Tell me who is such a competent judge of motives that he can tell when one "seeks to wound the feelings of his opponent?" Except one has admitted that that is his aim, no one can say that it is. All outward appearances may indicate that he "seeks to wound" and yet he may be very sincere and free from that motive. His judgment of certain evidences bearing upon the case may be distorted, in spite of full measure of love and sincerity.
But (according to this suggested practice) as soon as it has been established (by some human judge) that one "seeks to wound" he is to be counted as "REVILER" and expelled!
This brings us back to the old stand. By this rule any expression of conviction on doctrine, which goes contrary to the "opponent" can be branded as an effort to "wound the feelings" of the opponent and thus the matter is immediately removed from the realm of doctrine to the realm of deportment, just in order to open the way for treating the brother as a "reviler."
I am afraid that very few will discover that this is just a new garb cleverly draping the old garment of Sectism.
Total unsectarianism is something that cost these days and very, very few are able to bear the cost in way of tolerance and patience. Talk and print is not too costly, but the practice of it—who is able to go on with that? The test of the times will reveal it, and—what is not revealed here will be revealed in time—at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
E. A. L.
Last updated 21.10.2008