Sayings. We must be careful of "sayings" that we use because if we "say" them enough, they become axiomatic, at least in our own minds. A good example is the saying, which has taken the proportion of a proverb, "Cleanliness is next to godliness." In the first place, this saying doesn’t come from any known religious source, heavenly or otherwise. In the second place, according to the Scriptures, it is not true. There are two places where godliness is included as a quality or characteristic that God desires in us, and cleanliness is not listed in either place. "But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness" (1 Tim. 6:11.). "Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love" (2 Peter 1:5-7).

That is not to say that cleanliness is not important. The fact is that while cleanliness is irrelevant to salvation, it is crucial to good health and good society.

Sometimes sayings are used so much that they lose much of their content. An illustration of this was to be seen in a recent conversation I had with a friend over something he wanted to do and I didn’t. He said to me, "Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water." I asked him simply, "What do you mean by that?" His response was a blank stare. So I rephrased, "In your mind, what is the baby, and what is the bath water, and how does my reluctance to participate constitute throwing them both out?" Again I was greeted with a blank stare.

You see, he didn’t know exactly what the words of that saying signified. The saying was simply tossed out to back me off from my objection. There was no real baby or bath water, and nothing in our discussion was there to correspond to either.

That is not to say that such sayings have no utility. Such sayings, if used legitimately, constitute and important part of our efforts to communicate. But we must keep them in their place.

Another saying is creeping into our culture, and we must not let it become a rule in our faith. I have heard more than once in the last few weeks this phrase used with reference to doctrinal differences between brethren. That phrase is, "It’s nothing to split the church over."

I understand the serious nature of "splitting the church." Paul warned the brethren in Corinth, "Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye" (1 Cor. 3:16-17). He implores also that there should be no "schism in the body" (12:25). From these passages and other we learn that we should not split the church. However, we look further into the pages of Holy Writ, and we find that doesn’t mean that we should "never" split the church.

Churches today split as they did in New Testament times. Sometimes the tree must be pruned if it is to bear the fruit of righteousness.

There is a time when God does the pruning. He talks to the faithlessness of the Jews in Romans: "Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee" (Rom. 11:19-21).

Sometimes dead branches fall off of their own accord. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

Most of the time, the faithful must do the pruning. Paul also warned (we might add, with reference to those who taught error), "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). What do we do about the danger of error spreading? He instructs the brethren at Corinth: "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Is there anything really worth splitting the church over? The gravity of the prospect that soul’s are at stake should furnish the thoughtful with a ready answer. It is the truth that makes us free (John 8:32), it is the erroneous deliberation of man that costs the soul and leads to hell. "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). We are warned throughout the Scriptures against being led astray. Jesus said, "And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray" (Matt. 24:11). John wrote, "These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray" (1 John 2:26).

Our initial reaction to one who teaches error is to seek to correct him, much as Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). It is our duty to gently correct the erring with a view to saving his soul (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; James 5:19-20). But what if repentance is not evidenced by a change of teaching or behavior? What then? What if the one who is mistaken leads the church into his error? Is it time now to "split the church?"

Hear the words of Jesus: "But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit" (Matt. 15:13-14). The question really is, "How important is it for us to heed the teachings of Jesus more than the teachings of men?"

When such a split occurs, there are two questions that must be asked. The first is, "Who is responsible for the split?" The second is, "Who is to blame for the split?" Sometimes a split is necessary in order to maintain the purity of the faithful (1 Cor. 5:7). Must we leave if they don’t repent or first leave themselves? The answer to the second question is answered in the Bible. "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. For who maketh thee to differ? (1 Cor. 4:6-7). Who is to blame for church splits? Who makes brethren differ? This inspired passage says it is those who "go beyond the things which are written." Paul also writes, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them" (Rom. 16:17). Who causes "divisions and occasions of stumbling?" According to Paul, those who teach things that are "contrary to the doctrine which ye learned."

Sometimes the unfaithful split the church. Sometimes the faithful, in order to remain faithful, MUST split the church. It is never a happy thing, but sometimes it is necessary for the faithful to do if they are to remain so.

I must admit, I believe that there are things that are not worth splitting the church over. But doctrinal error often necessitates it. We are commanded, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). And the saying, "It’s not worth splitting the church over," has never been a legitimate way to end a disagreement among brethren. It is merely a transparent attempt to sweep problems under the rug until they are too big to get out of the house, and it could be a dangerous compromise with Satan.