“VOICES OF CONCERN”—INTRODUCTION
JAMES D. BALES

Capable men, for one reason or another, have left us. We should study what they have to say in order to learn any truth which they may have; and to better equip ourselves for the tasks of answering questioners and contending for the faith (I Pet. 3:15-16; Jude 3). This should be done, although it is obviously much easier to say than to do it, in the proper spirit (II Tim. 2:24-25; I Pet. 3:15-16).

Voices condemns some sins, errors, and shortcomings of brethren. It advocates some old denominational errors. It also contains modernism. We should profit by any deserved criticism, and endeavor to answer its errors.

The Tent of Faith

The Jacket of the book states that its purpose is to lengthen the ropes, and strengthen the stakes, of the tent of faith so that all God’s children can dwell in it. Just where would the Episcopal priest drive down the stakes? His Church contains the atheist Dr. Thomas J. J. Altizer who asserts that God is dead, and Bishop Pike who opposes many Biblical doctrines. How can the tent of faith include Thomas P. Hardeman who has an aversion to traditional theism? (p. 99). Voices contains some conflicting voices of confusion and apostasy which destroy the tent and create a tower of Babel.

Unity in Diversity?

Dr. Meyers said: “The book obviously means to urge no one way of religious expression, but to plead from such evidence as is here the need for unity in diversity.”

“This kind of unity would have kept most of the people who left.” (p. 5).

The Bible does teach a unity in spite of certain diversity. Christians are at different stages of growth and development. Those who are babes in Christ, and who feed on the milk of the word, have not grown so that they eat and assimilate the meat. There are those who have not grown; and thus, although by reason of time they ought to be teachers of the Word, they have need for someone to teach them anew. Romans 14 shows that there is a diversity which is due Christians being at different stages of knowledge of God’s will. And thus, while having “one mind” as our ideal (I Cor. 1:10-12), yet we can fellowship other Christians without their having attained perfection. Obviously, none of us has attained perfection. And yet, the Bible also shows that there are limits to “unity in diversity.” To accept the diversity which is found in Voices would mean that we must leave the Bible. Furthermore, Paul taught against the diversity in the unity in the Church in Corinth.

Dr. Meyers wrote: “Thousands are restless and dissatisfied with the aridity of exclusivism and authoritarianism. Bright young minds are refusing to be put off with answers that have no more to commend them than the hoary beard of antiquity.” (p. 3).

Our spirit of exclusivism ought to be as broad and as narrow as the Bible (Matt. 7:13-14). The authoritarianism should be not that of the traditions of men, but of authority of Jesus Christ (John 12-48). Our answers should be reliable answers, and with credentials other than mere age. There are, it is true, those who have reacted against unscriptural attitudes and unscriptural narrowness on the part of some. We ought to be restless when people try to confine us within the traditions of men; but the restlessness of some in Voices is due to their refusal to be satisfied with the fences which the Lord has built. They do not wish to be confined by the Word of God. We need to try to create an atmosphere based on both the breadth and the narrowness of the Scriptures; and while we should be narrow in convictions, so as to stay within the narrow way, yet we should be broad in our compassion and love. But to broaden our teaching so that it embraces such positions as those advocated by Thomas P. Hardeman, for example, is to abandon God’s truth for man’s futile speculations. The Church is not ours to broaden it or narrow it according to our ideas; instead the church has been created by God, and we need to study God’s word to know its nature and its boundaries. We did not write the Bible, and we do not have the right or the power to change what it teaches. We do have the responsibility of studying, living, and sharing the Word of God.

Robert Meyers hopes that this book would help to create the feeling on the part of a father, whether a minister of the gospel or not, that “he may well be delighted if his child leaves the home church so long as her motive is a passionate desire to find for herself the highest and holiest way of worship. . .” (p. 4). As far as I can tell, he does not bring this to the test of the New Testament revelation. Perhaps Buddhism would seem higher and holier to some. Perhaps there are others who would enjoy the worship of Bacchus. If there is no standard of authority, who is to say that these are not higher and holier for those who like them?

The Lordship of Jesus

Dr. Meyers wrote that: “It is not only unimportant to us that we do not agree with each other in every detail; it is, rather, a matter for rejoicing that in these pages men who accept Jesus as Lord may speak their minds without restrictions. We consider the variety itself a significant part of the lesson this book would teach. Free minds cannot be predicted. The Spirit of God really does move at liberty like the invisible air, and it impels men in various ways.” (p. 5)

First, to accept Jesus as Lord means that we must endeavor to be in submission to His will; both in things which seem small or which seem great (Matt. 7:21-23; Lk. 6:46). Second, how can Meyers think that Thomas P. Hardeman, for example, accepts Jesus as Lord? How can some of the writers accept Jesus as Lord, when they repudiate some things which are clearly taught in the Bible? Third, minds which free themselves from the authority of Christ and His word cannot be predicted. There is no telling what straw they will grasp, or what bubble they will try to catch, or what truth they will repudiate. Fourth, unless one accepts the Bible, he cannot know whether there is any “Spirit of God.” And if one accepts the Bible, he is not free to view anything and everything as the movement of the Spirit of God.

How does Meyers know when and how the Spirit moves men? We cannot know anything about the mind of God; except as God has revealed it through His Holy Spirit through the inspired men of the first century (I Cor. 2:10-16). No one of us can teach by inspiration, although we have the inspired Word to teach. Since we have no inspired men today, we must listen to what the Spirit says through the written Word. The Spirit can and does speak through the written word (Rev. 2:1, 7). Fifth, how would Dr. Meyers test teaching and action to know whether or not the person is moved by the Spirit? Without the authority of the Bible, how does he know what the Lordship of Jesus Christ means? Will he deny the inspiration of the Bible, while affirming the inspiration of some modernists?—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.