The Blinding Beam
By John Kernan
[Page 12] |
"Brother, if you take the beam out of my eye, and I take the beam out of your eye, then we can see each other clearly; and not only see each other clearly, but we can both clearly see the foundation stone of scriptural principle on which we both stand."
"What beam? I don't know of a beam in my eye.
"Brother, the beam that we have is inconsistency."
"Inconsistency? I don't have it. I don't recognize it!
"That's the tragedy of our brotherhood, isn't it? We all go around half blinded by this beam but we don't know it."
[Page 13] |
In this particular instance we recognize that today there are a number of other methods of transportation which for us are practical and convenient. So when we go to worship, preach or do personal work, or to a mission field, we use whichever method is for us the most practical.
Wonder of wonders, in this matter of the method of "going" we do not have any fights, as far as I know, in the restoration movement. I have not heard of any person being disfellowshipped because he went by automobile rather than on foot. We do not fight over the method of transportation because we all recognize that we stand together on the scriptural foundation stone of "going" and that the particular method of "going" is not a matter of scripture but of practicality. An airplane is just as scriptural as a donkey, because they are both practical fulfillments of the scriptural command to go. In this matter of going we are all consistent.
Let's look at another example. I am invited to teach the lesson at the Centerville Church of Christ. I stand in front of the group with a Sunday school quarterly. Immediately there are cries of protest, or, perhaps the elders are tactful and wait until I have finished, then quietly talk to me about the matter. I apologize for creating confusion. I should have determined the nature of the congregation before I taught. I want to learn more about their viewpoint, so I listen while the elders explain their position. When they are finished I ask, "So you do without Sunday school literature because the scripture does not mention it?"
"That's right," they agree. "We do only what the scripture commands. We leave out everything the scripture leaves out."
"Everything?" I ask.
"That's right, everything."
"In the New Testament, where did the church meet for teaching?"
We study together and we learn that Christ taught in the synagogue, on a lake, on a hillside, on the road-- in many different places. We learn that the apostles and the early church taught in the synagogues, on a river bank, in an upper room, "publicly and from house to house." But in the New Testament we find no mention of a building especially built or rented by the church for teaching. The "church building" as we know it today is a matter of "Bible silence."
I ask my brethren, "You leave out Sunday school literature because the New Testament is silent on this subject?"
"Yes, that is our position exactly."
"But you teach in a church building. The Bible is also silent on this subject."
"Well, yes, but that's different," the elders say. They then go on to explain how they can leave out Sunday school literature on the basis of Biblical silence and at the same time put in a church building on the basis of the same silence.
Frankly, brethren, there is no logical explanation on a prooftext basis. One cannot choose Bible silences to suit himself and then stand on any kind of logically defensible position. He is immediately blinded by this beam of inconsistency.
But there is a way out for our anti- literature brethren. They build a church house because it is, for them, convenient and practical; it helps them fulfill the command to teach. Let them put their non-use of literature on the same basis and there need be no quarrel. The use of the church building and the non-use of literature are, for them, practical methods of fulfilling the scriptural principle of "teaching." By putting both activities on the same basis, they stand on a position that is both logically defensible and scriptural.
[Page 14] |
In the United States there seems to be some difficulty in places over the number of cups used in the Lord's Supper. In South Africa we have no such difficulty, although some congregations use one cup and some use many; some use water glasses, some use teacups, some use jam jars, and some use "individual communion cups." We have no arguments because we all recognize that all of us stand together on the scriptural principle of the Lord's Supper. The number and type of containers is dictated by the exigencies of the local situation.
Brethren, here is the answer to our vexing "unity" question. We can have unity without any compromise, without any loss of scripturality, without having to give up any cherished practice, when we apply to all practices the same basis that we now apply to some.
Then my non-instrument brethren and I can cast the beams of inconsistency out of our eyes and see each other clearly. We can see that we stand firmly together on the scriptural foundation stone of singing and that each of us is using a practical method of fulfilling the command. I can worship with him because he will not feel constrained to seek a prooftext basis for condemning my use of the instrument, and he can worship with me because I will not demand that his non-use be based on a "Thus saith the Lord" or "Thus not saith the Lord."
So with practically every one of our problems. Place cups, classes, colleges, societies, all the myriad things that divide us, on this consistent, defensible basis of a practical application of a scriptural principle, and these differences will be healed. Since we all practice the same principle in some matters in the United States and in some matters in foreign countries, why can't we all practice it in all matters everywhere?
John Kernan resides at 11 Jasmay Place, Nahoon Valley, East London, C. P., South Africa, and will be glad to hear from any of you.