A RESPONSE TO J. D. BALES
Logan J. Fox

J. D. Bales misses entirely the significance of the autobiographical form my paper was given, and he leaves untouched the major issues I raised. He chooses to rest his case on (1) the charge that I am an extremist, an immoral (dishonest) person, and a hypocrite; and (2) a caricature of E. Stanley Jones.

In my essay several questions were posed, and I do not choose to shift the discussion to a defense of my character or to an explanation of E. Stanley Jones’ true position. I would have been delighted if Bales had come to grips in a straight forward way with the issues I raised. Instead he delivered a politically slanted polemic obviously aimed at stirring emotions rather than stimulating thought. I cannot refrain from expressing my keen disappointment.

In an oblique way Bales does refer to material in my chapter and I shall limit my response to further consideration of three points he touches on.

I. The Relationship Between a Man’s Character and His Faith

While I shall not get into an argument about my character, I am interested in the relationship between character and faith. In my paper I referred to my observations of men in the church in Nashville, and I accused my brethren of dishonesty. So, perhaps, it is biblical justice that I be judged even as I judged!

But the issue is important, and it is Scriptural. Jesus taught that a tree is known by its fruit (Mt. 7:15-20). J. D. Bales (in one of his books which he failed to mention!) speaks of the “fruit of atheism.” And I am in complete agreement with this principle, which has two aspects: (1) a doctrine is to be judged as healthy or unhealthy by its effects in men’s lives; (2) a. man’s heart can be known by the quality of his life.

With respect to the former aspect, this is precisely the issue I raised. I have seen the lives of men who held to certain doctrines and I have had to conclude that either these doctrines had no noticeable influence for good or had definite influence for bad. Whichever interpretation we take, we must reevaluate the importance of these doctrines, many of which have been made “the fundamentals” among us.

It seems to me that Bales is inconsistent in his position here. When he thinks he sees flaws in my character, he cheerfully ascribes it to my “modernism.” When he admits to flaws in the character of the orthodox, it is in spite of their true faith!

I am convinced that the ultimate test of religious doctrines is the character produced. I accept this test for any position I espouse, and, while Bales’ judgment of me is only irritating, I shall tremble with all men as I await the judgment of my God. May God have mercy on us all!

II. What Is a Man to Do When He Finds Himself at Variance with the Accepted Position of the Church?

Bales seems much disturbed that for twenty years I followed the course of expediency rather than that of transparent honesty. He ignores my recounting (p. 25) of advice I received from one of the most respected men in the brotherhood to the effect that I ought to go slow and “try to pull the train.” He makes no mention of the difficulty involved in trying to decide what is wise and good. And he pretends he does not know that every day some preacher wrestles with the question, “Should I really think on this matter at this time?”

I clearly stated my reasons for acting as I did (pp. 24-25): (1) My conviction that the church is not a voluntary association which one joins or leaves at will; (2) My conviction that one does not cease being a Christian when one’s ideas change; (3) My conviction that if one believes himself to be right, he has no alternative but to try effectively to lead others to this position.

Bales takes the position, common among us, that when a man’s thinking no longer coincides with the accepted position in the church he should leave it. This seems to me to be the essence of the very sectarianism the Restoration Movement was born to oppose. When Bales says, “why don’t they go where their faith is?” he implies that to be a member of the Church of Christ one must take a certain position. This is creedalism. Perhaps Bales will write out just what it is that a man must think and believe in order to be a member in good standing in the Church of Christ.

The traditional Restoration position is that the church has no position. We have always replied to those asking for the position of the church that one does not know what the church thinks and believes on a particular question until one has asked all the members what they think and believe. Like it or not, that makes for quite a variety. The cure? A creed. Who wants to write it?

I kept watching for one of our more respected leaders to help us with this question of expediency versus honesty. All we get are simplistic statements about “letting the chips fall where they may” and stoney silence about what really goes on. The men I referred to who do not preach what they believe are not young rebels or off-beat revolutionaries. They are the best-known men in our brotherhood, the presidents of our colleges, the editors of our papers, the ministers of our largest churches. These men are my friends and I know their struggles. I do not condemn them. I merely voice my concern that truth is coming off second best in the decisions these men are making.

Still, I must confess that I’m not sure even yet that I’ve made a better decision. Can I do more good than they, or will they do more good by acting more expediently? I do not claim to know the answer, but I insist that the question should be raised.

III. How We Can Recognize the Presence of the Spirit

Bales says, “Fox knows nothing about the Spirit, and His workings, and where He lives, except what is revealed in the Bible.” I could not agree more wholeheartedly than I do. It is from the Scriptures, and nowhere else, that I learned the nature of the Spirit so that I can recognize His work.

I learn that the Spirit is free like the wind, blowing where it will (Jn. 3:8) ; I learn that the fruit of the Spirit can be recognized (Gal. 5:22, 23); I learn that it is blasphemous to ascribe the Spirit’s work to the Devil (Mk. 3:29); I learn that the Spirit is a gift (Acts 2:38); I learn that, while the Spirit has words of its own (1 Cor. 2:13) , it is in contrast to law (Gal. 5:23) and the letter (2 Cor. 3:6).

Bales loses me when he starts distinguishing between the Spirit working through people and dwelling in them. It would seem more helpful to stress the “measure” of the Spirit (Jn. 3:34). Some people have only a little of the Spirit; some have an abundant measure; and Jesus had the Spirit without measure. But, my point was and is that we can tell how much of the Spirit is in a man by the presence of the fruit of the Spirit. And if Gandhi shows more of the Spirit than a professing Christian, then he must have opened his heart to God more than the Christian did. He might even be one of the surprised on the day of judgment who didn’t know they had served the Lord (Mt. 25).

In conclusion I must say that I am dissatisfied with the way Bales expressed his “goodwill” toward me and in the way he performed his “duty” to criticize my position. To his credit I must say that he is the only one who either publicly or privately has shown enough interest to criticize what I have written.