The apostle Paul affirmed his resolve to stand with the truth of God by saying, "I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17). Was such a responsibility solely for Paul due to his unique place as an apostle or did other Christians also have the same duty? Since that gospel was defended by apostles in the first century, are modern Christians free from the task of defending it from present day assaults? Can preachers, elders and saints of our time legitimately excuse current failures to use the Spirit's sword to expose error by claiming that modern Christians lack the apostolic credentials to undertake this task?
The culture around us disdains those who defend Bible truth as an absolute. They teach, as fundamental, the tenets of relativism. They assure us with absolute certainty that we cannot know anything for certain. To assert that the principles and actions of another are wrong is to commit the cardinal sin of our age: intolerance. In many schools, our children are taught that "diversity" should be celebrated. The desired "diversity" was first limited to accepting those of diverse races and economic backgrounds. If it had stayed at that point, all of us could heartily "Amen" the concept because such is clearly taught in Scripture (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:7-11; Jas. 2:1-9). However, the proponents of accepting and celebrating "diversity" went on to include adultery, fornication, homosexuality, false religion, and a host of other sinful actions in the category of "diversity" and "alternate lifestyles" which are to be accepted and celebrated. It is at this point that the child of God must see the shift in definition and oppose any movement to accept sinful principles and action. God has always demanded that His people hate, reject and oppose every evil way (Psa. 119:128; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:6-12; 2 Jn. 9-11).
We expect a world that loves sin would seek to justify its evil action and silence the opponents thereof (Jn. 3:19-20; 7:1,7; 15:18-21). Isaiah said, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (Isa. 5:18-23 cf. Ezek.15:22-23). The wisdom writer of old noted God's condemnation of those who would justify evil and tolerate its continuance (Prov. 17:15; 18:15; 24:24). Solomon later notes the response characteristic of the one set for the defense of truth:
They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them (Prov. 28:4).
It is a sad fact that many brethren are now praising the wicked, justifying their acceptance, quelling their tongues from the mandatory rebuke of evil, and, instead, pronouncing condemnation upon those who do contend with the wicked. The opponent of wickedness is labeled a "watchdog," "unloving." a "self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy" or a "neo-Pharisee." From pulpits to kitchen tables, from Bible classes to college campuses, from "gospel papers" to preachers of repute, a growing cry is heard for tolerance of "diversity" in doctrine and practice where sin is involved. Its current momentum began from brother Ed Harrell's plea for continued acceptance of brother Homer Hailey despite his teaching and application of error on divorce and remarriage (Christianity Magazine, Nov. 1988). It gained steam when none of the editors of that paper challenged the error. The speed of the movement increased when esteemed brethren stepped in to defend and praise our "historical practice" of accepting those who teach some doctrinal errors and sinful practices. It accelerated even more as some lauded our doctrinal diversity as a proof of rightful "autonomy" and "non-sectarianism." It reached terminal velocity when we were told by many in our own area that we could receive brethren who advocate the "Big Bang" theory, stellar evolution, a 15 to 20 billion year old universe as consistent with the Bible, acceptance of Baptists and Methodists as "Christians" while abiding in those doctrines, and even suggest that Muslims and atheists may be saved while remaining in such infidelity.
It is past time that we realize there is no violation of congregational autonomy, Bible love or any other principle of Christ in preaching the truth! Conversely, we must see that the Bible recognizes no legitimate autonomy for a church to act wherein it has no authority. No aspect of Bible love compels one to turn a blind eye to sin practiced by a believer. No principle of Christ authorizes the on-going and continuous tolerance of sinful practice or false doctrine. God's people are protected against the devil's assaults and forces only to the degree that each individual Christian hears and heeds the whole counsel of God.
If one fails to faithfully uphold, declare and defend the truth of the gospel, how can a congregation of God's people or individual saints justifiably receive and support such an one? Yet, some well-known brethren today are attempting to justify congregations and individuals that financially support preachers of error. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that such action is contrary to the will of God (2 Jn. 9-11). Those participating in such praise and support of the wicked ought to repent of this evil and to summon the courage necessary to contend with the wicked as commanded in God's word. When Paul defended the gospel in the presence of the saints at Philippi and they supported his work, they were all partakers with Paul of grace (Phil. 1:7). What "grace" is found in supporting and working with preachers of error? Are precious souls brought closer to our Lord by setting aside the sword of the Spirit and refusing to defend the blood-bought gospel in order to accept "doctrinal diversity" and adapt to the plea for "tolerance" of wickedness?
After Paul proclaimed that he was "set for the defense of the gospel," he made it plain that defending the gospel was a responsibility shared by every saint. He called upon the bishops, deacons and all saints addressed to "stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving for the faith of the gospel; and in nothing affrighted by the adversaries" (Phil. 1:27-28). Peter confirmed that all Christians have the same responsibility to "give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15). Thus, when we meekly submit to God's will and have a reverence for Him causing us to submit, we will answer for our hope to every man - including popular preachers of error, college professors, elders leading people to apostasy and old soldiers of the cross who have switched allegiance. The word "answer" from 1 Peter 3:15 and the word "defense" from Philippians 1:17 are both translated from the same Greek word, apologia, which refers to "a speech of defense" or a "reply" upholding something in the face of conflict. The gospel was the object of both Peter and Paul's repeated defense though opposition to that truth arose through persecution, error and other adversaries. It was not merely the responsibility of apostles to meet this charge, but it is one given to faithful Christians today as the situation arises necessitating such.