that the road to truth is often very rocky. One can begin to get somewhat of an idea of the hardship and unpleasantness sometimes encountered and how rough the road may get by reading from a short autobiography by Paul. "In stripes above measure, in prison more frequent, in death oft, Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." (2 Cor. 11:23-27) These things were not pleasant for Paul, neither was withstanding Peter, Elymas the sorcerer, and others to the face, but necessity demanded that the truth be presented and false teachers and erroneous practices be opposed.
Controversy for its own sake is wrong. Sometimes we develop "professional debaters." This is not a reflection upon those who are used by brethren frequently, but a denunciation of those who debate simply for the sake of differing. One paper which we used to read frequently carried articles by one who wished to be known as "The Disputer." This one wished to be a controversialist, but wished to remain anonymous and take his "pot shots" from a sniper's position behind an "iron curtain." We cannot imagine such an individual being sincerely interested in teaching and defending the truth. Our purpose in controversy must be to teach truth and expose error — never to grind a personal ax.
Whom Should We Oppose?
Many brethren are aware of their responsibilities in opposing the atheists, agnostics and denominational teachers. However, in many quarters this is no longer considered "nice" by some brethren. We have known brethren greatly disturbed if even denominational preachers were opposed and denominational doctrine assailed. Yes, brethren, in many places, are imbibing the spirit of the world and are trying to live in "Peaceful Co-existence" with the forces of Satan in the denominational world. Satan wants nothing better than this.
Our opposition to error taught by brethren is too frequently frowned upon. Surely opposing brethren is disagreeable. But occasions arise when it must be done. In Acts 15:1, 2 the record reveals that "a sharp dispute and controversy" arose among the brethren in Antioch. Paul and the faithful brethren withstood the false teachers. Error is error, and must be opposed regardless of who teaches it.
There needs to be an awakening within the ranks of the people of God today. We need to realize that we are the army of the Lord. We are soldiers of the Cross. A soldier that will not fight for the cause is of very little value to the King. Consider again the words of Jude 3. "But I am forced to write you an appeal to defend the faith which has once for all been committed to the saints." (Moffatt.) This is as much a requirement as to "love one another." When the cause of Christ is assailed — whether it be the fundamental fact of the virgin birth of Christ, the divinity or humanity of Christ, or any of the precepts, commandments or promises of the Gospel — it is the duty of him who can do so to defend it! The faithful and loyal soldier of the cross must stand by the colors of Christ and never allow the banner to fall to the dust. There is no such thing as "peaceful co-existence" of the cause of Christ with the kingdom of Satan.
— 1102 N. Mound Street, Nacogdoches, Texas