The Alternatives
By F. L. Lemley
[Page 104] |
I was listening to several of our experts recently in Abilene, Texas, as they discussed opposite poles of several issues among us. Some things became exceedingly clear and certain alternatives were underscored. It became obvious that all scripture must be interpreted. Everything is not spelled out in such unmistakable
[Page 105] |
Since all scripture must be interpreted, there must be an interpreter, and since it is a well-known principle of the Reformation that it is the duty of every man to read and interpret for himself, we should long ago have made room for differing interpretations. It seems we must have overlooked this very important concession. With such a principle in operation it is inevitable that differences of interpretation will arise.
Some of our alternatives are: (1) Allow for differences in interpretation; (2) Elect an official infallible interpreter and submit to him; (3) Continue the mess we are in; (4) Seek a new approach. Of course, Number One might be a new approach.
In order to discover a new approach which may ease our tensions we must recognize that if it is the right of each to read and interpret for himself, all the rest of us must permit him to do it! This will blow our modern "pattern concept" into eternity and demand some modifications. As one stands by and hears our experts on all of the controversial issues declare that the New Testament pattern is a must, and that it is clear and understandable, he is made to wonder. If the pattern is all that clear, why the discussion?
It would appear that if the pattern is clear surely the Ph.D.'s ought to be able to agree on it, but the rub is that they cannot agree on what constitutes the pattern. The brethren opposed to the Sunday School, for example, hold that the how is as much a part of the pattern as the what. Those on the other side believe the how submitted by the opposition is not a part of the pattern. The brethren who are against certain forms of congregational cooperation argue that they have found a New Testament pattern for their views, but those on the other side say the pattern they submit is not the pattern at all. It is very clear that if the brethren could agree on the pattern, there would be no argument. All declare the necessity of a pattern, and declare that it is clear, unalterable and binding upon us all. Oh Lord, if we only had a divine "pattern-cutter."
All of us must learn that our interpretations are all human, even when they are true, and that they cannot and must not have the same place of importance as the Word from which they were deduced. Too many are anxious to cut the patterns for the whole brotherhood and make their interpretations the equivalent of God's holy Word! Such cannot be allowed! Any time that human reasoning enters between the Word and the conclusion, the conclusion cannot be accepted with the same authority and reverence as the Word from which it was derived. Reverence for the Word is one thing, but reverence for interpretations puts the emphasis upon the human element.
Another fact became quite clear while listening to the experts, and that is that some doctrines are of more importance than others and some mistakes are more dangerous than others. Now the question arises, "Who is to decide which truths or doctrines are indispensable, and which mistakes are fatal? One of our most common fallacies is that all mistakes are fatal. By way of suggestion, may I offer the following guidelines to determine if a mistake is fatal?
(1) If such a mistake contradicts the nature of God as, for example, the Gnostic heresy of the first century, or Mormonism of modern times.
(2) If such a mistake destroys faith in or discredits the work of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. For example, Hymaneaus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), or modernism in our day which denies the supernatural. Other examples will be found in 2 John 9-11 as an ancient case and Christian Science as a modern one.
(3) If such a mistake leads into immorality. Examples are 1 Corinthians 5 in New Testament times and "Situation Ethics" today. Few, if any of our brotherhood issues can be properly classified under any of these headings. The alternative to studying through on this
[Page 106] |
In trying to form some broad guidelines for making such decisions as are required by these suggestions, it has been pointed out that there is a great difference between the seed which produced us and the bread which sustains us. This sounds very simple but a lot of wise brethren cannot comprehend it. They engage in all kinds of intellectual contortions to discredit this idea, like trying to classify whole books in one category or the other, or reasoning that if this were true it would be unlawful to preach the gospel to one who is a Christian. Some try to reason that all the word of God is seed on the one hand and all bread on the other. Nonsense! Why all of this density over a fact so simple and so obvious.
It is a fact of both the natural and spiritual realms that seed produces new life, and is sustained by other foods after it is produced. All of an oak tree is living and even children know that to get a new oak tree one does not plant the living leaves, but an acorn. Would to God our spiritual giants (?) would quit trying to produce spiritual children by planting human interpretations of the Word. It is the Word which produces children (Luke 8:11) and not human interpretations of the Word about classes, cooperation, music, fellowship, and a hundred other things, including the Holy Spirit. The gospel (seed) produces children; the doctrine (bread) sustains them after they are produced. While all gospel may be correctly classified as doctrine, all doctrine cannot be correctly classified as gospel.
Our "pattern concept" must be modified! The problem is that our legalism has reduced every item of work, worship and doctrine to a command, which if altered, will condemn us. We reduce our human interpretations to unalterable commands and allow no grace whatsoever. It is even a sin now to pray with the lights out! How ridiculous will we become before being shaken into our senses?
If 650 preachers can come together, representing extreme positions on many troublesome questions, and have fellowship together in meals, worship, study and singing "When We All Get to Heaven" there is no reason why we cannot work out some arrangement to accommodate all extremes on the issues in one congregation. It is extremely ill-becoming of one who has participated in such fellowship to openly declare that he will not be in fellowship with certain of his brothers.
God does not care one whit about our issues. He has children on all sides of the issues, begotten by the same seed and born of the same Spirit. It is to be regretted that they have differing appetites for various foods, but that is our problem, and not God's! There are new approaches worthy of consideration, but it is difficult to get anywhere with them when one is ostracized for presenting a new slant. Let us get out of God's judgment seat and vacate the throne! Let us quit setting at nought our brethren and concentrate on fighting the Devil. Amen?