|
Attitudes And Consequences
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword
David R. Pharr
It
hardly needs stating that attitudes have
consequences. What the church is and becomes,
from the human perspective, will be determined
by the attitudes within it. To reword a point
from Proverbs, “As the church
thinketh in its heart, so is
it.” The heart (attitude) shapes a
person’s character and shapes the direction of
the church. “Good treasures” for the church
must begin with good men with good hearts (Lk.
6:45). King Rehoboam “did evil, because he
prepared not his heart to seek the Lord” (II
Chron. 12:14). In striking contrast it was said
of Ezra that he “had prepared his heart to seek
the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach
in Israel statutes and judgments” (Ezra 7:10).
Our part in the future progress and welfare of
the church will be determined by whether we have
Ezra’s attitude: prepared hearts which seek to
know the will of God, to obey it, and to teach
it to others.
The times are confusing. Moral and spiritual
values are turned upside down. “Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa.
5:20). A spirit of relativism refuses to take a
stand, to “hate the evil, and love the good”
(Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9). Even among religious
leaders there is little respect for the word of
God. The world seeks to press its mold upon our
hearts. The ultimate worldliness is not
drinking and gambling (sinful as such may be);
it is thinking as the world thinks, adopting the
attitudes of the world. There is a never ending
struggle not to be “conformed to this world,”
but to “be transformed by the renewing of your
mind”—the right attitude (Rom. 12:2).
Lessons of History
In
1945 Homer Hailey published Attitudes and
Consequences in the Restoration Movement.[i]
The premise of the book was that the origin and
progress of the restoration came from an
attitude that was determined to conform to the
pattern of the scriptures. As long as this
attitude prevailed much was accomplished in
bringing sincere people back to the ancient
order of things. On the other hand, when an
attitude developed that was less committed to
biblical authority, the consequences were:
willingness to compromise with what had
previously been clearly defined as error;
unscriptural innovations in practice; and
widespread division. The present dying and
somewhat meaningless Disciples of Christ
denomination is a sad demonstration of the
consequences of lax and indifferent attitudes
toward the absolute authority of the word of
God.
In
the “Introduction” to brother Hailey’s work, the
late and beloved Olan L. Hicks wrote these
stirring observations:
| At the outset of this movement there were high
and noble purposes. There was a mighty and
unifying desire to restore the primitive
simplicity and purity of the New Testament and
to raise again the fallen structure of the
Church of the Lord Jesus Christ as it is set
forth in the pages of the New Testament. This
lofty ideal fired the imaginations and inspired
the hearts of thousands and gave the original
bearers of the plea a glorious battle cry. The
effect was electrifying, and historians have
never given just credit to the permanent effects
of this movement on religion and society
generally. Many thousands were captivated by
the obvious justness and glory of such an appeal
and while the plea was maintained in its
integrity, it swept all before it. But alas!
Such a glorious state was not to continue.
As is too often true with noble movements, some
were brought into the circle who were never
completely aware of the implications of the new
ideal of restoration. . . . [They] were not in
full sympathy with the spirit of the movement.
. . . Their ideas were undermining to the whole
original purpose of the movement. These were the
ones who promoted innovations upon the original
idea. And once the floodgate of innovation was
opened—though the opening be ever so small—there
was no way of closing it.[ii]
|
Commitment to Truth and Right
The lessons of history only complement what
should be understood from the Bible itself.
Unless there is a commitment to the authority
scripture our existence as a church is pointless.
A worldly spirit prevails when it is rare to hear
sermons emphasizing Bible authority and when
preachers feel too sophisticated to cite book,
chapter, and verse. Worldliness is evident
when brotherhood universities are more concerned
with their standing in academic circles than they
are for their influence on the health of the
church. The church will not grow—indeed it
will not survive—unless the distinctive features of
biblical Christianity are conspicuous. Proper
attitudes regarding all aspects of our faith and
practice must begin with the right attitude toward
our Lord and his truth. Binding and Loosing
Abiding in the New Testament pattern necessarily
implies rejection of all that is not authorized.
Past and present problems, however, arise from an
attitude that accepts anything not specifically
forbidden, whether authorized or not. Instrumental
music is the classic case in point. It is argued
that since it is not forbidden it must be
acceptable, even though it is not the music
authorized. The consequence of such an approach is
to open the door for numerous and outlandish
innovations. This is the attitude that now promotes
worship drama, praise teams, Passover observances,
Easter services, etc.
Precedents which are found in the New Testament are
important in establishing authority. Currently
accepted practices are not the same, however, as
apostolic precedents. We sometimes hear things
defended simply on the basis that they are being
done in other churches of Christ. Or it might be
argued: “We have been practicing ______ for years
and this is about the same thing.” What brethren
might have sometimes allowed in some places may or
may not be pleasing to God. The safe attitude will
make a fresh examination in the light of the
scriptures.
Likewise we should neither bind nor forbid any
practice simply on the authority of “the way we
have always done it.” The presumption of making
laws where God has not legislated has long plagued
the church (i.e., one cup, no classes, anti-orphan
homes, etc.). We are opposed to any change from the
Bible order, but changing what is no more than
cultural expedients is a matter of judgment, not
doctrine. The attitude that binds what God has
loosed is as destructive as is loosing what heaven
has bound (Mt. 18:18).
Fellowship Versus Factions
Our
view of fellowship ought to be as broad as God
allows. A spirit that refuses any faithful child of
God is ungodly. The prayer of Jesus is for unity
among all who believe the teaching of the apostles (Jn.
17:20-21). In our “endeavoring to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), the
circle of fellowship must not exclude any on the
basis of race, culture, economics, or even personal
opinions (Rom. 14; Gal. 3:28; Jas. 2:1ff). Beware
of an attitude that strains over the gnats of petty
opinions. The consequences will be a dwarfed and
distorted church. The more we are able to minimize
our disagreements and to stand together on common
ground, the more evidently will we be the body of
Christ.
The
report may have been exaggerated, but I was told of
a brother who carried a pocket notebook to record
the names of preachers, schools, papers, etc. which
he was against. Anytime he could learn of another
which might have espoused some error he would jot it
into his little book. (The keeping of such a little
book surely suggests a little soul!) Some seem so
obsessed with the errors of others that they can
neither speak nor write of anything else. Jealousy
for truth and soundness is a good thing, but it also
can be fertile ground for Phariseeism. It is one
thing to be on guard (Rom. 16:17); it is another to
suspect and shun brethren simply because they are
not connected with our school, our paper, our
group. Mark 9:37-38 does not teach the inclusion of
denominationalism, as some have supposed, but it
ought to help us with our attitudes toward faithful
men who do not happen to move in our circle.
An
equally destructive attitude is that which is ready
to fellowship what is clearly unscriptural. We are
to withdraw from those who walk disorderly (II Thess.
3:6; I Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:11). Neither is fellowship
to include those whose teaching is contrary to the
doctrine of Christ (II Jn. 9-11; Rom. 16:17).
Charity can be tolerant of many minor matters, but
there are some errors that cannot be overlooked,
some practices we cannot endorse, some doctrines
that must be disputed, some worship in which we
cannot engage.
Compromise is insidiously progressive. An older
preacher observed, “You don’t have to take the whole
fence down to let the cows out; just cut it in one
place.” For some it started with compromise on the
music issue, but in time there was fellowship with
Pentecostalism, modern day “apostles,” Promise
Keepers, Easter services with various denominations,
and jubilation with men who even deny the Bible
requirements for salvation.
Balance Versus Extremes
Jesus
showed that some matters carry more weight than
others (Mt. 23:23). The point is not that we should
ignore duty in even the smallest things, but clearly
some issues have greater importance. When he named
the greatest and second greatest commandments, it
necessarily follows that other commandments are not
as great (Mt. 22:36; cf. I Pet. 4:8; I Cor. 13:13).
This does not mean that any commandment ought to be
ignored, but some things are more pressing. The
problem with extremes is that they inflate a few
concerns disproportionally. Balance does not mean
compromise with error, nor the surrendering of
convictions. It means keeping in view the “big
picture” instead of having an inordinate focus on
secondary specifics. Balance is the idea in the
grand old slogan of the restoration: “In faith
unity; in opinion liberty; in all things charity.”
It
can’t be denied that many divisions come from
excessive measuring of “mint and anise and cummin.”
Extreme positions lead to endless wrangling and
suspicions. We used to warn of “hobby riding”
preachers. Such are intolerant of anyone who fails
to get on board their tiny little merry-go-round. A
congregation or brotherhood always biting and
devouring one another will soon die of “consumption”
(Gal. 5:15)! This is not to say that we should
refrain from truly necessary controversy. But our
attitudes should be guarded constantly, and we
should measure whether an error is really lethal
before we make it a cause for contention or a test
of fellowship.
Reaction against that extreme has caused others to
feel justified in seeking a more liberal, tolerant,
and compromising climate. They have seen quarreling
and uncharitableness as all too typical of the
church they have known and they want little to do
with such a brotherhood. The answer to radicalism,
however, is the left. It is the balanced ground of
faithfulness to the essential truths of the gospel.
(See Eph. 4:1-6; I Cor. 1:10; 4:6 ASV; Eph. 5:22f;
etc.) Liberalism, though sometimes clothed in a
costume of sweetness, is no nearer to the Lord than
harsh extremism. Charity without truth is hardly
better than truth without charity.
Outreach Versus Self-absorption
Franklin
Camp observed that we can become so involved in
“defending the faith” that we may quit “preaching the
gospel."[iii] The point is not that upholding
truth is not a part of gospel preaching. Rather, it
is a caution that we may become so obsessed with
internal issues that we neglect the work of winning
souls. It seems evident that the less attention that
is given to evangelism, the more likely there is to be
strife within. Conversely, it is easy to let
absorption in brotherhood issues take the place of
outreach. The Ephesian church appeared quite zealous
in defending against error, but had left their first
love (Rev. 2:1ff). How “sound” is a church that has
for years baptized hardly any except their own
children? Growth is not the only measure of
faithfulness, but atrophying and dying congregations
hardly exemplify spiritual health. Those of us who
earnestly contend for the faith against error (Jude 3)
may need to examine whether there is a corresponding
enthusiasm for saving the lost.
Love the Church
It may
seem overly simplistic to say that the attitude that
will make the most difference in the future is our
love for the church. To love the Lord is to love the
church. If we love the church, we are thrilled by
every report of progress, and saddened by every report
of harm. Love will foster the sister attitudes of
loyalty, self-sacrifice, zealousness, support, and
jealousy for her truths. Because he loved it, Christ
was willing to give his life for the church. What a
marvelous future the church will have if even a small
degree of that same attitude is genuine within us.
We love
our history. This is not to deny the mistakes of the
past, but to be proud (in a good sense) of our
heritage. Who has read brother West’s volumes on
The Search for the Ancient Order and not been
thrilled to have kinship with the noble leaders and
the splendid successes that restored the old paths and
made them available to us? Some recent treatments of
restoration history seem more intent on creating
disdain for our heritage. The consequences of such
negative attitudes regarding those who before us
labored so faithfully can only weaken love and
loyalty.
David
said, “My heart is fixed, O God, my heart is fixed” (Psa.
57:7). Let us pray for hearts that are “fixed” on
love for the Lord, his truth and his church.
Endnotes:
i. Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences,
(Los Angeles: Old Paths Book Club, 1945).
ii. Olan, L. Hicks, “Introduction,” Ibid., pp. 4f.
iii. Brother Camp is greatly missed for his
wisdom and biblical insight. He did not mean that
gospel preaching does not include opposing error.
Rather his concern was that we not be so one sided
that we neglect evangelism. He also observed that
there are three “isms” that can destroy the
church: “liberalism, radicalism, and uglyism.”
Back to
Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword
|