With All Your Mind . . .

THE FALLACY OF HUMPTY DUMPTYISM

Alfred North Whitehead, the renowned Harvard philosopher, liked to tell about one of his hunting trips. Being the cook for the band of profs, he stayed behind to prepare victuals while his colleagues went into the woods in quest of squirrel. One of the hunters saw a squirrel on the opposite side of a tree from him. He gradually circled the tree in hopes of getting a shot, but as he moved the squirrel also moved, always keeping his tummy toward the hunter, until at last both man and animal were in their original position.

As professors will, they got into an argument as to whether the man went around the squirrel. They were agreed that he went around the tree, but some insisted that he did not go around the squirrel. Others laughed at this nonsense, urging that if he went around the tree he had to go around the squirrel since the squirrel was on the tree. But they decided that the professor, Dr. Whitehead, should resolve their dispute, being a noted philosopher.

Dr. Whitehead, who by the way never had a course in philosophy but came to that discipline through medicine, told his colleagues that their dispute was over words, that it all depended on what they meant by “go around. “ Some were making those words mean one thing, the others something else. An English prof accused Whitehead of nit-picking, for they meant plain old English go around. Whitehead reminded them that “plain old English” is not always so plain. “If you mean by go around,” he continued, “that the man was at first south of the squirrel, then east of it, then north of it, then west of it, and finally south of it again, then yes he went around the squirrel.”

“But if you mean the man was first in front of the squirrel, then at its left side, then behind it, then at its right side, and finally in front of it again, then no he did not go around the squirrel,” he assured them.

The story has it that while some of them grumbled over the decision, they were generally agreed that the old philosopher had something.

This concern for the meaning of words goes back to ancient Greece, back to “the father of philosophy,” old Socrates himself, who insisted that there is no way for people to understand each other unless there is agreement on the meaning of the words they use. You would delight in reading Plato’s Euthyphro, which tells how Socrates encountered a young lawyer by that name who was on his way to court to sue his own father. When Socrates learned that the charge was impiety, he was pleased since he had long wanted to know what that meant. As the dialogue unwinds, Socrates is pressing Euthyphro for a definition, who is hard put to come up with one. He first argued that impiety is that which displeases the gods, but Socrates reminded him that what displeases some gods pleases others, and so impiety would also mean piety. The lawyer finally gave it up and walked away wiser for having confronted Socrates.

When Polonius asked Hamlet “What do you read, my Lord?,” Hamlet answered, Words, words, words! Is it not often true with us all? Whether it is the Bible or something else, we are often beset by words. What do they mean? Are we all getting the same message even when we read the same words?

Words mean nothing in themselves, for they are but symbols of ideas. They can be thought of as checks, which in themselves are but bits of paper. They are symbols of money in the bank. If we think of words as checks to be cashed in communicating with others, it will help us to make them meaningful. If we wish to communicate effectively, we cannot be like Humpty Dumpty. When Alice disagreed with the meaning he gave to glory, he said, “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

There is a lot of Humpty Dumptyism in our church circles, for words are made to mean what we want them to mean. Such as the term sound, which is applied to doctrine, preachers, churches, and even journals. The journal you have in hand would be labeled unsound by not a few among us, some of whom would see themselves as the only sound ones. The term is made to mean something like “right in the things we consider especially important in our interpretation of Scripture.” But in the Bible itself the word means healthy or sound in health, the word “hygiene” coming from the Greek word. Tit. 2:1, for instance, says: “Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine,” and the next verse refers to being “sound in faith.” These refer to teaching and faith that bring good spiritual health.

2 Tim. 1:13 refers to holding fast “the form of sound words which thou has heard of me,” and in I Tim. 1:10 the things that are “contrary to sound doctrine” are lawlessness, murder, disobedience, ungodliness. To take a meaningful term like this and apply it to someone who holds a different opinion about methods is to play Humpty Dumpty.

Church is another Humpty Dumpty word, and we really have a case when sound is attached to it. A “sound church” is one that is anti-institutional. Or it is one-cup, or one with no women teachers. But in Scripture it would have to mean something like: a community of God’s people that provides healthy teaching and fellowship for healthy growth. Church is not a good translation of the Greek word from which it comes, not really a translation at all. Some translations, including Alexander Campbell’s, do not even use the term. If we always thought of ecclesia, not as church, but as community, it would help correct a lot of fallacies. Such ideas as “worship of the church,” “church treasury,” “work of the church,” and “doctrine of the church” would undergo judgment. Even “Church of Christ” and “Christian Church” might be in trouble. Do we really use these terms to refer to God’s community on earth?

Humpty Dumpty even works havoc with baptism, which, among us at least, is made to mean immersion, which is a very risky definition. To say that baptism in New Testament times was by immersion is one thing, but to say that baptism means immersion is another. It is highly unlikely that when Paul refers to “one baptism” in Eph. 4:5 that he means one immersion. Really, “one Lord, one faith, one immersion” makes little sense. Would anybody ever suppose there could be two or more immersions? Almost certainly the apostle is saying that there is but one initiation or means of induction for all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, which is the point he is making.

A word seldom means what it means etymologically (and baptism does mean immersion in this sense), but it means what usage dictates. Candidate means one who comes out dressed in white etymologically and dean means a leader of ten men, just to give two examples. It is not likely that Jesus told his disciples to “immerse” all nations (Mt. 28:19), but rather to initiate them into God’s new community. The initiatory rite happened to be immersion. I say “happened to be” because it is apparent that Jesus did not invent the rite, or even choose it. It was the means of initiation already in use when he arrived on the scene. So, I would say baptism means initiation and that it was by immersion.

When “remission of sins” is connected to baptism as it is in Acts 2:38, we must be careful to recognize that a term can be used in different senses in different contexts. Surely “remission of sins” does not relate to baptism the same way it does to the blood of Christ, as in Mt. 26:28: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Even the force of the term in Acts 10:43 seems different: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Is not remission of sins actually realized through faith in the blood of Christ rather than by any external act? This means that “remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 is in some sense different from the other two references. I agree with Alexander Campbell when he said in his debate with McCalla: “One is actually saved when he believes; he is formally saved when he is baptized.” So baptism as the formal initiation into God’s community is for the remission of sins.

The Bible itself makes an effort to distinguish between form and substance in reference to baptism. I Pet. 3:21 cautions that baptism does not in itself cleanse, but it is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” The same passage says baptism saves, but again this cannot mean saved in the same sense that faith in the blood of Christ saves. Baptism typically or formally saves, or as Peter puts it, it is “the like figure” or it is the “answer” of a good conscience, which shows that a believing, obeying conscience in what Christ has done is what really saves.

Paul also draws the distinction in Tit. 3:5. After stating that we are not saved by any work of righteousness which we do ourselves, he shows that it is only by God’s mercy, “by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.” It is clear that the apostle does not see baptism as regeneration, but as the washing of regeneration, which must be like saying that the water symbolizes the cleansing wrought by the Spirit of God within the soul. And yet this formal act is a part of God’s plan for us, clearly a command.

These illustrations are sufficient to show that while words are God’s means of communicating His will to us, we must avoid the fallacy of Humpty Dumptyism by making those words mean what we want them to mean. We are often “too quick on the draw” in interpreting Scripture. We mouth an array of verses, many of them by memory, without ever giving any critical study as to what they really mean. We presume, perhaps arrogantly presume, that we and we alone teach them correctly. We sometimes err through overemphasis, making passages mean more than was intended, while neglecting others, making them mean less than was intended.

Your mind matters! It matters so much that it gives place to the great truth that God has spoken. Unless our minds are free and courageous, reasonable and disciplined, honest and good, it makes little difference as to whether God has spoken. We must take care that we do not put words in His mouth! --- the Editor

Peace is such a precious jewel that I would give anything for it but truth. --- Matthew Henry

When we do not find peace within ourselves, it is vain to look for it elsewhere. --- Duc francois de la Rochefoucauld