Most of us have known brethren who sat under the same teaching we did, and who still attend a church of Christ, but have radically changed their views on a variety of subjects. For example, I know men who now embrace instrumental music, institutionalism, the building and maintenance of "fellowship halls" and social programs as part of the work of the church. Some have gone even further and are teaching that only the gospels count, that the letters of the apostles are not authoritative (one preacher, in a letter to me, called apostolic authority a "raggedly old tradition"). Not one of them has contacted me to try to change my view of these matters.

Exactly what leads men to make these kinds of radical changes will always escape us because we cannot read their hearts; we are limited to judging their fruits (Mt. 7:16). No doubt, some people embrace teaching for no better reason than that someone they like taught it to them. Some teaching is tenaciously held only because brother so and so taught it, "and that’s good enough for me." We all need to check our doctrine against our motives and make certain we have better reasons than that for our faith. "Faith comes from hearing (the word of God)," not the word of bro. whomever. Steadfastness is no virtue when it is just parroting someone else’s teaching.

We are to be steadfast and immovable but not stubborn and obstinate, though the difference may not be always apparent. We should never totally shut down our minds on a portion of the doctrine of Christ. There are some non-negotiables, to be sure, but why would we be afraid to re-study any subject? Truth has nothing to fear.

But even worse (if possible), is the embracing of teaching simply because it validates a chosen lifestyle or moral decision. For example, a person may want to drink "socially" (social schmocial: "social drinking" is a stupid name for it; it’s drinking alcoholic beverages, period), and therefore he’s "decided" that the apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy to "take a little wine for the stomach’s sake" applies to him. I find it sadly comical that some people could barely tell you what the work of the church is, but can quote verbatim 1 Tim. 5:23! Rarely has such a person done much study on the passage, but they like the sound of it and feel "confirmed" in their life-style choice. Is that honest?

There are many, though, who honestly and sincerely believe that the Bible teaches a doctrine just the way they see it. They may sincerely believe that one is saved by faith alone, or that having musical instruments in the assembly is scriptural, or that women should be able to preach, or that drinking wine is fine, or that a guilty party in a divorce can remarry, and so on . . .

Honesty and sincerity does not insulate us from judgment, though. One sure test of a man’s sincerity is this: is he willing to study the issue? John said: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). The word is powerful (Hb. 4:12) and if a man will study any issue honestly, he will know the truth. What bothers me are brethren who are unwilling to speak up, content to discuss the issue only with those with whom they agree or with those whom they feel they can dominate. That is neither sincere nor honest. It is only cowardly, and Jesus puts cowards right up there with liars in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). Paul predicted that the time would come when people would not endure sound doctrine, but would heap up for themselves teachers who would "tickle their ears" (II Timothy 4:3). It is disingenuous in the extreme to avoid all discussion of an issue with those who you know disagree with you.

If an issue is important enough to a person that he is willing to advise others on it (like the marriage issue), or is causing them to change their view of worship or the church (like the instrumental music issue, institutionalism, and women’s roles in the church), or causing serious life-style changes (like modesty questions or drinking issues), then upon what basis does that person refuse to discuss (or debate, if necessary) the issue with one who is at least as knowledgeable as he? What is he afraid of?

I can respect anyone who is willing to put his belief to the test. But I have a very difficult time respecting those who claim to "believe" but who then stand aloof and will not subject that cherished conviction to the scrutiny of others. It betrays an attitude either of doubt about the belief or of unconcern about others.

If we cannot discuss biblical issues as adults and Christians and come to a clearer understanding of the principles that God intends for us to learn, then isn’t our confession a ruse? Let’s always be willing to subject our precious opinions and doctrines to the most severe scrutiny possible so that, before we say "I believe" something, we are confident that we have fully "tested the spirits to see whether they are from God."