Review of “Voices
of Concern” . . . No. 2
MODERNISM
AND MORALS
JAMES D. BALES
There is a lot of
repetition in the various chapters of
Voices
of Concern. Since
space is so limited, instead of trying to mention a lot of things in
each chapter, we plan usually to concentrate on from one to three
items.
This article will deal
with the essay by Logan Fox; who now views himself as part of our
“loyal opposition” (p. 30). He is opposed to the Biblical
doctrine of inspiration; thus though he may be loyal to some school
of philosophy and psychology, how can he be loyal to New Testament
Christianity?
Extremist
There are extremists who
lean over backward; and when you try to push them up straight, they
fall on their face. They are still extremists; they change only that
about which they are extreme. Fox tells us of some extreme positions.
As a young man, “Nashville was proud of me.” (p. 15) “I
had become what Nashville believed in and I could preach ‘our’
message from A to Z.” (p. 16) He had thus arrived; even before
he entered college as “a cocky, know-it-all sectarian”
(p. 16). Doubtless there were brethren who were proud of him. They
may have said many things to encourage him. And there may have been
some who had the wrong attitudes and who endorsed wrong attitudes in
him. We doubt that some of those who tried to encourage him as a
youth realized that he thought so highly of himself. Some of the pats
on the back touched sensitive muscles and caused the swelling of the
head. In some degree this has happened to all of us, at one time or
another. Although I leave Fox’s judgment to the Lord, in my
opinion he is still an extremist. He had merely changed what he is
extreme about. He once seemed to think that most brethren were all
right, but now he seems to think that fundamentally they are almost
all wrong. This kind of flip-flop is evident in more than one of the
“voices of concern.”
Modernism and Morals
It is often assumed that
modernism undermines faith in the historical accuracy of the Bible,
but that it leaves the moral teaching untouched. Although it is true
that there are modernists who continue to hold to the moral
teachings, they are not only inconsistent but their teaching
ultimately undermines Biblical morality. Our generation has seen
modernistic bishops who repudiate the miracles and the morals;
Voices
of Concern furnishes
us with more than one case where modernism undermined, in at least
certain matters, the integrity of the modernist. Although we do not
rejoice in it, this is illustrated in the case of Logan Fox.
Every
modernist among us, who is hiding his true colors until he can
influence as many people as possible to his way of thinking, is
grossly dishonest. He
may dress well, his manners may be polished, his approach may be
disarming, his psychology superb, and his vocabulary terrific; but he
is a hypocrite. We are not speaking of an individual who is wrestling
with problems; but of one who has undergone a fundamental change of
faith, and yet feigns Biblical faith in order to continue among
us—for whatever purposes he may have in mind.
Fox’s Charge of
Dishonesty
Some seem to think that
it is unchristian to show from a man’s own record that he has
been dishonest. They take a far dimmer view of the one who exposes
dishonesty, regardless of how good his attitude may be, than they
take of dishonesty itself. Since it is our duty to point to Fox’s
dishonesty, as an illustration of what modernism can do, it may be
well to show that he asserts that many preachers today are dishonest.
He charged: “Our pulpits are filled with men who do not believe
what they preach and who dare not preach what they believe.”
(p. 31). If we tried to uncover some of these hypocrites, would Fox
claim that we have a suspicious and heresy-hunting mind? But such
hypocrites would come under the censure of Jesus, in Matt. 23. Does
Fox think we should knowingly fellowship such hypocrites?
There are doubtless some
hypocrites among us, and Fox should know for he was once one of them,
but what proof did he give to sustain such a broad charge? If there
are such cowards and hypocrites among us, they have no one but
themselves to blame for their sinful condition. They should be honest
enough to preach what they believe; but they should also be honest
enough not to expect to be supported by people who do not believe
what they are preaching. It is one thing to preach what one believes;
it is another thing to think one has the right to demand support of
the very people whom one’s preaching is undermining. We are
convinced that Logan Fox has highly overstated the matter. Is he
judging other people by the way that he was himself for such a long
time? If there are individuals so different from us in faith, why
don’t they go where their faith is?
Logan Fox’s
Hypocrisy
By 1947 Fox was in
fundamental disagreement with us. If I understand him correctly, he
started in Lipscomb the fall of 1941 (pp. 15-16). Within six years he
came “to the position which I have found convincing now for
nearly twenty years.” (p. 17). He was faced with the decision
as to whether he should leave the church or ‘somehow find a way
to work on within it.” (p. 24). His decision led lim to deceive
some of us for years.
What were some of the
positions to which he came? Were they basic matters? His attitude
toward the inspiration of the Bible changed. He now believes that
“next to our position on baptism,” our view of the Bible
“is the biggest barrier to spiritual growth among us.”
(p. 19). The dishonesty which his modernism enabled him to practice
for years among us, was certainly not an indication that his view of
the Bible made a spiritual person out of him. Who was most helpful to
Fox in revising his view of the Bible? A book by Harry Emerson
Fosdick. In this book Fosdick rejected the Biblical teaching
concerning miracles, creation, demons, heaven and hell, and Old
Testament teachings concerning Jehovah. Fosdick seemed to think that
because Jesus fulfilled and set aside the Old Covenant, we can set
aside the New and develop a “newer” Covenant. Fosdick
makes the Bible fit an evolutionary framework so that it is what man
has wrought in his own experiences, rather than what God revealed
through inspired men who confirmed their message with miracles.
Logan Fox has also come
to the position of fellowshipping those who have not been buried and
raised with Christ in baptism (p. 18).
For years he solicited
support from congregations and individuals whom he knew would not
support him and his work if they knew his real beliefs. I first
visited Japan in 1955. Questions about Fox’s views came up but
the impression which he left in me was that he was not basically
different from the rest of us in his beliefs. One of the brethren,
who worked with him at Ibaraki, later told me that when he asked Fox
why he wasn’t frank with the brethren, the gist of his reply
was: “What, and be crucified?” In other words, if he was
honest with brethren, he knew they would not support him. This,
obviously, is not crucifixion. What we have just said should not
arouse suspicion concerning anyone at Ibaraki. I wish the work there
well.
We are not implying that
Christians are always honest; but in failing to be honest they are
failing to live up to the moral teaching of the Bible. The modernist,
however, is being consistent when he repudiates Jesus as the
authority on morality. So why should he feel bound by Christ’s
teaching on morality? Although it may not make an impression on a
modernist, we need to remind ourselves what the Bible says about
those who continue in lies (Rev. 21:8; 22:15).
We regret that reviews
must sometimes be personal, but it is important to emphasize that any
concealed modernist among us is dishonest. We do not have reference
to individuals who are struggling with doubts and questions, but of
those who actually hold to a radically different position concerning
the authority of the Bible than is held by the church.
E. Stanley Jones and
the Spirit
Fox wrote: “But it
was hearing E. Stanley Jones and reading his books which finally
clarified the problem for me. It all boiled down to one simple fact:
if God sent His Holy Spirit to live and work in a man who was not
immersed, who was I to refuse to recognize him? And since the
evidence of the presence of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit,
then it is undeniable that regeneration is not always correlated with
immersion.” (p. 18). First, unless the baptism is that of a
believing penitent, into the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ, the baptism is not Biblical baptism; and is thus not the
actual washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5) for that person. Not all
who have been immersed have been regenerated.
Second, Fox spoke of “one
simple fact,” but he did not prove that God has sent His Spirit
to live and work in Jones. Fox knows nothing about the Spirit, and
His workings, and where He lives, except what is revealed in the
Bible. Anything aside from the Bible is his unsupported human
opinion. The Spirit is promised to believing penitents who are
baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38); and the Corinthians having been
baptized into Christ, were told by Paul that their bodies were
temples of the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20). As we have brought out, in an
examination of certain passages, in our book on
The
Holy Spirit and the Christian, the
Spirit dwells in Christians. Fox, consciously or unconsciously, has
taken the authority on himself to declare as a fact that the Spirit
lived in a man who had not met one of the conditions which God
through the Spirit said he must meet. Does Fox know more about the
Spirit’s indwelling than does the Spirit Himself? Since we are
under authority, and not in authority, we must be submissive to what
the Spirit has revealed in the Bible. We do not have the authority to
declare exceptions when the Spirit has not declared them.
Third, Fox says that
Jones bore the fruit of the Spirit, and this is the proof that the
Spirit dwelt in Jones. Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit in Gal.
5:22-23. However, for us to see in someone’s lives certain
aspects of these, or in some measure all of these, does not mean that
the person is a Christian; and that the Spirit lives in him. Taking
Gal. 5:22-23 out of the context of other passages of Scripture, one
could maintain that being a Christian does not involve either faith
in God, Christ, or the Spirit; or in the mercy of God. For the
passage, which lists certain moral and spiritual qualities, says
nothing about faith in God, Christ, the Spirit, or acceptance of
God’s grace being conditions of the Spirit’s indwelling.
Ghandi had at least some of these aspects of the fruit of the Spirit;
and Jones thought Ghandi was helping to bring in the kingdom of God.
Since the fruit involves
moral and spiritual qualities, and since even the Gentiles had some
understanding of morality, to some degree some of them would have
these qualities. To the extent that anyone follows a moral and
spiritual law to that extent it bears some fruit in his life. There
are individuals who have been influenced by the leaven of the gospel,
and the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of Christians; and yet have
not themselves become Christians. But one is not a Christian just
because he has aspects of this fruit. The apostle John mentioned many
tests, and some other than the fruit are mentioned in Gal. 5:22-23.
See I John 1:5-7, 8-10; 2:3-5; 5:2; 2:6; 2:10; 2:15-17; 2:24; 3:3;
3-17; 3:18; 3:23; 3:24; 4:1-3; 3:6; 4:15; 4:21; 5:4-5; 5:21.
The Holy Spirit works
through the word of God in teaching people. But the Spirit does not
live in everyone on whom He works through the word. The people on
Pentecost had heard the word, but that was not equal to the
indwelling of the Spirit. For the Spirit was promised to those who
heard and obeyed the word; and this included baptism (Acts 2:38, 40,
41). They received the word before they were baptized (Acts 2:40-41),
but they did not received the Spirit until they were baptized (Acts
2:38). All the principles which Jones taught, which are found in the
Bible, are principles taught by the Spirit. To the extent he taught
them, this is the Spirit’s teaching; for they are from the
Spirit and not from Jones. To the extent that Jones let the word of
the Spirit influence his life, to that extent the Spirit did a work
on him and through him. To the extent that Ghandi followed a
principle of Jesus, to that extent the word and influence of the
Spirit was working through him in that the Spirit’s word
influenced him and others through him. But if we depend on what the
Spirit said through the inspired apostle Peter, we cannot say that
the Spirit lived in Jones, or Ghandi.
Fourth, what were some of
the things taught by Jones? At the very time Stalin had been starving
people to death, and otherwise killing them; and at the very time
injustice was rampant in the USSR, Jones was not only willing to work
with them, but claimed they were a part of the kingdom. There was
abundant evidence available to anyone, with eyes to see, that
communism was an evil system with evil fruits. Yet Jones said: “When
the Western world was floundering in an unjust and competitive order,
and the church was bound up with it and was a part of that order, God
reached out and put his hand on the Russian Communists to produce a
juster order and to show a recumbent church what it has missed in its
own Gospel. That does not mean that God, or we, can approve all they
have in that order, nor all they have done to bring that order into
being, but it does mean that God through the Communists is judging
the injustice and wrongs inherent in our present system. To the
degree that the Communists have caught the meanings of the Kingdom of
God and have embodied them they are a part of that Kingdom, even if
they repudiate that Kingdom in the very act of embodying some of its
ideals.” (p. 224). Jones’ socialism instilled in him some
illusions; as it has with many others, as we have brought out in our
book The
Phoenix Papers: If Not Treason. .
. What?
Communism
may be a judgment on the world, but it is not a part of the kingdom.
It is diametrically opposed to it in theory and practice; as is
clearly shown in our Two
Worlds: Christianity and Communism.
We
are referring the interested reader to these books for documentation;
which we do not have space for in this review.
Jones was a modernist,
and modernism undermines the Bible which is the word of the Spirit.
Surely no one who believes the Bible can believe that the Spirit
lived in Jones and helped him destroy at least certain parts of the
word of the Spirit. Fox’s confusion concerning Jones is another
illustration showing that when we cut ourselves off from the
authority of the Bible, God’s word, we are adrift.
Because we will good toward Logan Fox, and others; and because duty, as we see it, demanded it; we have said these things. Although we have found him likeable, and he has some good qualities (how many, is not for me to know), yet none of these things are rooted in his modernism.—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.
No two people or group of
people can have an affectionate relationship unless they have in
common a mutual task.—Jane
Addams