HOORAY! I FOUND IT AT LAST!

Honestly, I didn’t think I’d find it in the Gospel Guardian. Not that there is anything wrong with the Guardian. I had about concluded that I would never see it in my lifetime, bur sure enough there it was in an article by William E. Wallace (bless him!), and it came at a time when I least expected it. They are calling that serendipity these days. It came when I was giving a major exam in “Philosophies Men Live By” at the university, and since the test was to run all hour, I gathered up a few items to read while I sat through the test, one of them being the Guardian. When I saw what I have been looking for these many years, I let out such an ejaculation of surprise and joy that my thirty students raised their heads as one, wondering what had so excited their professor.

In the same issue of the Guardian the editor had spun out a rather lengthy treatment of his experiences with Leroy Garrett over the past thirteen years, which included an appreciative reference to one of my recent editorials, as well as some ungracious comments about my “ultra liberal philosophy” and a rank misstatement of my position on fellowship. If the editor had been quoting most anyone else, he would have done so without feeling obligated to attend it with such a sordid introduction. And he had to assure his readers that he only “happened to be reading” my paper, which “he graciously sends me.” He could have explained that he receives it on exchange basis, as he has for years, but I suppose he did not want his readers to think he pays me that much mind. And if you are going to quote something from a renegade brother like me, the Guardian editor shows you how: “But with all of Brother Garrett’s leftfield liberalism, he hits a note now and then that really rings true. I was particularly impressed with a recent editorial …” Now isn’t that gracious and brotherly! Had he been honoring an editorial by an atheist, Methodist, or Hindu, he would not have bothered to take a wild slap at the man first. Why? Is it that if you commend something that Leroy Garrett has written you have to do so in such a way as not to implicate yourself? So if you dare to say something that is in the least commendatory, be sure to attack also. Oh, the bondage that men get themselves into!

But I have appeared as an apostate in the Guardian so often that it is “old hat” by now, so what really caught my fancy was a few lines from the pen of brother Wallace that brought my search to an end. Here they are: “John the apostle sums up the indictment against such Godless teachers as the God-Is-Dead theologians: ‘Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.’ (2 John 9)”

All these years I have seen 2 John 9 twisted, butchered, stretched, and abused. It is surely the most misapplied scripture of all those used frequently by our people. I had about given up hope of ever seeing it appropriately used, but at last I have found it in brother Wallace’s article on the “God-is-dead” theologians, and I commend him for it.

Poor 2 John 9. It really catches it. It is applied to brethren who support Herald of Truth, use instrumental music, go to Sunday School, or have missionary societies. If a brother thinks it all right to use multiple cups in serving the Supper, there are those among us who will quote 2 John 9 and apply it to him: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God.” If a brother believes in the premilliennial return of Christ, or if a congregation puts an orphanage in its budget, 2 John 9 is wrapped around their digressive necks.

This passage goes on to read: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.” This is made to apply to good, sincere brethren who happen to differ in some particular, and thus the line of fellowship” is drawn and divisions in the body of Christ occur. This means that the Sunday School or the sponsoring church is “a wicked work” that makes fellowship impossible. We bellow forth “Whosoever goes onward and abides not in the doctrine of Christ has not God” and apply it to some innocent brother who goes to church where there is an organ.

This we have done for years, thus imposing upon ourselves an impossible attitude toward those who see things differently from ourselves. A few minutes with most any commentary, or a careful look at the context, would have disabused our minds of such an interpretation of 2 John 9. John tells us in the verses before the kind of people he has in mind: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.’ Some reading in background material will reveal that the apostle is dealing with the Gnostic heresy that was greatly troubling the church at this time.

The Gnostics were within the church, but believing as they did that matter is inherently evil, they could not accept the doctrine that the eternal Christ had taken on human flesh. They thus denied the incarnation. As MacKnight puts it: “The doctrine of Christ which the apostle had in his view here, I suppose, is the doctrine concerning Christ, that he is the Son of God sent into the world, made flesh to save mankind.” As 1 John 2:23 says: “No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.” The man who does not have God, the apostle is saying, is he who denies the Father-Son relationship of Jesus the Christ.

It is so wrong to apply this passage to some well-meaning, Christ-loving Baptist who has confused some point of scripture. A man can be wrong about a lot of things and still have God. So long as a man sustains a proper relationship to the Christ, we can believe that “he has both the Father and the Son.” But when, like the Gnostic heretics, he wishes to destroy people’s faith through a perverted doctrine of the nature of Christ, he has neither the Father or the Son.

The “God-is-dead” theologians come about as near being like the ancient Gnostics as any group of professed Christians could be. Their teaching despoils the divine nature of the Christ. It denies the sonship of Christ, for it seeks to accept Christ without accepting the Father. It is therefore a threat to the faith. Of these men it can be properly said: “Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.” If God is dead, if he is indeed not in the picture, then the Christ is necessarily denied. The denial of Christ is a denial of the Father; the denial of the Father is a denial of Christ. “I and the Father are one” says our Lord in John 10:30.

We commend the Guardian for their proper application of 2 John 9. We hope this will be a new beginning in responsible interpretation.

There remains the problem as to whether such professed Christians as the “God-is-dead” people are to be treated in such a manner as 2 John 10 directs, where we are told not to receive such ones into our home or bid them any greeting. Now I readily concede that the position of William Hamilton of Colgate and Thomas Altizer of Emory make Christian fellowship impossible, but I would hardly feel justified in closing the door in their faces should they call at my home, and I don’t think 2 John 10 requires that, even when I admit that 2 John 9 applies to this case.

I agree with C. H. Dodd that 2 John 10 is an emergency regulation in the early church, a measure to protect the saints from the wandering heretics who were committed to the destruction of the faith. Emergency regulations are not to become permanent practices. Despite the seriousness of Hamilton’s and Altizer’s digression from the truth, I can treat them with Christian courtesy and entertain them in my home, all the time seeking to dissuade them from their “evil way”—evil because it is destructive of Christian faith. But in the time of John the Gnostic heresy was too perilous a problem for any chances to be taken. And so, if a traveling teacher came through, and did not bring “this doctrine” (the truth about the nature of Christ), the saints could know that he was a Gnostic heretic, and was not to be shown any hospitality or in any way encouraged in his evil.