A RESPONSE To DR. J. D. BALES
By Ralph V. Graham

Dr. Bales states, “We cannot magnify Christ while minimizing the word.” I agree with this and propose another principle, “We cannot magnify the word while minimizing Christ and the Christian’s development in his personal relationship with Him.” If Dr. Bales charges that I seek to separate Christ from the word, he misrepresents what I have written.

Christ and The Word

Dr. Bales agrees with me that Christ is the Lord of the Bible, but suggests that my meaning allows disobedience to His word. I believe that since Christ is Lord of the Bible, the whole of revelation is subordinate to Him. The Spirit says, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” Rev. 19:10, and “ . . . in these last days (God) has spoken to us by a Son,” Heb. 1:1-2. What I am saying is a matter of placing the emphasis where it belongs and of pointing out that the written word is dependent on the nature and authority of the Living Word. We understand the written word only when we study it from the perspective that Jesus is the Lord of the Bible. Christ is greater than the words which reveal His nature and communicate His will. One is saying two different things when he says, “I know Him whom I have believed” and when he says, “I know the Bible which I believe and obey.” Knowing a person and knowing a book are two different kinds of knowing; they are not the same, even when the book is one’s introduction to that person. The knowledge that comes through a personal relationship to Christ is greater than that which comes from knowing the written word. One can know a great deal about the Bible without really knowing Christ, but you cannot know Christ without knowing the written word. Experience brings enrichment, growth, and understanding to words long held in the mind. This was true of the apostles. Why is it not true of us also?

Dr. Bales says, “In some sense Christ is now with us; but He is not here in person.” I hope that Dr. Bales does not mean this the way it sounds. Physical absence and spiritual presence does not mean personal absence. When Jesus says, “1 will be with you,” is this not a promise to be with us in person? When He says, “I will come to you,” is this not a promise to be with us in person? Is he not with us in person when He fulfills this promise: “Behold I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come to him and eat with him, and he with me.” Is this a presence in some vague sense, or is He personally present? I believe in a real personal living companionship with Christ. When He says, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” does he not promise to be with us in person?

To me, Dr. Bales seems to deal with words in a legalistic manner. You know the Pharisees treated scripture as a detailed blueprint. This practice and attitude led them into legalism, formalism, and fear. Jesus excoriated them for this and emphasized principle, spirituality, and freedom in responsible love. The fact that Jesus Christ in His nature, teachings, deeds, and life constitutes the principle of authority in the written word does not make the Bible a detailed blueprint. Dr. Bales does not seem to understand that the same act may be done by one person legalistically, formally, slavishly, proudly, and fearfully, and done by another spiritually, lovingly, and humbly as a son of God. There is an authority of power and law, and another of love. He says, “We are slaves.” If we are, we are voluntary slaves and not the victims of tyrannical compulsions either from within or without. Further, I do not see any difference in the legalistic method of biblical interpretation used by the Pharisees which Jesus condemned and the method described by Dr. Bales. He allows no place for the work of the Holy Spirit in Christian experience today. What is the function of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and in the historical experience of the church? I believe there is more freedom for the Christian and the church than Dr. Bales allows in generic commands.

Bible Authoritative

God has not revealed to us all that He has done, does, or will do. The prophets Jonah and Amos pointed this out to the Jews. Jesus also told Nicodemus, “The Spirit breathes where He wills,” I believe the Spirit of God is free. Since He is free, His actions do not in all cases follow predictable patterns. Where He has revealed His workings, the believer can surely count on God’s faithfulness to keep His word. The word of God is inspired by the Spirit, but He does not state that He confines Himself in His activities to what He has revealed. We cannot contain the Spirit’s activities by our knowledge of His revelation. Since He is a Guest in the temple of the body of the believer, He is not a silent or inactive Guest. And we can know what comes from the Spirit through our experimental knowledge of Christ in personal life and through His activities in the experience of the church. Is not the Spirit leading us into new areas of understanding and service today? How else can we account for the advances and changes which have taken place in the “Churches of Christ” the past sixty years? Many things once considered unscriptural by them are now considered scriptural by them. Did the Spirit have nothing to do with this? The Spirit still speaks to us through His word and presence giving us new directions, new emphases, and new understandings. We can still, and we must, “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Dr. Bales takes exception to my suggestion that we use as a resource in biblical interpretation the guidance, interpretation, and understanding which are provided in the biblical scholarship of the world. Does he not recognize how much we are indebted to others for biblical research in language, history, archaeology, and other biblical disciplines? Does he confine his studies to the Bible and books written only by members of “Churches of Christ” with whom he agrees? Why did he ignore the statement in my article which reads, “Our inspiration and center of reference must not be diverted from the original sources of Christianity: Christ, the New Testament witness, the Spirit, and the faith and practice of the early church?” In the light of this statement it is hardly fair for him to ask, “Does Graham think we should accept the position of various modernists concerning the nature of the Bible itself?” My defense and response to Dr. Bales is to refer you, the reader, back to my original article and to have you evaluate for yourself whether Dr. Bales has treated this article with fairness and adequacy. I do not believe that he has disproved anything in the article. But this is for the reader to decide.

I still consider myself a member of the church of Jesus Christ of which the “Churches of Christ” are a part. And I rejoice in the changes of attitude which are evident in many areas of the “Churches of Christ.” May these continue in such a direction that our Lord’s prayer for the unity of His people may be realized, “that they may all be one.” Whether my position is defensible or not, time will tell. I can hardly claim infallibility. Just now it seems the best road for me. I believe Jesus is Lord, that Christ in you is the hope of glory, that we cannot meet Him in a saving encounter except through the witness of Scripture. I believe we must “take every thought captive to obey Christ” until “the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever.” “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all we can ask or think, to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever.” Eph. 3:20-21.—First Christian Church, Plainview, Texas.

 

You can subscribe to this journal for one year for only a dollar; in clubs of 6 or more at 50 cents each. Back copies available at 15 cents each. RESTORATION REVIEW, 1201 Windsor Drive, Denton, Texas 76201.