Review of Voices of Concern . . . No. 6

CLOSED MINDS AND COLD HEARTS
JAMES D. BALES

Although some of the Voices seemed to find little or nothing good in the churches of Christ, David R. Darnell stated that there he had learned a good deal, and that he thanked “God for this rich heritage which is mine because of the Churches of Christ.” (p. 216). However, he took his pilgrimage from us for several reasons; two of which he presented in his essay. First, our minds are closed. Second, our hearts are cold and suspicious. (pp. 216-217, 222)

Closed Minds

Churches of Christ have “a ‘closed’ attitude towards religious learning.” In his home he had been taught not to fear truth, to be open to truth, to study, and to be willing to have one’s positions subjected to criticism. In classes in two of the colleges maintained by brethren he said that “I soon came to realize that the Churches of Christ did not hold such an attitude towards religious learning at all.” (pp. 216-217) We present “one viewpoint and one only” (p. 218). He implied we “burn books” (p. 217). There may be books which one should voluntarily burn (Acts 19:17-20).

What shall we say to these charges? (a) There are undoubtedly closed minds among us. This does not bind me and make me have a closed mind. (b) I do not have to be anything other than a member of Christ’s church in order to have an open mind in a good sense. (c) There are open minds which are open at both ends and have a draft blowing through the middle. The open mind we should have is the honest, studious, mind which wants the good and which is honest enough to accept truth even when it costs. (d) A part of the purpose of education is, in another sense, to close the mind. We do not want babes to grow up with an open mind as to where they will carry out certain natural functions. We do not want an accountant who has an open mind toward the multiplication tables; or a bank teller who has an open mind as to whom the money belongs; or a doctor, who treats our wife, to have an open mind on adultery; or a teacher who has an open mind on whether or not it makes any difference what God has said; or a preacher who is unconcerned about truth; etc. We need to have the attitude of being open to truth and closed to error; and in this situation we shall, of course, examine many things which will turn out to be error rather than truth. (e) Christians certainly are not the only ones who stand in danger of having a closed mind.

In Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Dr. Robert T. Clark and I established from their own writings that Darwin and others had closed their minds to the very possibility of divine creation. Although I have read hundreds of books by unbelievers, which were designed in one way or another to undermine faith in the Bible, I have met very few unbelievers who have even read one book on why believe the Bible. There are countless modernists who have closed their minds as to the possibility of the Scriptures being inspired. Their closed mind would not justify me in having a closed mind, but the problem of the closed mind is far wider than members of the church. (f) We should have the determination not to go beyond that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6). We should continually study the word of God that we may know of Paul’s “ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Cor. 4:17). (g) As for the presentation of both sides, we should try to be fair in our presentation and examination of the position of another. However, it is obvious that we do not have the time, nor is it necessary, to spend as much time presenting an atheist’s position, or that of a Buddhist, as they would spend presenting it. Yet, we should examine not merely their weak arguments but also their strong ones.

(h) If not at the time that he was there, somewhere about that time, the reviewer spoke at one of the Colleges, where Darnell complained he heard only one viewpoint, and presented a viewpoint which was opposed to that of the administration. Furthermore, in today’s world we do not have to worry about whether various and conflicting viewpoints will be present. They assault our mind from every conceivable means of communication. We are called on to be busy so as to be sure that the will of God is heard amidst this medley of voices. Furthermore, no one has the authority to stop an individual from reading, listening, and living by his conviction. Of course, one does not have the right to bind another to back him in preaching those things in which the other person does not believe. (i) Darnell is right in saying that some have dismissed the positions of others too lightly, and have failed to grapple with the problems with which those people were grappling. We cannot fairly evaluate the position of another unless we understand it. In my class in world religions, for example, I have tried to bring out that to understand is not the same as to approve, but that we must seek to understand others not only in order to know how best to approach them, but also to accept any truth which they have.

(j) Historically, and in our day, as a people we have usually been willing to let our positions be subjected to public scrutiny. Thus debates have been conducted from time to time amongst ourselves and with others. Of course, one can be dishonest in a debate just as he can in a conversation, a book, a sermon, or in anything else.

The Cold Heart

“The second attitude which separated me from those with whom I had so long worked was this: a lack of love and a suspicious fear of other Christians.” (p. 222) “ . . . what is really wrong among the Churches of Christ is a sickness of heart, a fear of others who differ with them on doctrinal issues, and a lack of love for such persons. It is a kind of spiritual paranoia that looks with suspicious distrust on those who are different, that demands credentials before it will give its love, and that destroys all possibility for real growth in Christian thought.” (pp. 223-224).

It is true that there are some who have cold hearts and suspicious minds; and none of us have matured in love. However, I do not have to leave the New Testament church or adopt other errors, in order to grow in love, and to keep from being suspiciously afraid of others. However, one can be broad in his love and narrow in his convictions. We face the problem of opposing sin and error, and yet loving the sinner. We should will good toward people not because they are good, or because we agree with them, or because they have a multitude of loveable qualities. We should love because we are people of good will; who have first been loved by God and who, loving God, grow in love for the world for God loved the world and gave His Son for the world.

Love does not imply, however, that there are no grounds for disfellowship; and it does not imply that we must broaden out and extend fellowship beyond what is authorized by the Bible. Darnell mentioned one preacher who said, concerning a position which Darnell had taken, “if that is true, how can we condemn the Catholics?” (p. 224). Darnell says: “Indeed, how can we condemn the Catholics? Is that an essential to our faith, that we condemn others? Why should we not look for grounds for fellowship, understanding, and agreement instead? Why not build bridges instead of walls?” (p. 224).

What shall we say to these things? (a) It seems to me the preacher meant that Darnell’s position would make it impossible to oppose the errors of Romanism; and not that we can condemn people. We cannot justify or condemn, but we must try to find out what the Lord approves and what He disapproves. (b) Darnell certainly did some condemning in this chapter. He accused us of having the closed mind, and of being without love. He wrote: “Churches of Christ do not teach or practice genuine love for their religious neighbors.” (p. 224)

This is about as severe and condemning an indictment as could be made. And it is a blanket indictment. He has learned to love, but the churches of Christ have not! My assumption is that he has been careless in his manner of expression, and that he does not really believe that there is no love amongst churches of Christ for their religious neighbors. Surely Darnell, who is so hard on us, should be able to understand why some members of the church are so hard on others who differ with them. Furthermore, as far as I know, he is still a member of the church although he has gone into some errors in which I cannot fellowship him. (c) It is essential to our faith that we contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3). How can we accept in fellowship the Pope who claims to be the earthly head of Christ’s church, when Christ’s church has only one head—Christ. I agree that we should not run and hide from others, but enter into genuine dialogue or discussion with them. Although we should start with our points of agreement, and should be fair and show good will, why should we build a bridge which will enable us to accept the Pope as within the fold of the Biblical faith? Any bridge built to the Pope should be for the purpose of providing a bridge for him to leave his office and be just a New Testament Christian.

Furthermore, the Bible has built some walls and we must study to find where they are built, but we must never try to figure out ways to breach these walls and build a bridge to walk away from the safety of the Father’s house. Establish contacts with people, and be honest in our discussions with them, but do not try to scale any walls which the Lord has built or cross any bridges to any positions which the Lord does not sanction. There is a vast difference between approaching people in good will, as well as intelligently, and embracing them in fellowship as a member of the Lord’s church.

Acts 21

Darnell cited Acts 21:17 -26 to “show clearly how first century Christians felt free to continue observing the religious customs of the Law of Moses.” (p. 224). In the light of the context in which he uses it, he implies that it sanctions Roman Catholic ritualism and doctrines. This is a difficult passage, and we hope to treat it in some detail, the Lord willing, in a book on Puzzling Passages. How could Paul thus participate in a sacrifice in the temple in order to prove that he kept the law (Acts 21:24,26). Hebrews tells us that Jewish Christians must abandon Judaism, and that those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat at our altar (Heb. 10-15). The explanation which, so far as the author knows, does not violate any Scriptures, and which takes into consideration the general context, is that this was a period of transition wherein God permitted Jews to continue in the observance of the Law until He finally made it impossible through the revelation of “all truth” and the destruction of the temple.

Christ promised the apostles that they would be guided into all truth (John 16:12-13). All truth, however, was not revealed at one moment and thus they were not required to live by the full revelation until the full revelation was made. Revelation was bit by bit, and not all at once. (1 Cor. 13:8-11). It was not God’s will to reveal everything to the church on Pentecost. God did not make crystal clear to the church on Pentecost that the Gentile was to come into Christ without having to have anything to do with the law. And thus for a period of time the church did not think that it was right to go into men uncircumcised, eat with them, and bring them in to Christ without having to have anything to do with the law. But finally God made this crystal clear in the revelation given at the household of Cornelius (Acts 10; 11; 15). After this, it was no longer permissible for the church to have the attitude which it had had toward the Gentile before Acts 10.

As J. W. McGarvey wrote: “But in Paul’s earlier epistles, though some things had been written which, carried to their logical consequences, involved all of this (cf. Eph. 2:13-15; Heb. 7:8; 9:10. McGarvey may mean to compare Eph. with Heb., and not to say that Hebrews was an earlier epistle of Paul, J.D.B.), these points had not yet been clearly revealed to his mind, and much less to the minds of the other disciples; for it pleased God to make Paul the chief instrument for the revelation of this part of his will. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this question that those of the early disciples had been in before the conversion of Cornelius in reference to the salvation of the Gentiles. If Peter, by the revelation made to him in connection with Cornelius, was made to understand better his own words uttered on Pentecost (2:39, and we may add: The Lord’s statement in the great commission concerning all nations wherein gospel-terms, not law-terms, were bound, J D.B.), it should cause no surprise that Paul in his early writings uttered sentiments the full import of which he did not apprehend until later revelations made them plain. That it was so is but another illustration of the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all the truth, not at one bound, but step by step. In the wisdom of God the Epistle to the Hebrews, the special value of which lies in its clear revelations on the distinction between the sacrifices and priesthood under Moses and those under Christ, was written but a few years previous to the destruction of the Jewish temple, and the compulsory abrogation of all the sacrifices of the law; and thus any Jewish Christian, whose natural reverence for ancestral and divinely appointed customs may have prevented him from seeing the truth on this subject, might have his eyes opened in spite of himself.” (New Commentary on Acts, Vol. II, pp. 208-209)

Does Paul’s example furnish us with authority to participate in acts of worship which God has not authorized today? First, these Jews came from a different background than that of any religious people today. The law had been a divine institution for centuries. God had revealed it and required it. This is vastly different from people continuing in, regardless of how much long-suffering we may manifest in trying to help them get away from some of their background, or entering into things which never were of divine origin; and thus which had never been required of them or their fathers by God.

Second, we find no case where the apostle Paul, or any other inspired man, participated in a pagan worship service. Paganism was never of divine origin. Paul not only said we should not worship in a pagan temple because it may cause a brother to stumble (1 Cor. 8:9-12), but he also clearly stated that it was wrong within itself. “What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:19-22). And because some professed Christians have introduced various aspects of paganism into their worship and doctrine, does not make it right for us to participate in it. We do not even have the right to commune (1 Cor. 10:18), with Israel’s altar (Heb. 13:10; Acts 21:25) . Does Darnell think that Paul could have participated in a pagan religious ceremony in order to prove that he, Paul, kept that pagan religion? But in Acts 21:24 he proved he then kept the law.

Third, Acts 21 deals with a different people from any people today on whom some try to bind, or justify in accepting, the religious ritualism of the law or of the traditions of men. That generation of Jews, mentioned in Acts 21, had been brought up under the law as a divine institution while the law was still in force. This cannot be said of any generation of the Jews since the first century. Furthermore, no Jew for centuries has been able to keep the old law, for the temple itself was destroyed. No Jew has authority from God to rebuild it, and to reinstitute its ritual.

Fourth, we are in a different time today. They lived in a time of transition from the law to the gospel, and God dealt with them in long-suffering. In fact, He gave Israel herself around 40 years in which to hear the gospel and repent before she was destroyed as a nation and scattered; and before He made it impossible for anyone to keep the law by destroying the temple in His overruling providence. We are not in such a transition period. We live in the time of the complete revelation. And this complete revelation makes it clear that neither Jew nor Gentile should keep the sacrificial system of the old law. How can we offer an animal sacrifice when it is crystal clear that Christ is our only sacrifice for sin, and that there can be no more offering for sin?

Fifth, any attempt to bind on Gentiles the ritual of the law was forbidden even in this transition period; and it is certainly forbidden today. James expressly said: “But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.” (Acts 21:25). No one was permitted to put on them the yoke of the law (Acts 15:10). To have done so would have been to subvert their souls (Acts 15:24). It would have implied that the law is a part of the gospel.

In the light of these considerations we ask: How can one use Acts 21 to justify the traditions of men in the elaborate ritualism of Roman Catholicism today?—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.