1. [Local churches I’ve attend have] never severed ties with a man who disagreed with us on an issue when he kept that belief to himself, except in private conversations. We have continued to challenge him and study with him, but we have not cut off such a man.

2. So, assuming we are continuing fellowship with some brethren who disagree with us on some serious issues, upon what basis do we maintain that unity in spite of those differences?

3. …Perhaps others would answer "Romans 14." But most of us, including this writer (emphasis added), would not apply that passage to issues like marriage, divorce and remarriage, institutionalism, instrumental music or similar issues.

4. [Do you]… (1) "Agree to disagree"? (2) Immediately withdraw from him? (3) Move to another church? (4) Continue to seek opportunities to discuss the issue and teach him the truth?

5. If you do not appeal to Romans 14 for authority to continue fellowship with a person with whom you disagree, then to what do you appeal?

6. My view is that if we preach the truth aggressively, honest men will consider it carefully and want to study and we should continue to teach and admonish those brethren…If there is hope that a brother will come to understand the truth, I’ll keep trying to teach him. Those who persist in error will either sever fellowship themselves, finding brethren more sympathetic to their views, or they will become contentious and divisive. At that point, some other passages, like Titus 3:10 and Rom. 16:17, may apply.

7. Upon what basis do you continue fellowship at the local level with those with whom you disagree? What do you do with that brother who differs with you about instrumental music? How about the brother who views marriage, divorce and remarriage a bit differently? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, how do you get there? We would be glad to open some space in the magazine to those who would like to tell us how they view the issue.

The church with which I work as an evangelist has on occasion found it necessary to mark a brother or sister because of some behavior that brings reproach upon Christ and the church. We’ve withdrawn from the factious man (Titus 3:10). We’ve marked and noted men who teach error (Romans 16:17). We’ve removed the immoral man or woman (1 Cor. 5). And we’ve broken the bond with the unrepentant (Mt. 18:15-18).

But in the nearly half a century that I have been a Christian, I never recall a church severing fellowship with a fellow member of that church because of a privately held conviction. Now, it is true that we have had spirited discussions, such that a man or woman no longer felt they had anything in common with us and thus left us. In those cases, we have formally severed fellowship when they became a divisive influence or when they overtly embraced false teaching. But we’ve never severed ties with a man who disagreed with us on an issue when he kept that belief to himself, except in private conversations. We have continued to challenge him and study with him, but we have not cut off such a man.

Assuming that others have the same experience, upon what basis do we continue local fellowship with one with whom we disagree? Some may say they sever all such relationships at the point when the disagreement is discovered (and, hence, when one of them is revealed to be a "false teacher"). But I doubt that really happens, frankly. Some husbands and wives couldn’t meet together!

So, assuming we are continuing fellowship with some brethren who disagree with us on some serious issues, upon what basis do we maintain that unity in spite of those differences?

Let’s say, for example, that a Christian begins meeting with you and he reveals in a private conversation that he sees nothing wrong with churches supporting human institutions out of the church treasury. You disagree. Now, let’s further assume that you engage in several Bible studies with him, but he fails to agree that church support of institutions is unscriptural and wrong. He remains in the local fellowship but does not publicly teach his view, though he will share it when asked privately about it.

What do you do at this point? (1) "Agree to disagree"? (2) Immediately withdraw from him? (3) Move to another church? (4) Continue to seek opportunities to discuss the issue and teach him the truth?

If you say (1) or (4), what is the scriptural basis for doing so? Those brethren who apply Romans 14 to so-called "doctrinal" issues have been raked over the coals (by the way, which issues are not doctrinal?). Some have accused them of believing we should fellowship false teachers, and worse. That accusation often betrays a misunderstanding of the term "fellowship" or an ignorance of the facts about what these brethren are actually doing. But I digress. Here’s the point: If you do not appeal to Romans 14 for authority to continue fellowship with a person with whom you disagree, then to what do you appeal?

I’ve not spent a week with a church in which it is not apparent that there are some brethren who disagree on some subject or another. Yet, they still work and worship together. So I guess I’m skeptical of brethren who claim they wouldn’t "fellowship" a false teacher, if they define a false teacher as someone who teaches anything falsely.

My view is that if we preach the truth aggressively, honest men will consider it carefully and want to study and we should continue to teach and admonish those brethren. And that’s as it should be: "A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench" (Mt. 12: 20). If there is hope that a brother will come to understand the truth, I’ll keep trying to teach him.

Those who persist in error will either sever fellowship themselves, finding brethren more sympathetic to their views, or they will become contentious and divisive. At that point, some other passages, like Titus 3:10 and Rom. 16:17, may apply.

Upon what basis do you continue fellowship at the local level with those with whom you disagree? What do you do with that brother who differs with you about instrumental music? How about the brother who views marriage, divorce and remarriage a bit differently? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, how do you get there? We would be glad to open some space in the magazine to those who would like to tell us how they view the issue.

From the January 2001 issue of Focus Magazine.