A Letter to James D. Bales . . .
ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, OR WHAT?
By Pat Hardeman
Dear Jim,
Your one brief letter asked me to specify whether I am
“atheist, agnostic or what.” This letter replies partly
to your request and partly to your review of my chapter in Voices
of Concern.
First, as to your wish to have me neatly labeled, let
me assure you I am neither atheist nor agnostic, so I guess my
beliefs fall under “or what.” More seriously, I know of
no better words to describe my orientation than “Lord, I
believe. Help thou mine unbelief.” I confess there is much
about religion I do not know for certain.
This doubt extends to some criteria for determining the
supernaturalness of historical events. I doubt the interpretation of
certain passages in which I, and
others, once discovered suspension of natural law only to discover
later that there may have been a completely natural explanation. I
doubt that even you, Jim, would contend that you have compiled a
final list of all those events in the scriptures which clearly show
simultaneous suspension of natural law and operation of the
supernatural. Are you completely satisfied with your criteria for
determining which events are supernatural? For example, is the effect
of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit natural or supernatural?
Your review is disappointing to me in two respects.
First, you choose not to deal with any of the four issues I discussed
under the heading: “barriers to my remaining in the Church of
Christ.” My disappointment is nor expressed for a point in
debate. It comes rather from my original expectation that, if you
were to review the articles, a constructive dialogue might get under
way, perhaps even eventually inside the Church of Christ. Many
agonizing closed door sessions among preachers and students confess
the issues exist, but virtually no open debates are held among
brethren as equals and without recrimination or rancor. I hope
someday the doors will be opened and the fresh air of open inquiry
will come into the Church of Christ.
The second disappointment in your review is your
reversion to your debates of yesteryear in your irrelevant
disquisition on naturalism and materialism. Is transforming my doubts
into an allegation of full blown naturalism, you are simply mistaken,
and equally so in assuming that all naturalisms are reducible to a
crass materialism. Enough of that. I am not a materialist, even if I
do not have a final criteria for determining the materiality of every
event or process in the deepest realm of the subatomic world. Do you?
You ask me to list truths I believe in that are not in
the Bible. Well, there are various types of truth to list. Let’s
start with the principle that slavery is wrong. Are you positive this
is in the Bible? Or another, the right of oppressed people (e.g. the
American Colonies) to revolt against the higher powers (e.g. King
George III) doing the oppressing. Is this in the Bible? There are
passages that may contain the opposite of this truth. For example
Rom. 13:1, “Let every soul be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God.” Was
the American revolution a violation of this passage? Neither my
patriotism nor my conception of human rights would allow me to say
the Declaration of Independence was sinful.
Then there are historical truths such as that George
Washington was our first President, and other factual truths, e.g.,
to do summary punching on IBM 514-402 machines, one must wire the
SP-SW switches on the 402 control panel, even if through a
co-selector. Then there is the philosophical truth that all
mathematical systems are ultimately reducible to if—then
propositions. I do not recall reading these
in the Bible. Incidentally, I was happy to note your third concluding
agreement that “we should accept truth regardless of who calls
it to our attention.” Could any truth
be called to your attention besides a heretofore overlooked passage
of scripture?
In addition to your denying me the capacity to find
truth outside the Bible, you limit the support of my moral life to my
background in the Church of Christ. Did you tell the audience at
Billy James Hargis’ “Christian Crusade” meeting
that, being non-members of the Church of Christ, they have denied
their humanity, rationality, and morality, or were living on borrowed
morality. I doubt it, but your logic says you should.
You affirm that any moral humanism must come only from
the Bible. I remember reading “he who does not love his brother
whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (John
4:20). Where in the Bible have you read that a man cannot love his
fellow man unless he believes all the Bible and particularly your
branch of the Church of Christ’s interpretation of it?
Back to problematic issues in the Church of Christ.
Jim, let me ask you some heartfelt questions, again not to make
points but to make a plea for earnest and open dialogue inside the
Church of Christ. How do you justify the leap from the simple
historical reference (Acts 20:7). “On the first day of the week
when the disciples were gathered together to break bread,” to
the doctrine that all Christians must do this every first day, but no
other day? Surely you feel this is a problem.
Again, the continued claim that the body of Christ is
practically congruent with the groups known as Churches of Christ is
a serious barrier to the unity for which Christ prayed. Are you
positive that your unwillingness to give open fellowship to other
believers in other churches is what the Lord wants? Is it right to
refer to such fellowship as being “unequally yoked together
with unbelievers?” On what basis do you contend that some
groups are not true Churches of Christ because they makes rules
without scriptural precedent while simultaneously defending a group
of churches which legislate against all
drinking, gambling and dancing? Which class
of human legislation disqualifies a religious body and prevents its
being a true church?
Will you fellowship a person who disagrees with you
concerning the taking of another human life in war, if he agrees with
you on baptism? What are your criteria for extending fellowship? I
used to answer that by saying we should fellowship those who “walk
in the light” (1 John 1:7) till I realized that unless walking
“in the light” is interpreted in a relative sense, we are
all in darkness. Who determines who is “in the light”?
Are you positive that I cannot “sing and make
melody in” my heart in acceptable worship to God while an
organist plays the tune for the whole congregation? Even on your
terms, am I not doing precisely what the scriptures teach (Col. 3:16,
Eph. 5:19)? If I am, is not the repudiation of the Disciples of
Christ by the Church of Christ an unchristian rejection of brethren?
Are you certain that God looks with favor on your treating the
Missionary Society as a cause for disfellowship while contending that
colleges, lectureships, bookstores, papers, etc. are simple
expedients? Some of your brethren reject the Christian College and
Sunday School notions. You plead for these brethren to see these aids
as expedients and to be more charitable. Could not the Disciples
plead the same on the subject of Missionary Societies and organs? You
are sure God and the Bible are on your side in all the reasoning
needed to distinguish these cases? Though I think I am acquainted
with most of the arguments used on each of the subjects, I am far
from sure they are justifiable causes for divisions among Christians.
As I have restudied the Scriptures I have been driven
again and again to certain principles that have become basic to me.
(1) The Judea Christian religion is immensely
humanistic. Jesus found it in the higher strains of the Old Testament
and transmitted it to his followers. Concern for one’s neighbor
i.e. those in need, is the deepest expression of “pure and
undefiled religion.”
(2) There is, objectively, much more certainty
attainable from the Bible on the subject of our obligations to our
fellow men than on such subjects as forms of liturgy, church
government and organizations. Differing forms of worship do not arise
because one religious party chooses to ignore the
Biblical truth on the subject. Instead, the Bible may present several
aspects or viewpoints on a subject, not necessarily all harmonized
into one doctrine.
The alternative to admitting that there is
latitude—even to the extent of some unreconciled points of
view—within
the Bible itself poses seemingly insoluble problems. The assertion
that Biblical teaching is one harmonious
body of doctrine on each subject, and that we must accept that one
body of doctrine, necessitates definite
answers to many questions to which apparently no definite answers
exist. For example, questions about baptism for the dead, speaking in
tongues, qualifications of bishops, the mode of indwelling of the
Holy Spirit, the laying on of hands, anointing with oil, the role of
tradition in Christianity, and many others. (Jim, are you absolutely
certain that you have harmonized all the points implicit in the
generally accepted two-fold practice of (1) excluding human tradition
when you debate with Roman Catholics, and (2) instantly relying on
tradition—Church Fathers, archeological testimony, etc.—when
you are defending the canonicity of the 27 books of the New
Testament?)
If there is just one harmonious
doctrine on each of these subjects, can you state each one as
explicitly as you can on other subjects? Can an ordinary literate
believer read his New Testament, and find the
acceptable teaching on these subjects? If no
one has done this yet, what will be the role of the church in
determining the biblical
doctrine on these important matters? Who will determine the
consequences for Christian unity for each and every variation from the one doctrine? It
may well be a major test of our humility and charity that we
recognize these limitations and avoid the magnification of our own
opinions into legislation for others.
(3) The religion of most all the New Testament and of
the prophetic strain of the Old Testament was genuinely ecumenical.
New Testament Christians were of many varieties, embracing different
beliefs and practices. I am not at all satisfied with the simple
explanation that these believers lived in the transition period
between the Law and the Gospel. One reason for this dissatisfaction
is that not all their differences are related to the progress from
the Law to the Gospel. I have often wondered why the omniscient God,
able to forecast Christ from the Old Testament, did not make clearer
the terminus ad quem for
the completion of his revelation in the New Covenant. After all, at
the time of the writing of Jude, the
author stated, “The faith . . . was once
for all delivered to the saints.” Jim, do you add to this
statement “once for all,” but not
yet for a few years? Could it be that the
Scriptures are not quite clear on this point? Is it possible that the
church has learned more of the will of God since the writing of the
New Testament ceased? Did the New Testament or the church set the
first day of the week as the only day for taking the Lord’s
Super?
Many of our problems could, it seems to me, be easily
solved if we really took seriously the principle that each man
“stands or falls before his own master.”
(4) The church cannot stay apart from genuine human and
societal problems and still be the kind of force Jesus gave His life
to establish. For the church to have avoided so long speaking out on
race relations, poverty, and all the myriads of injustices that
prevail in our society is simply to have abandoned its mission of
enlightening the world. People who find the real safety and progress
of the church in buildings, respectability and evangelistic services
are ignoring the weightier matters of justice and mercy in this
world.
Sincerely,
PAT HARDEMAN
3110 5th Street
Sarasota, Fla. 33580