The Word Abused . . .

“WALKING IN THE LIGHT”

“If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7).

This passage is given a very strange twist indeed, all for the purpose of teaching the idea that fellowship is predicated upon doctrinal inerrancy. If one holds a doctrinal error, then he cannot be “fellowshipped,” for he is not walking in the light, which is the basis of fellowship according to this passage. This verse has thus become part of “the party line” in most every sect among us, and it is used to justify the alienating and dividing of God’s people. To “walk in the light” is made to mean doctrinal purity, especially in reference to the unique interpretations of the particular party.

If one has what is believed to be a wrong view of prophecy, such as premillennialism, then he is not “walking in the light” and so must be excluded from fellowship. If he supports Herald of Truth or a missionary society, then he walks in darkness rather than light and therefore must be rejected as a faithful brother. If one truly “walks in the light” then he will be right on everything from the way to make music in the assembly and the Sunday School to the use of literature and the method of serving the Supper. Light is thus made to mean “truth,” which is made to refer to all the teaching of the scriptures, including (mainly) the disposition made of the silence of the scriptures.

The passage therefore might be paraphrased this way, once the bending and twisting is accomplished: We can have fellowship with each other if we believe and practice all the teaching of the New Testament alike. This becomes even more oppressive when the silence of the scriptures is imposed within this framework. We are told that we must agree on what the Bible says nothing about to start with, whether classes, organs, agencies, colleges. We must see alike what it doesn’t say as well as what it does say! Otherwise we are not walking in the light!

On the very face of it this is an impossible interpretation, and it will do nothing but contribute to the multiplication of sects. A man would have to “withdraw” from his own wife and family, and even from himself, for none of us is completely right all the time. Such an irresponsible interpretation leaves no place for forbearance, and it implies what never has been and never will be: that people can see all the scriptures eye to eye.

In their more sober moments the advocates of this interpretation realize the impossibility of complete conformity, and so they allow for some deviation, except on those matters peculiar to that particular group. They might differ on social issues, participation in war, or whether one can be a Mason —or even upon an ordinary portion of scripture —but never on what comes under the category of “the issues.” The issues of course differ from party to party. And so, for the most part, “walking in the light” is made to mean being right on the issues. One might be wrong about some things, even in his moral life, and still be “walking in the light” if he is right about instrumental music and the non-denominational character of the Church of Christ. Our singing brother, Pat Boone, is an illustration of this. Even when his personal life was less than exemplary (according to his own testimony), he was still accepted. It was when he started speaking in tongues that he ceased “walking in the light.” Sipping nocturnal cocktails with Hollywood’s worldlings does not inveigh upon “doctrinal purity” as does glossolalia.

Oddly enough, this verse in 1 John is seldom used in reference to those practices clearly condemned in scripture, such as greed, reviling, jealousy, pride, lying, covetousness, passion, evil desire, quarreling, malice, envy, hatred, adultery, treachery, slander, ingratitude, conceit. If “darkness” was equated with such as these sins, instead of whether one has a piano in his church or contributes to Herald of Truth, then we would have no problem. If one contends that a brother full of hate and malice, or greed or jealousy, is not “walking in the light, as he is in the light,” he can hardly be accused of abusing the word. But how about the man who treacherously undermines his brother, reviling and slandering him, for being a “liberal,” charging that he is not “walking in the light” because he will not say that instrumental music is a sin?

I have recently read a lengthy account of one of these “kangaroo court” proceedings against one of our brothers at a Christian college. The man’s long years of sacrificial devotion to the college and education meant nothing in the face of the malicious slander hurled against him. All the dirty work was done to his back, so that he was already prepared for the sacrifice by the time he was allowed to defend himself. His sin was some deviation from Church of Christ doctrine, a liberal they called him. Theirs was treachery, passion, malice, and slander, and this on the part of leading administrators and biblical scholars. But it was he, not they, we are suppose to believe, who was walking in darkness rather than light and therefore unfit for fellowship. It is another illustration of how abuse of the word nearly always goes with abuse of the brethren.

The aged apostle John, spending his last years at Ephesus where he wrote this little letter, knew something of the difficulty of being a Christian. He was acquainted with the fierce attacks made against the faith. He saw firsthand how many grew discouraged and gave up the faith. So his little epistle is filled with assurances and encouragement. The world may pass away, but he who does the will of God abides forever (2:17). Even when the deceiver is at work there is that anointing that remains in the believer (2:27). He who has hope lives the pure life (3:3). The believer can know that God abides in him by the Spirit that is given him (3:24), and he can know that he has passed out of death into life because he loves his brothers (3:14). On and on it goes, assuring and reassuring.

One can see why the letter was a favorite of Polycarp, who was one of the first of the apostolic fathers to make reference to it in his writings. It was such assurance and hope that he learned from old John that led the aged Polycarp to suffer martyrdom without flinching. The proconsul tried to save him because of his age. “Swear by the genius of Caesar,” he was urged. The old bishop was not about to be among those that John described as “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” He rather waved to the mob that was crying for his blood, and he refused to be bound to the stake where he was to be burned, confident that the Lord would give him the strength to remain in his place and bear the pain. Many testified that they heard a heavenly voice speak to him, “Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.” The proconsul did all in his power to get him to curse Christ so that he could yet spare him. “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he hath done me no wrong; how then can I blaspheme my king who saved me?” That’s how he died, inspired by the likes of 1 John.

John and Polycarp would surely be aghast to see how this little letter is used to separate brother from brother, and to discourage rather than encourage. To John and Polycarp “walking in the light” involved the very essence of discipleship. It has to do with the faith that one can die for as well as live by. To walk in the light is to walk with God, to commune with Him and to be lost in His love. Light gives direction, and he who walks in darkness “does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” (2:11). Polycarp knew where he was going, for he walked in the light, as did the old apostle, who later wrote from his exile on Patmos: “After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door!”

We must not turn from such a heritage as this and make “light” refer to being right on the class question and “darkness” mean sending a missionary through a society rather than by direct support. These are crucial words to John, touching the heart of the Christian faith, and we do harm to ourselves and disservice to the scriptures when we use them to promote sectarianism.

In his gospel record John assures us that the eternal Word is “the light of men,” and that light keeps on shining in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it. He further says that the Word is the true light and that he enlightens every man coming into the world (1:4-9). In 8:12 he shows how Jesus said: “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” He puts light and darkness together again in 12:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.’” Again in 12:46: “I have come aslight into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.”

He makes “walking” mean abiding or living in. One abides or walks in light or he abides or walks in darkness. The eternal Word made flesh, Jesus the Christ, is that light. To “walk in the light” is to be in him or to live in him. To “walk in darkness” is to exist apart from him, to belong to the world instead of to God.

Paul says it all in 2 Cor. 4:6: “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” The apostle saw in the creation narrative of Gen. 1 a declaration that God’s ultimate light is manifest in the appearance Jesus. He is that shaft of light that pierces the deepest darkness of all the ages, reflecting the knowledge of the glory of God. The darkness remains, but it cannot cope with the light. If we choose the light, the darkness cannot be victorious over us.

I conclude, therefore, that “walking in the light” means to be in communion with God by being “at home” in Jesus. Jesus is the light in that he is the Christ; he is in the light in that he reflects God’s glory. And so 1 Jo. 1:7 could read: “If we are in communion with God even as Jesus is in communion with God, then we all share the common faith that is in Christ, and the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us of all sin, making us continually pure in his sight.”

Or we could simply say that “walking the light” means to be like Jesus, for he is the light. It means to be Christ-like. We are to be like him just as he is like God. Darkness refers to separation from God, even enmity toward Him.

We are of course dealing with an infinite concept that defies exact definition. Light can well represent the whole of the Christian faith, while darkness stands for anything that militates against that faith. But we must always speak of fundamentals and not peripheral issues. If a man is filled with greed and malice, he is certainly threatened by the power of darkness.

He is hardly walking in light. But we cannot draw such a conclusion if the man is a social drinker, for this is a peripheral issue. Even if the moderate drinker behaves inexpediently, he cannot necessarily be associated with darkness because of it. He may still reflect the glory of God in his life because of his Christ-likeness. But not if he is treacherous or reviling or adulterous.

“Walking in the light” has to do, then, with intimacy with God. We are “at home” with Him because of Jesus. I t means to be like God by being like Jesus. “Walking in darkness” means to live in opposition to all that is good and holy. It means to be unlike God, separated from Him, and perhaps even to be his enemy. Darkness is sin.

To equate light with truth and truth with knowledge, and thus give this passage the twist that makes “walking in the light” refer to intellectual knowledge or doctrinal purity is to be guilty of the very heresy John is dealing with. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1) is an appropriate reference here. One’s head can be full of “knowledge,” while his heart is empty of Jesus. Light has reference to a Person —knowing him —rather than to a system of doctrine. Doctrine is part of it only insofar as it is the basic teaching of the scriptures rather than our own theological deductions.

The interpretation that I have given “walking in the light” —that it refers to being Christ-like or in intimate, communal relation to God —has its implications, all of which the apostle levels against the Gnostics, who held that to the “enlightened” believer all conduct is morally indifferent. These are:

1. If one walks in the light, he will preserve the unity that exists between brethren and will not be divisive, as were the Gnostics (1:5-7).

2. If one walks in the light, he will confess that he is a sinner and unable to live morally independent of God, which the Gnostics proudly claimed, which to John made them liars (1:8-10).

3. If one walks in the light, he will obey the commandments of Jesus. “He who says ‘I know him’ but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (2:4). The Gnostics laid claim to lots of insight, but they ignored that teaching that is designed to make one Christ-like.

4. If one walks in the light, he will love his brothers. “He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling” (2:9-10). The Gnostics loved their party more than the Body of Christ, and it is unfortunate that this aspect of Gnosticism lives on to afflict the church.

The sum and substance of religion is fellowship with God. John wrote this letter so that his readers could grasp this great truth, thus making their joy complete (1:4). We are today, for the most part, a joyless people, and this is because religion is to us something apart from communion with God as Father. This is evident enough when this great scriptural concept, “Walking in the light,” is generally understood to refer to those doctrines, which are really the doctrines of men, designed to safeguard party loyalty. We are thus asked to trade our birthright of life and light for a mess of sectarian pottage.

This passage should make it clear that men have no control over who is or who is not in the fellowship. All who are in communion with God are in the fellowship. This is the ground of fellowship. There never was any other and never will be any other. Men look toward darkness rather than light when they attempt to base fellowship on their own insipid deductions and speculations. —the Editor