Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: March 18, 2007
RESPECT OF PERSONS
Lester Kamp
[The following article was taken from “Matters of the Faith” Vol. 10, No. 2
April-December, 2006 — Editor, Lester Kamp. Abbreviation “MOTF” stands
for “Matters of the Faith.”]
Showing favoritism was a problem early in the history of the church. James
addressed this problem, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.... But if ye have respect to
persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors" (James 2:
1, 9). James was not the only one to address this sinful behavior. Paul in
addressing Timothy's responsibilities as a preacher of the Gospel in regard to sin
in the eldership and the appointment of the right (qualified) men to the work of
an elder stated, "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before
another, doing nothing by partiality"(I Timothy 5:21). Paul's concerns included
overlooking sin on the part of some of those guilty and overlooking some who
were lacking in the qualifications based because of preference and partiality. I
suppose all of us have known men who were appointed as elders who lacked
some of the qualifications simply because the men were well liked by many in
the congregation (i.e. they were well-liked "good old boys"). We have even known
of occasions where sin was overlooked in a person's life because that person was
an elder, a preacher, a family member of an elder or preacher, or a wealthy
person whose financial contribution was deemed essential and therefore more
important than doing what God taught concerning dealing with the sin. Obviously
the problem dealt with by Paul and James still exists today. There continues to
be a tendency to be partial to the rich, to our friends and to relatives.
Please keep in mind that showing preference, partiality, respect of persons may
be popular, but the inspired James clearly and emphatically stated, "if ye have
respect of persons, ye commit sin." We may choose to ignore sin in the lives of
some because they are our friends, but to do so is to commit sin! We all
certainly want to be liked. We would like to be popular. We would particularly like
for certain ones of influence to like us. Therefore, the temptation is to overlook
sins in the lives of those who seem to have influence. Preachers may, for
example, choose to overlook sin in the lives of some in order to "keep his job," to
be invited more to speak on lectureships and Gospel Meetings, to be given
opportunities to address large audiences (perhaps in programming over television
networks), to be accepted by highly regarded schools of preaching, to be involved
in major Brotherhood projects and programs, or to be associated with works
which heretofore have been deemed as essential to the brotherhood. Others may
choose to ignore sin, because of their desire for peace (the absence of conflict).
It is important to observe that few, if any, enjoy conflict and confrontation. I
know that I do not enjoy or desire conflict and confrontation. All would prefer not
to have to reprove and rebuke sin. We all, however, recognize that such is
commanded of God (II Timothy 4:2). Doing such is certainly an unpleasant task
that sometimes costs friendships, acceptance by those we once appreciated,
hurts our pride, and even can cause financial loss, but the fact remains that this
is our duty "without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”
The same law applies to all alike!
Our politically correct environment has influenced the thinking and behavior of
too many in the church today. Many are more concerned about not "rocking the
boat" than they are about steadying the course of the "ship of Zion” along the
strait and narrow way of God's Word. Many are more concerned about
maintaining friendships than they are about doing what God has commanded in
His Word. Many are so involved in "scratching each other's backs" that they
neglect contending for the faith. In fact, many who were once on the firing lines
in the battle against evil have now been blinded by the need of large sums of
money to continue their pet projects and their loyalties to each other that they
have laid down the sword of the Spirit and picked up the warm, fuzzy blanket of
"unity in diversity" (an idea which most of them earlier strongly opposed in
liberals like Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado).
Examine these two examples (several others could be given): There was a conflict
between the board of The Gospel Journal and its editors over doctrinal matters.
The editors (Dub McClish and David Watson) opposed the false doctrines
reevaluation/reaffirmation of elders as practiced at Brown Trail and the inventive
board obviously thought it more important to keep Apologetics Press "afloat"
than to stand against its director who is a false teacher. The board forced the
resignations of those who stood firmly against error. Curtis Gates (president of
the board of TGJ) and Joe Meador (vice-president) were at least partially
motivated by their decision by the threatened loss of finances for the schools
they directed (MSOP, implementing the building of student housing requiring
substantially greater annual funds, and SWSBS, respectively). Joe Meador chose
to chastise everyone who opposed these errors with this description: "a few who
are in a small, but no less toxic, loyalty circle...negative faction, who if they gain
control, will only rupture fellowship in the church even more than they already
have." He describes those who were opposing sins like those evident in Dave
Miller as being toxic (poisonous). This shows us how far he and others have
gone! Error tolerated is toxic; loyalty to the Word of God is not toxic! (cf. Isaiah 5:
20). His words actually place him and those with him in a real "toxic, loyalty
circle" wherein loyalty to friends, those with financial resources, and "important
brotherhood" projects are more important than unyielding loyalty to the Truth.
Notice also brother Meador's primary concern is the "rupture" of fellowship
(consider: Matthew 10:34-37). Surely he recognizes that none desires such, but
division always occurs when error is taught and promoted. The faithful must
stand against error. When some insist on error and others stand on Truth
rupture of fellowship will result. But the cause of the rupture is the acceptance
of error, not the opposition to it. The solution is for those who promote and
tolerate error to turn from their wicked ways and return to the Lord's Way. What
Meador is suggesting is peace at the price of Truth! All that amounts to is "unity
in diversity"— agreeing to disagree, doctrinal differences overlooked.
More recently Barry Grider, co- editor of the "New" Gospel Journal observed that
MSOP has "refuses to buckle to a small band of radical neo-conservatives that
have tried to undermine us. In reality, this group is destroying itself." I know it
would have been easier for Paul to ignore Peter's sin rather than withstand him
to his face "before them all" (Galatians 2:11-14). But to show partiality to Peter
by ignoring his sin would have been sinful. Paul would have engaged in sin
because it was a violation of God's Word, and he would have caused Peter to be
lost along with others like Barnabas who were being influenced by Peter's sinful
behavior. Obviously Paul was more concerned about what was right than he was
about rupturing fellowship. Brother Grider would have made the same appraisal
of those who stayed with Jesus in John 6. We are told that "from that time many
of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). Grider's
comment would have been "this group is destroying itself" when in reality those
who were now fewer in number were the ones who were remaining faithful to the
Savior! [MORE NEXT WEEK]