That brethren will disagree on various issues is inevitable, understandable and even to be encouraged to some degree. It suggests that men are studying their Bibles and that they are not willing to place the basis of their conviction in that of a man. That’s good.

What bothers me is the character of argument offered by some brethren. I’m thinking specifically of arguments that seek to chill communication, intimidate those who differ, or otherwise manipulate the discussion in order to destroy the credibility of the man making the opposite argument. Ad hominen ("against the man") arguments often, though not always, have this as their goal.

For example, one might say, "anyone who believes that should quit preaching and go out and slop hogs," a statement offensive to both the preacher and hog farmers. The attempt is to brand the man prior to, and perhaps instead of, dealing with the arguments he may offer in support of his view. It is an effort to chill communication and close off the discussion because of a need to "win the debate," instead of a desire to mine the Scriptures for truth.

I’ve heard men describe another man as "sincere" only after he changes his mind and agrees with them on a particular issue. The implication is that they were less than sincere as long as they held their old view. The logical conclusion is that all who do not believe like "we" do are inherently insincere. Do you believe that? While I don’t believe being sincere is going to save anyone, I do believe sincere men hold incorrect views of Scripture. Those are the only men I want to talk to about the truth!

If one is tempted to think that certain men on certain sides of certain questions corner the market with this approach, think again. I’ve heard many bombastic sermons on divorce and remarriage that seem to aim at intimidating others from even asking a question, for fear of being labeled "liberal." That tactic frustrates me because I believe it alienates people and is unnecessary. Our aim should never be to "win an argument," but to win souls.

But others play the game, too. On an old lesson sheet from a class on divorce and remarriage, I Tim. 4:3 is prominently featured. The aim, of course, is to suggest that those who teach that a put-away fornicator cannot remarry without sin is teaching a "doctrine of demons." As a reminder, Paul also said these are men who have fallen away from the faith, are paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, and are hypocrites who consciences are seared, as with a branding iron (cf. I Tim. 4:1-2).

Since I teach that the put away fornicator has no lawful right to remarry, I’m concerned whether there are brethren who really view me like this way (since no one has ever said it to my face). Some probably do. I can tell you I sure wouldn’t hang around with a guy like that! After a solid effort to get him to repent, I’d keep my distance, wouldn’t you? But none have tried that hard. Interesting. Am I intimidated? No, because I don’t think they’ve done their homework on that passage.

Were those who teach that a put-away fornicator is not eligible to remarry in the purview of Paul’s remarks in I Tim. 4? Is teaching that the put-away fornicator is not free to remarry evidence of the "falling away" that Paul says the Spirit explicitly predicts will come "in later times"? I would be very surprised if these men would attempt a defense of a proposition affirming that Paul meant that when he first wrote it to Timothy. But can a text mean what it never meant? If not, and if that’s not what Paul meant, what is the purpose for including the statement in discussions on divorce and remarriage? An attempt to chill communication, perhaps?