Review of “Voices of Concern” . . . No. 3

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
JAMES D. BALES

J. P. Sanders of Voices of Concern, not the J. P. Sanders of Pepperdine, has serious charges to make against those of us who have not followed him into modernism. He thinks that our message is irrelevant concerning the real issues of life; which are the social issues, as he views them. His view of the Bible, however, makes life itself irrelevant. If there is no certain standard, how can we know what is important, and what is unimportant; or whether anything is important?

Bible Antiquated?

Sanders destroys the tent of faith because he destroys the Bible. First, he claims that it is an evolutionary product; thus to go back to the first century church is to fossilize (p. 39). Second, the Bible has been so mutilated that there is no certainty as to its text (p. 40). However, with the characteristic intellectual arrogance of so many modernists, he can go past the mutilated, uncertain Bible and tell us what the real spirit of religion is. He thinks that he represents this prophetic religion. Oftentimes modernists criticize the inspiration of the Bible, while assuming their own inspiration.

He condemns our attitude by saying: “Since the sect seeks to live by a document of two thousand years ago, which it interprets with great literalness, its look is also primarily retrospective.” (p. 45). The scriptural look is fourfold. First, backward, to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Second, inward, to measure our lives by His word (2 Cor. 10:12. 13:5; I Thess. 5:21; 2 John 8). Third, outward, so that we shall walk circumspectly (Eph. 4:15-16); and also see the fields which are white unto harvest (John 4:35) . Fourth, forward, to Christ’s coming and the eternal state (Phil. 3:20; Heb. 9:28; 2 Pet. 3:13-14).

A failure on the part of some to take all four of these looks is not an argument against anyone of these looks. Although there are those who do not apply to their lives the precepts and principles of Jesus, this does not prove that we have outgrown the Bible. There are some who deal with problems of the past, and who ignore the problems of today. However, often times the problems of today are but new revivals of old errors and old challenges to the faith.

Why Be Concerned?

Sanders’ modernism destroys any real ground for faith in the Bible as God’s word. If we do not have an authoritative word from God, how does one know that it makes any real difference whether we are concerned for others. If there is no authoritative word from God, we cannot know whether we are men or monkeys. If we are just animals, with no assurance of life eternal, why foolishly try to live as if we were children of God? Sanders talked much about priestly religion and prophetic religion; but if the Bible is the confusion which he makes it to be, who knows whether either religion is from God; and whether one is preferable to another. If the Bible is a sea of uncertainty, he could not know if there is a “letter” or a “spirit,” or which is right. He could not know whether God is our Father or whether God is unconcerned.

There are some who assume that if you do not deal with social issues in the way they do, you are unconcerned about man. This is especially widespread among the socialist, and their kinsmen. For example, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the parent of the National Council, was organized with a basic objective of achieving socialism through religion (See my Sketches from the History of Collectivism, pp. 46-48). They fail to realize that socialism in itself is a reactionary form of government which tends to compound human misery and furnishes a fertile soil for sin. It is not a productive system; and to the extent socialism is achieved, to that extent a government becomes a dictatorship. The way some religious leaders today have manifested social concern has led to lawlessness and anarchy; and this paves the way for dictatorship—under which people become irrelevant.

Irrelevances?

Sanders spoke of the problems of today, and said that “in all this the church must have something more to offer than dry-as-dust irrelevances about the form of baptism, frequency of the Supper, and church polity.” (p. 45). First, our message to the world is not social relevancies as such, baptism as such, the Supper as such, the church as such, but the Lord Jesus Christ. However, when we accept His Lordship, we cannot be unconcerned about His word; nor consider as irrelevant that which He taught. Even tithing mint was right, under the law, but it did not substitute for the weightier matters (Matt. 23:23). Baptism is far more significant than tithing mint. But even of the tithing of mint, Jesus said they ought to have done it; but that they ought not to have left undone the weightier matters.

Second, we are to be judged by Christ and His word; so we should walk by His word in a life of trust in Him (John 12:48). Third, a considerable portion of the religious world today is confused concerning baptism, the organization of the church, and such like. It is important that they be instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord in these matters. If Aquila and Priscilla had adopted Sanders’ logic, they would have said that since Apollos has so many fine qualities, and knows so much about Christ, it is foolish to bother him with such a “trifle”—as viewed by Sanders—as the baptism of the great commission in contrast with the baptism of John (Acts 18:24-28). And surely Paul had not sat at the feet of Sanders, or he would not have been so “foolish” as to instruct and baptize some who had received the baptism of John (Acts 19:1-6). Fourth, there are multitudes of people who do not believe in Christ at all. It would be foolish for us to approach them with specifics concerning the Lord’s supper, church organization, and baptism. What they first need to do is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; then as they acknowledge His Lordship they can be taught more of what He wants them to do.

In today’s world we do need more teaching which leads people to believe in Christ; and to be well-grounded in their faith in Him. Fifth, “church polity” is not an irrelevant. Does Sanders think that it is immaterial that we are independent from such ecclesiastical control as is found in the Roman hierarchy? Sixth, it is right to discuss and learn what the Bible teaches on any and every subject; but it is not right to argue just for the sake of winning a point, and then living as if truth had no claim on our everyday life. We should become informed in order that we may better know and do the will of God. Seventh, it is wrong to spend all of our time on certain aspects of the Bible, while ignoring its demands, morally speaking, as to the way in which we should treat our fellowman.

Good Samaritan

Sanders contended that the priest represented priestly religion. The Samaritan represented the prophetic religion which was not concerned with the altar but with the “bleeding of needy men.” “The priest was pious, orthodox, meticulous about proper details of doctrine and practice in his temple functions, but he passed by his neighbor’s need . . . The one Jesus approved in the parable was the heretic, the despised Samaritan, who doubtless worshipped at the wrong temple in Samaria and who followed corrupted rituals at an illegitimate altar.” (p. 46).

First, carefulness concerning the proper places, under the law, and the proper ritual were demanded by God; the same God who gave the decalogue (Ex. 20:24-26; I Kings 8:16, 19-21, 29; Lev. 10:1-2; Deut. 4:2, 40). Second, in the parable of the good Samaritan, the Lord was not dealing with the question of the place of worship, but the extent of love. When Christ dealt with the question of the Samaritan and worship, He made it clear that, although a change was coming, yet at this time (the time the law was in force) the Jews were right and the Samaritans were wrong. (John 4:20-22). Jesus did not say that one place and one worship was as good as another. This would have been to contradict His Father who had ordained the temple, and its ritual, for Jerusalem. If Sanders were writing the Bible, would he have included Jesus’ statement that: “Ye worship which ye know not: We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22).

Furthermore, Jesus told His disciples, who were then under the law, that they were to obey the scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses’ seat. (Matt. 23:1-3). Third, the priest was not really orthodox, for true orthodoxy included not merely the demands of the temple, but also the demands of mercy. Both had their place; and neither substituted for the other. Fourth, as far as I know there was no Samaritan temple on the mount. Fifth, in the parable of the good Samaritan Jesus taught a Jew the meaning of “love thy neighbor” by showing that his neighbor was the one in need whom he could help. They needed to realize, and so do we, that the issue is nor: Whom shall I love; but am I loving, If I am, it will manifest itself as there is opportunity. Being a Levite or priest did not exempt one from the demands of love. Simply going through religious forms would not substitute for being neighborly.

Sixth, Jesus was not contrasting a “Prophetic religion” with the Old Testament religion. He was showing how some had perverted and misunderstood at least a portion of the Old Testament teaching. If we miss love for God, for man, and for self, we have missed that on which all hangs. If we truly love, we shall be careful to try to do God’s will in both the lesser and the weightier matters. One does not take such “chances,” but if I had to take my chances with either one or the other, I had rather take my chances with this Samaritan than with the impious, unmerciful priest. But we should not think that we have to choose between the two. We ought to worship at the right “altar” and have the right spirit.

Matt. 25:31-46

“When Jesus talked about separating sheep from goats, he said not a word about sound doctrine, the true sect, or any of the other priestly conditions. On the contrary, he talked about social needs: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to the thirsty, the sick, imprisoned, and strangers.” (p. 47).

First, it is a principle of Bible study that to understand a subject you may have to go to more than one passage. The Bible makes clear that Matt. 25:31-46 is not His total teaching concerning salvation and judgment. Second, if it is the total teaching, notice that not one word was said about the grace of God, the blood of Jesus, and faith in Christ. Several authors in Voices, including Sanders, claim that we are legalists, and that we do not sufficiently magnify God’s grace. And yet, Sanders’ comments would rule out faith and grace, and place salvation solely on the basis of one’s works. This is legalism.

Third, the question of such works, however, will be raised in judgment. They must be performed in this life. It will be too late if we wait until judgment day. Fourth, it will not be sufficient to say: “Lord” as a substitute for doing good works. Fifth, think what powerful motivation factors there are to move us to do good works: (a) They are essential for salvation. (b) We are thereby serving Christ. How wonderful it would be, to be able to minister to Christ’s needs! We can do it, but only through ministering to the needs of others. In this sense, Christ identifies himself with needy humanity; and their cry for help is His cry for help. How can we become indifferent and turn a deaf ear? Furthermore, let us remember that although this is not the total teaching of the Bible concerning judgment, it is an essential part of that teaching.

Matthew 23

Sanders pointed out that Jesus condemned “priestly religion” in Matt. 23. First, we too oppose Pharisaism. Second, how can Sanders be consistent and go back to a document about 2,000 years old? Third, why does he appeal to the very letter of what it says; as well as to its spirit? Fourth, since he thinks we have evolved beyond the Christianity of the first century, how does he know that this teaching is either authoritative or relevant? How does he know, unless he has some fixed standard, that the evolution of religion has not resulted in Phariseeism being the prophetic religion today? How does he know that things haven’t so changed that God now approves Phariseeism? He cannot consistently go back 2,000 years ago and say it is wrong now because it was wrong then. He cannot say that we have a fixed and final revelation from God on the matter which shows that Phariseeism is wrong. He can’t go back to a Bible, concerning which he is not certain that any verse is correct, and say that he is certain that Phariseeism is wrong. Modernism leaves one on a boundless fog, without rudder or compass, and with no port toward which to sail.—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.