We are attempting an unbiased investigation of the underlying cause for division among the heirs of the restoration movement. Our aim is not to uphold any faction as opposed to others nor to defend any party as "the loyal church." We have no partisan axe to grind. We are simply trying to face up realistically to one of the gravest problems in our religious life, that of division in the ranks of the believers in Christ Jesus. In our previous issue we proposed a number of questions. We are convinced that they are germane and pertinent to our aim and announced purpose. We intend to pursue them with the intent of arriving at a correct solution.
There is a difference between what we are attempting and the course generally pursued in inter-factional discussions and debates. In these the purpose is to determine which faction conforms to scriptural procedure and precedent with reference to some specific point of difference. Regardless of who wins such forensic skirmishes the factions will still continue to exist and they will still be factions. Our accepted task is much more profound than this. It is to find out what basic philosophy gives rise to factionalism and sustains and nourishes it. Although we are concerned about the things over which our brethren fall out we are primarily interested in why they do not fall in and march together as a united army.
Unless we succeed in finding and isolating the germ or virus which produces division we will continue to fracture and fragmentize ourselves. The treatment of symptoms is not enough. If we debate every currently divisive issue into oblivion our children will find others over which to divide. We must make a radical departure from our previous methods and explore on a deeper level than ever before. We have been too shallow and superficial in the past. It is obvious that we must also be prepared for a shock because what we find may run counter to our every tradition. It may actually frighten us by some of its implications.
Each faction justifies its separate existence on the basis that its procedures in work and worship are true to "the pattern." Each accuses the others of having forsaken "the pattern." It is taken for granted by all that the new covenant scriptures constitute a detailed blueprint designed to meet every exigency and provide for every emergency and that loyalty to Christ consists in seeking out these details and binding oneself by them and binding them upon others. Every faction claims to follow the pattern while denying that the others are doing so. None plead guilty to violating it. All are willing to affirm that they, and they only, are identical in every particular with the original.
It will readily be seen that if anyone suggests there is no such legalistic pattern he will draw the wrath of all. Those who cannot work together in pursuance of "the pattern" would all unite their forces in joint attack upon such an intruder. There are two things the brethren cannot tolerate. One is to deny there is a pattern; the other to affirm that anyone else is following it. We are willing to brook the disfavor of all and suggest that it was never the revealed intention of God to provide for us a meticulous bill of specifications covering every facet of procedure and the attempt to convert the new covenant scriptures into such a code of particulars has warped and thwarted the divine purpose.
Let us get one point clear at the outset. We believe the apostolic letters contain a revelation of the will of God. We believe their message is a transmission of the Holy Spirit. We neither doubt nor question the authenticity or genuineness of these writings. To us they are the sacred scriptures as opposed to all other writings of men. It is essential that we understand this because in the eyes of many, to question the use they make of the scriptures, is to question their divine origin. We affirm that the scriptures are divine with the same boldness that we deny that the application of them as made by our brethren is inspired. In short, we believe in the infallibility of God's revelation but we do not believe in the infallibility of any human interpretation.
It follows, then, that what we write is not infallible.
To this we would
be the first to agree. Therefore, what we write is not offered in a dogmatic
or arbitrary sense. The word of God, and not M
We begin with a study of a basic quotation as found in
Hebrews 8:5, "See
to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the
mountain." It is generally assumed that these words spoken to Moses with
reference to the tabernacle in the wilderness are applicable to us and that
the new covenant scriptures sustain the same relationship to us as did the
law of Moses to the children of Israel. We believe that such an exegesis
is not only faulty but is the exact opposite of the meaning which the writer
of Hebrews intended to convey. Since this is so fundamental we ask your kind
indulgence while we make a careful study of the impact of the meaning ordinarily
attached to these words. In order to make our statements clearer we shall
number them.
1. A pattern or blueprint is needed only by a builder
or construction agent.
Moses was commissioned to build the tabernacle and no such a structure had
ever before been seen. It was necessary for him to have a pattern to follow.
God gave no man a pattern for building the true tabernacle. It would have
been useless to do so for it is distinctly stated that Jesus is a minister
of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." We are "the
building of God" (1 Cor. 3:9). We are "built, as living stones; into a spiritual
temple" (1 Peter 1:5). Instead of a pattern for constructing an edifice what
we need is the cement to hold us together as stones in the building. Later
on in this series we shall show that this is exactly what God has furnished
us.
2. A pattern must exist prior to the rearing or erection
of a structure and
those who do the building must be familiar with it. In the Jewish dispensation
God established a system of legalism "as a temporary measure pending the
arrival of the 'issue' to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3:19). In any
such system the law must be complete and announced in advance or the subjects
may be guilty of violating something of which they do not know. Accordingly
God called Moses into the mount and wrote for him the constitution on stone
tablets and showed him a pattern of the tabernacle. In the new covenant
arrangement we are not under law but under grace It was more than twenty
years after the community of saints was planted before the first letter from
an apostle was written. By that time the gospel had been taken to the Gentile
world and it was to such a congregation the first letter was addressed.
3. The passage which occurs in Hebrews 8:5 is found in
a context in which
the writer is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with that of the priesthood
prescribed by law. The argument is that the latter is an inferior priesthood
because the priests ministered "in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow
of the heavenly." That this is true is proven by the fact that the tabernacle
was constructed by human power and skill. "This is implied when Moses, about
to erect the tent, is instructed by God: 'See to it that you make everything
according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.'" The pattern is mentioned,
not to prove that we have one by which to make everything, but to show that
any system based upon such a pattern is inferior. The very next sentence
declares, "But in fact the ministry which has fallen to Jesus is as far superior
to theirs as are the covenant he mediates and the promises upon which it
is secured."
The whole point of the Hebrew letter is that Moses needed
a pattern for the
first tabernacle because he was a mere servant in God's house. No pattern
was needed for the real tabernacle since it was constructed by God himself.
"For every house has its founder; and the founder of all is God. Moses, then,
was faithful as a servitor in God's whole household; his task was to bear
witness to the words that God would speak; but Christ is faithful as a son,
set over his household" (Hebrews 3:4, 5).
4. The apostolic letters were written because of local
conditions which arose
and demanded attention. If the Thessalonians had not been disturbed about
the state of the righteous dead and if some of them had not continued their
slothful and indolent work habits, the first epistle would not have been
written. If there had not been a misunderstanding of the tenor of the first
letter as related to the coming of Christ there would have been no second.
The first epistle to the Corinthians was called forth by a report from the
family of Chloe and in reply to a letter of enquiry carried by Stephanas,
Fortunatus and Achaicus. The Philippian letter was primarily one of thanks
and appreciation which would not have been penned at all if a contribution
had not been sent to the "ambassador in bonds." The letter to Philemon was
one of commendation for a fugitive slave returning to his master.
Since these letters were written to meet conditions as
they arose among
congregations existing in a pagan society, it is too much to expect they
will cover in detail every condition which may affect the church of God in
all ages, locations and cultures. I hold the view that the letters were not
written as a pattern at all but to call men back toward an ideal involved
in their acceptance of Jesus. As men deviated from the path leading toward
this ideal it was necessary to recall them. It is obvious, then, that these
letters create an understanding of a norm for those who attempt to be "laborers
together with God." Later, we shall attempt to define the ideal and when
we do we believe that the purpose of the new covenant scriptures will be
brought into sharper focus.
5. While the apostolic letters constituted a response
to needs and conditions
then existing they set forth principles which should govern the people of
God in all ages until the absent King returns. These letters represented
the will of that sovereign expressed by his special envoys. The ambassadors
were endowed with the Holy Spirit to guarantee that the things they wrote
corresponded with, and were actually an expression of, the divine purpose.
It was not the purpose of these letters to give minute specifications but
to create the kind of character or nature which would automatically and
spontaneously respond in every contingency in a proper manner.
In this age of the Spirit it was not the intention of
God to make his people
mechanical robots moving jerkily when a particular law was quoted or realized,
nor to constitute them puppets jumping with the manipulation of certain strings
behind the scenes. Instead, the record declares, "You, my friends, were called
to be free men; only do not turn your freedom into license for your lower
nature, but be servants to one another in love" (Gal. 5:13). Law does not
free, but confines. "Before this faith came, we were close prisoners in the
custody of law, pending the revelation of faith" (Gal. 3:23). Law seeks to
affect men from without, so no one can be made truly good by law. It can
never justify nor give life. The new covenant scriptures are not new legislation
but letters written in love to a new creation. Those who have been made
"partakers of the divine nature" respond in a divine manner to every situation.
Those who seek to gain the response by law "have a form of godliness but
deny the power thereof."
6. The apostolic letters were never intended to be exhaustive
in specifying
details even in dealing with the situations which called them forth. After
having written at some length about the problems at Corinth, the apostle
says, "The other matters I will arrange when I come" (1 Cor. 11:34). The
RSV renders this, "About the other things I will give directions when I come."
What were the other things? How did they affect the life of the congregation?
What directions were given? Surely it must be admitted that the letter to
Corinth did not deal with every problem in that congregation.
The apostle John closes his letter "to the elect lady
and her children" with
the words, "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper
and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face." He
concluded his letter, "to the beloved Gaius" in this fashion, "I had much
to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to
see you soon and we will talk together face to face." What was included in
"the much" that John would like to have written? What instructions, admonitions
and exhortations did he impart when he met the addressees? We shall never
know nor is it important that we know.
All who love the Lord can agree that while these letters
were not exhaustive
as to methods, manners and modes, the things that are written are for instruction
and admonition. I am convinced from my own study that the principles enunciated
cover every category of our relationship. It must be remembered that
despite the multiform outworking of such relationships, they still fall into
relatively few species or types. We do not need a detailed bill of
specifications. We simply need to know how "the picked representatives of
God's new creation" are to respond within a certain sphere or domain. It
would be foolish to reject the new covenant scriptures as containing no norm.
It would be just as foolish to search them to find a scriptural precedent
to meet every trivial problem in a modern congregation. The child of God
can better employ his time than by engaging in either gnat-straining or
nit-picking.
7. The content of the apostolic letters demonstrates
that it was never the
intention of the writers to compile a code of laws. One who writes statutes
and judgments does not insert little matters of personal interest and concern
at intervals throughout the document. What would you think if you were reading
a copy of the Missouri Statutes and found tucked away among the "whereases"
a request for the reader to pick up the writer's overcoat and also bring
along his writing materials? Does one insert in a legal code of jurisprudence
a suggestion of a remedy for the stomach ulcer of the proofreader?
In the letter to Philemon in which the apostle refused
to "pull his rank"
as an ambassador in order to have his desire fulfilled (verses 8, 9) he inserts
a casual request for a room reservation. "At the same time prepare a guest
room for me" (verse 22). All of this makes these letters much more appealing
unto me. Of course there is a natural curiosity about some of the things
which were written and have not been preserved. I cannot help wondering what
was in the letter John wrote to one congregation which their leader rejected
with false accusations against the writer. "I sent a letter to the congregation,
but Diotrephes, their would-be leader, will have nothing to do with us. If
I come, I will bring up the things he is doing. He lays baseless and spiteful
charges against us; not satisfied with that, he refuses to receive our friends,
and he interferes with those who would do so, and tries to expel them from
the congregation." I wonder if John ever went, and if he did, what happened
when he brought up the things this character was doing. I'm especially interested
because I have met some of his "relatives" around over the country. They
also refuse to receive some of my friends and have tossed out of their
congregations some who would like to receive them.
There is no question but what the Mosaic dispensation
was governed by a
legalistic arrangement which is designated as a written code" in
contradistinction to the new covenant which is called "a spiritual bond"
(2 Cor. 3:6). A simple comparison of the apostolic letters with the Pentateuch
will show the difference. Take, for instance, the regulation of the law with
reference to birds. This covered every contingency from robbing a bird's
nest of eggs or squabs (Deut. 22:6, 7) to the kind of birds which could not
be eaten--"the eagle, the ossifrage, the osprey, the kite, the falcon, the
raven, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the owl, the
cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the stork,
the heron, the hoopoe, and the bat."
Unwittingly, I think, but nonetheless certainly, many
of our brethren have
drawn up almost such a list of particulars with reference to the Lord's Supper
and other aspects of Christian witness. This is the result of a mistaken
concept, a reversion to Judaistic attitudes of justification. It culminates
in confusion by exalting incidentals to essentials. It seeks to establish
human judgment as being an infallible criterion by which to measure all others.
Traditional procedures become hallowed in each party and division is finally
enshrined as the divine objective. When this occurs men are discouraged from
attempting any real reform. They trudge the weary rut of factional debate
and wearily walk on the treadmill of partisan orthodoxy. They dare not question
the whole structure of sectarian exclusiveness for fear they will be accused
of denying the word of God or the revelation from heaven.
I hold no brief for the empty mouthings of modernism
nor for the vapid vagaries
of what is mis-called "liberalism." I accept without question the fact that
the sacred scriptures are a revelation from God just as I do not hesitate
to affirm my belief that Jesus of Nazareth was a revelation of God. But I
do challenge the use being made of the new covenant writings which reduces
them to a repository of factional texts and purports to discover within them
a specific prescription for every detail of current controversy. I am asked
if it is not dangerous to thus write and speak. The question is raised as
to whether some who are weak may not be encouraged to disregard the authority
of the word. To this I reply that there is always an element of danger when
anyone challenges an entrenched view with truth. Faith itself is not without
its risks.
Shall we continue in mistaken attitudes simply to "play
safe"? Is it really
being safe in a spiritual sense to maintain and defend the status quo
at the expense of our integrity? All freedom has about it an aura of danger.
Certainly one feels more secure behind the walls of exclusivism. Shall we
purchase security by bartering away our freedom to investigate and our right
to speak and act? Is it not an act of weakness upon our part to conceal truth
by hiding behind the skirts of the weak? There will always be men who will
seek for justification for their departures from the truth. Will we be held
back from discovering and affirming the truth on the basis that they will
use it as an excuse for their own undue latitude? It is not a sin to regard
the word of God in its proper perspective.
Our pattern is not a law, not even a divine one. It is
a person. Even the
previous written code of legalism was temporary in nature and designed to
bring us to him. Mistaking this fact the Jews set their hope on the written
law. Jesus said, "Your accuser is Moses, the very Moses on whom you have
set your hope. If you believed Moses you would believe what I tell you, for
it was about me that he wrote" (John 5:46). He further declared, "You study
the scriptures diligently, supposing that in having them you have eternal
life; yet, although their testimony points to me, you refuse to come to me
for that life" (John 5:39, 40). Before Jesus ascended he opened the minds
of the apostles to understand the scriptures and this understanding helped
them to see for the first time the purpose of those scriptures. "Everything
written about me in the Law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms was bound
to be fulfilled."
Jesus is our everything! God has made him "our wisdom,
our righteousness
and sanctification and redemption." If we have any right to boast it cannot
be because of our own program, performance or perfection. "Therefore, as
it is written, Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:31). The
New English Version reads, "If a man is proud, let him be proud of the Lord."
So long as we regard the scriptures as a legalistic code we will be as proud
as any other lawyer of our knowledge of the law. "This knowledge breeds conceit,
it is love that builds. If anyone fancies that he knows, he knows nothing
yet, in the true sense of knowing. But if a man loves, he is acknowledged
by God" (1 Cor. 8:2).
The great envoy to the Gentiles reaches his peak when
he writes to the
Philippians. Referring to those who placed their confidence in ritualism
of the law, he said "We are the circumcised, we whose worship is spiritual,
whose pride is in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in anything external"
(3:3). Several things need to be noted here. Our pride must not be that we
are in Christ, but it must be in him. It is his status rather than our state
which counts. We did not find him, he found us. Worship which is spiritual
is also contrasted with confidence in external things. This is a definition
and distinction which many need to learn.
Paul could have predicated his hope on externals. He
writes, "If anyone thinks
to base his hope on externals, I could make a stronger case for myself."
He then mentions some of these, including racial purity, tribal identity,
attitude toward the law, pious zeal and legal rectitude. He says, "But all
such assets I have written off because of Christ. I would say more: I count
everything sheer loss, because all is far outweighed by the gain of knowing
Christ Jesus my Lord for whose sake I did in fact lose everything. I count
it so much garbage, for the sake of gaining Christ and finding myself incorporate
in him, with no righteousness of my own, no legal rectitude, but the
righteousness which comes from faith in Christ, given by God in response
to faith."
Jesus is our pattern and love our guiding principle.
It is a summation of
all law as well as the consummation of all law. "He who loves his neighbor
has satisfied every claim of the law. For the commandments, 'Thou shalt not
commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not
covet,' and any other commandment there may be, are all summed up in the
one rule, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love cannot wrong a neighbor,
therefore the whole law is summed up in love" (Rom. 13:8-10). "Every claim--any
other commandment--all summed up--one rule."
In view of the fact that we have only one pattern (a
person), and only one
law (love), we fulfill the demands of God by pledging allegiance to our Lord
Jesus Christ and loving one another. "We can approach God with confidence,
and obtain from him whatever we ask, because we are keeping his commands
and doing what he approves. This is his command: to give our allegiance to
his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he commanded" (1 John 3:22,
23). This is one of the most difficult things for men to grasp. So long have
they regarded the religion of Christ as one of rules, regulations and rituals,
they simply cannot accept the fact that the scriptures teach there is just
one rule. Paul wrote that, "The whole law can be summed up in a single
commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
Why do we have the new covenant scriptures? This is a
legitimate question
as was the one asked by the apostle, "Wherefore then serveth the law?" The
writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, constitute the written testimony
related to our Lord. These are not biographies at all although some biographical
features are found in them. The writers had a definite purpose in giving
their accounts. They were selective of the mass of material available. One
of them wrote, "There are also many other things which Jesus did; were every
one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain
the books that would be written" (John 21:25). It is obvious that their treatment
was not exhaustive. John said, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence
of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing
you may have life in his name." These records point men to Jesus as the source
of life.
The book of Acts is the story of the struggle of the
message of Jesus to
free itself from narrowness, bigotry and prejudice. It is the dramatic account
of how the story of the cross overcame the limitations of class and race.
It ends with the messenger in prison and the message liberated. The envoy
in chains was "preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus
Christ quite openly and unhindered."
The purpose of the apostolic letters was not to formulate
a pattern for our
pattern is a person. Peter wrote to the Christian slaves, "For to this end
you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an
example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:21). The context
shows that the purpose of Christ was not to bring a new religion or a systematic
theology to mankind, but to develop a character in harmony with the divine
nature--a character which would spontaneously react to every external situation
and do so in harmony with God's design. Since the pattern is a person and
the law is love, when the saints exemplified the proper character they were
commended and when they did not they were reprimanded, rebuked and encouraged
to alter their conduct in conformity to his life. The purpose of the letters
was to call men back to the pattern of the divine nature as exemplified in
Christ Jesus.
Take the first letter addressed to the Corinthians as
an example. They were
divided over men who had special gifts and over the special gifts which men
had. Paul did not lay down the law to them. Instead, he showed that to boast
of men was inconsistent with their call. "Consider your call, brethren" (1
Cor. 1:26). The source of life is not in our association with each other.
"He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom,
our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is
written, 'Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord'" (1 Cor. 1:30). Division
among brethren is an exhibition of the lower nature. "Can you not see that
while there is jealousy and strife among you, you are living on the purely
human level of your lower nature?" (3:3).
"There can be no other foundation (for Christian unity)
beyond that which
is already laid; I mean Jesus Christ himself" (3:11). It is important to
catch the significance of this statement in its context. The letter is not
the pattern of unity at all. It does not propose to specify a foundation
upon which Christians can unite. The foundation has already been laid. No
one, not even an apostle, can lay another foundation than Jesus Christ himself.
Men who belong to Christ should not divide over anything which belongs to
all of them. "For though everything belongs to you--Paul, Apollos and Cephas,
the world, life, and death, the present and the future, all of them belong
to you--yet you belong to Christ, and Christ to God" (3:22, 23).
As men divide over gifted men only when they forget their
allegiance to Jesus,
so they divide over the gifts men have only when they forget the principle
of love for each other. The answer to the problem of division over men is
to reaffirm Jesus as the center of our life. The solution to the problem
of division over gifts is to re-establish love as the only true absolute in
the Christian frame of behavior. "The higher gifts are those you should aim
at. And now I will show you the best way of all." That way is the way of
love. "You are, I know, eager for gifts of the Spirit; then aspire above
all to excel in those which build up the church" (14:12). Regardless of what
gift a man possesses he cannot build up the church without love.
Look at the other problems in Corinth. The man who used
his father's wife
for fleshly gratification violated every principle of love and enthroned
lust. It held dominion over him. He did not love his father, the woman, himself,
or the community of saints. Notice in 1 Thessalonians 4:2-9 how closely
associated is the subject of love for the brotherhood and illicit relationship
with the wife of another. "No man must do his brother wrong in this matter,
or invade his rights" (verse 6). In Corinth, a Greek city, the apostle makes
a strange allusion in dealing with the fornicator. He refers to a Jewish
festival, the Passover, and does so for one purpose--to introduce our true
pattern. "For indeed our Passover has begun; the sacrifice is offered--Christ
himself."
Those who haled their brethren into court before heathen
judges disregarded
the real law, the only law of the Christian, love for the brethren. Christians
do not go to law for the law has come to them. Paul reasons that it would
have been far better to suffer harm from and be defrauded by a brother, than
to retaliate in a way that shamed the brotherhood and brought it into disrepute.
"Indeed, you already fall below your standard in going to law with one another
at all. Why not rather suffer injury? Why not rather let yourself be robbed?
So far from this, you actually injure and rob--injure and rob your brothers!"
What was the standard below which they fell? It was not a law at all, but
a person. "It is better to suffer for well-doing, if such should be the will
of God, than for doing wrong. For Christ also died for our sins once and
for all. He, the just, suffered for the unjust, to bring us to God" (1 Peter
3:17, 18).
I would that time and space permitted an analysis of
every part of the Corinthian
letter, and each of the other letters, from this standpoint. Paul writes
about an escaped slave and sends him back, "no longer as a slave, but as
more than a slave--as a dear brother, very dear indeed to me and how much
dearer to you, both as a man and as a Christian" (verse 16). He is not hesitant
about returning Onesimus to Philemon because, "My prayer is that your fellowship
with us in our common faith may deepen the understanding of all the blessings
that our union with Christ brings us" (verse 6). To the community at Philippi
he exhorts, "Let your bearing toward one another arise out of your life in
Christ Jesus. For the divine nature was his from the first" (2:5, 6). To
the Ephesian community he writes about the follies of paganism, "But that
is not how you learned Christ. For were you not told of him, were you not
as Christians taught the truth as it is in Jesus?" (4:20, 21).
It is apparent to the thinking reader that the apostles
nowhere set up technical
legal procedures for handling the various problems which were presented unto
them. We are living proof that they did not. Do we not all love the Lord?
Are we not all in Christ Jesus? Why are we divided? The answer is simply
that we have regarded the new covenant scriptures as a legalistic framework
and we have read into these letters our own interpretations. Every law needs
an interpreter, or interpreting body, to apply it to specific cases and
instances. The Constitution of the United States has its Supreme Court and
the decisions of this august body become the official interpretation of the
written code, whether popular or not. Because the interpretation is official
that interpretation actually becomes the law of the land.
If we look upon the new covenant scriptures as a code
of laws we must have
an official interpreter, for no law can be adapted to cases which come before
it unless someone rules upon the applicability of the law and the degree
of culpability involved in the alleged infraction. This is what has happened.
Each party has made its interpretation official and regards it as infallible.
The party interpretation has become the will of God. Partisan traditions
are accepted as precedents by which to judge contemporary problems. Thus
division is multiplied and strife increased.
It will be asked if the "law of love" has no interpreter.
Indeed it does
and the interpreter is our pattern. He interpreted by action. "It is by this
that we know what love is: that Christ laid down his life for us. And we
in turn are bound to lay down our lives for our brothers" (1 John 3:16).
"The love I speak of is not our love for God, but the love he showed to us
in sending his Son as the remedy for the defilement of our sins. If God thus
loved us, dear friends, we in turn are bound to love one another" (1 John
4:11, 12).
If Jesus is the interpreter who is the judge? I answer
that there is both
an immediate and an ultimate judge. The immediate judge is the conscience.
The final judge is God who gave us both conscience and Christ. No man must
ever be forced to act contrary to conscience. "This is how we may know that
we belong to the realm of truth, and convince ourselves in his sight that even
if our conscience condemns us, God is greater than our conscience and knows
all. Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, then we can approach
God with confidence and obtain from him whatever we ask, because we are keeping
his commandments and doing what he approves. This is his command: to give
our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he commanded"
(1 John 3:19-23). It is for this reason that "Those of us who have a robust
conscience must accept as our own burden the tender scruples of weaker men,
and not consider ourselves" (Rom. 15:1).
If in our approach to an understanding of God's will
the conscience is to
be a monitor I must respect its decisions even if I do not agree with them.
I do not concur in all of the decrees handed down by the Supreme Court but
I respect them as a citizen of the United States. Respect for a present judicial
decision does not mean that I may not labor for a reversal of it within the
framework provided by the Constitution. I must defend the right of brethren
to examine the scriptures for themselves and this includes a recognition
that they may form certain conclusions which my own conscience cannot accept
as correct. Within the framework of love I can work for an amended decision,
or even for a reversal of the current one, based upon new evidence. But I
have no right to deny the citizenship of those who differ any more than I
have a right to affirm that members of the Supreme Court cannot be Americans
if their interpretation of the Constitution differs from my own understanding
of that august document.
I need not be concerned about the ultimate triumph of
truth. It is not necessary
that I attempt to coerce or force the consciences of others into a strait-jacket
of conformity. "God is greater than our conscience and knows all." Some day
each of us will give an account to the Lord of all. "To his own master he
stands or falls." It is not my prerogative, while the Lord delays his coming,
to smite and beat my fellowservants. We will be measured by how well we have
manifested our allegiance unto him. We will be saved, not because of our
perfection, but because of his perfect sacrifice.
Not even a divine being could write a document which
would be proof against
abuse by its recipients and readers. Our attitude toward the love letters
of the Spirit will regulate our attitude toward our brethren. If one receives
a letter from a fleshly brother or sister he does not subject each word to
a microscopic scrutiny in an attempt to determine what may be concealed in
it that other members of the family have overlooked. It is assumed that the
intent and purpose of such a letter is not to destroy but to augment and
encourage the family ties. No one would assume in advance of perusing a letter
from his parents that every word or statement would be of dual importance,
although because of the relationship of love there is a pervading interest
in all that is said.
We do not minimize the value of linguistic research but
it is possible that
one can become so involved in word studies that he forgets the Living Word.
One may develop such an obsession for minute details related to the Lord's
Supper that he cannot really eat the Lord's Supper and only partakes
of the "proper kind" of bread and the "proper kind" of wine. But are we not
to hold fast "the form of sound words"? Indeed we are, but the purpose of
sound words is to develop sound lives and attitudes. The proper criterion
by which to measure how well one holds to sound words is by the hold they
have on his disposition toward others of God's children to whom the same
words were written. When one makes it his chief aim in life to announce his
own soundness and denounce all others, we may question if it is not the sound
of his own words to which he holds fast.
Perhaps we have become tiresome and tedious in this
presentation and lest
we provoke your patience beyond endurance, let us summarize what we have
been saying.
1. Our pattern is the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to reveal
how sons of God
should behave. Ours is a personal relationship with the Father, so the Son
of God became the Son of man to demonstrate how the sons of men may become
sons of God, We have been "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified
by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood."
Since he has "called us to his own glory and excellence," he has seen fit
to grant "to us his precious and very great promises, that through these
you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion,
and become partakers of the divine nature."
2. The purpose of the transformation from our lower nature
to the divine
nature is to make it possible for us to react spontaneously to whatever
temptations or problems we meet in life. When the primitive Christians did
this they were commended, when they did not they were reprimanded. The design
of both commendation and condemnation was to assure their conformity to His
life and character.
3. The apostolic writings provide a normative basis for
the Christian life
in that they constitute a revelation from God as to how His children must
conduct themselves to please Him. We cannot deprecate the value of the new
covenant scriptures because they constitute our means of knowing what is
involved in the divine nature. Every person who gives his allegiance to the
Lord Jesus Christ must seek to understand and implement in his own life the
things taught by the Spirit.
4. While every facet of our relationship is provided
for in the new covenant
scriptures, not every detail or method of implementation is spelled out.
The church of God is ageless and timeless. Its members must apply the principles
set forth to the best of their ability and according to their discretion.
This was true of the communities of the saints to whom the letters were
originally addressed. It is equally true of those who read them nineteen
centuries later.
5. As knowledge and discernment increases, alterations
and amendments will
be made, both personally and corporately, in order to conform more fully
to the demands of the divine nature. Such changes should always be within
the framework of scriptural reference while love abounds more and more. These
changes undertaken to come closer to the ideal of the Master must not be
regarded as digressive but as part of a spiritual maturing process.
6. Since the new covenant system is not one of legalism
we should avoid making
the new covenant scriptures a written code of justification. This means an
avoidance of judging those in Christ Jesus whose character and behavior is
above censure and who demonstrate their allegiance to Christ Jesus. We should
not judge the eternal worthiness of one upon his ability to see every detail
as we do, lest we set up as laws or tests of fellowship, our own reasoning
or interpretation. For example, it would be sinful for me to speak disparagingly
of one of God's children who does not share my views relative to the use
of multiple cups in distribution of the Lord's Supper. The feast is the Lord's
and I must love all of his brethren who sit down at his table. They are my
brethren too. If Paul could recognize as brethren those in Corinth "who came
together not for the better but for the worse" surely I can revere as brethren
those who do not share all of my views about externals which have no power
to save or to damn. It is enough for me that "he has put his seal upon us
and given his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee."
7. I shall not be so concerned about how much my brethren
know about the
written word at a given time as I am about how much they love God and the
brethren at all times. Surely I want to increase in knowledge and I want
others to do so, but if one could "understand all mysteries and all knowledge"
he would still be nothing without love. The more I learn of God the more
I will know about love because "God is love." The blueprint is not written
in a book. It is inscribed on the heart by the Spirit. If I interpret the
Book to inspire hate or to create and justify division, I have missed the
whole point. I must believe everything God said and I must believe in Him
whom God sent.
Let me once more assert my conviction. I love the revealed
word of God as
contained in the new covenant scriptures. It is a light to my path and a
lamp to my feet. But to pervert it from its divine purpose is to take the
staff intended to support one who walks with his brethren and turn it into
a club to kill the brethren with whom it is intended he should walk. Signposts
are to be followed and not jerked up as weapons to kill other pilgrims. God
has not given us a blueprint for an institution, but a green light to proceed
in the Living Way, and I am ready to go.
If God wills, it is our intention, in the next issue,
to discuss very openly
and frankly, some of the practical implications of what we have said about
"the pattern." Please remember that we will love you as sincerely if you
cannot concur with what we write as if you do! Like Paul in his letter to
Corinth I can truly close with the words, "My love be with you all in the
Lord Jesus."
Contents
Chapter
3