A Necessary Reminder

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 129]

     Last month I began an analysis of the brief letter penned by Jude to the beloved, as he addressed the recipients of it. It is my hope you will read what I wrote in my introductory article. If you do you will find that Jude was sounding a call to action, exhorting the brethren to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. The faith, which is the message about Christ, and actually the message which is Christ, was in danger from clever manipulators who denied "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

     I am interested in the approach Jude made to the problem created by ruthless intruders who converted God's grace into an excuse for vicious immorality while at the same time denying the very foundation of the faith, the historical identity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. He refers to God's judgment in connection with three other historical events--the destruction of the Israelites in the wilderness, the casting down of the angels who sinned, and the visitation of wrath upon Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities. Let me share with you a few of the thoughts which I derive from this.

     1. God is a God of history. He not only makes history, but He works in the context of history. He knows what is going on in the earth and He holds men responsible unto Himself for their conduct and actions. We require a constant reminder of this in our messed-up age of humanism and relativism.

     2. God is a God of wrath as well as a God of love. We need to take account of both the goodness and severity of God. Indeed, God's untinctured love of the pure and righteous must make Him hate evil. The greatest proof of how He regards sin is found in the price He was willing to pay to place his stamp of condemnation upon it in the flesh. The idea that God is an antiquated grandfatherly type saying "Naughty! naughty!" when His children engage in iniquity is a caricature with no basis in fact. God is not senile!

     3. It is valid to refer to the accounts of God's actions in the world as described in the old covenant scriptures, as a warning to profligate characters in our generation. The idea that those scriptures are a compilation of Jewish folklore or a collection of myths is so much poppycock. It is as ridiculous as it is false. The regard of Jesus for the scriptures, and His endorsement of them, should provide the frame of reference in which the disciple of Jesus places those scriptures. I do not get red in the face, swallow hard, or gag, when someone asks me if I accept them. I have no hesitancy in saying that so far as I am concerned "holy men of God spoke as they were motivated by the Holy Spirit." I accept their testimony as true.

     4. The fact that Jude employs three such drastic examples of divine judgment to illustrate how God regards those who deny the faith once delivered is

[Page 130]

proof of what a serious crime it is in divine sight, to reject the testimony related to the divinity of Jesus. The Israelites refused the leadership of God who delivered them from enslavement. The angels revolted against God who had exalted them. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah reveled in their sexual deviation and carnal abuse. Such refusal, revolt and revelry were all characteristic of the individuals with whom Jude was concerned, and he "lowered the boom upon them" as dangerous elements to the cause of God.

     Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

     Sometimes in our day, brethren are reluctant to remind us of those things with which we have been familiar for years. But we need to have our minds refreshed about matters of which we may be fully aware. It is possible for us to become complacent and indifferent and forget the lessons which things are intended to teach. Those who ignore the mistakes of others tend to reproduce them in their own lives. We may laugh at someone who makes an inglorious fall by tripping over a toy in the middle of the living-room rug, and later sprawl all over the place by doing the same thing. Peter declared that he intended always to remind the brethren of things they already knew even though they were firmly fixed in the truth they had received. He felt it was right for him to stir up their memory as long as he lived (2 Peter 1:12, 13). Jude felt the same way. He was not going to try out new and novel recipes.

     I think it would be a good thing if every community of the redeemed would have a periodic mind-stirring course in what the apostle Paul called "the things which were written aforetime." The ignorance of the old covenant scriptures is appalling. A lot of folk have been swept in on waves of emotionalism and subjectivity and much of what the apostles wrote has little impact because modern readers have so little knowledge of the examples they cite. I know people who can reel off the names of the players on their favorite baseball team and even give their current batting averages, but they couldn't name the books of the New Testament if their lives depended on it. Certainly a magnificent chapter like Hebrews 11 will lose much of its power when read to those who know nothing about the characters to which allusion is made. I am glad Jude could say that those to whom he wrote were fully aware of what he was talking about. You need not be ashamed that you have heard it before if it is God's word. No apology is needed for familiarity with the message from heaven.

     The case of Israel is a good illustration of the fact that God may deliver people from a state of slavery and yet destroy them when they become stubborn and rebellious against His will. The mere fact that He brings them out is no indication that He must bring them in if they revolt against Him. It is not enough to hear His voice calling us to leave an intolerable condition but we must continue to be under the divine will until we reach the promised land.

     I've got some pretty good friends who think that a child of God cannot so sin as to be eternally lost. They are hooked on what debaters used to designate "Once in grace, always in grace." In more erudite theological circles it is called "the doctrine of eternal security." I think it ought to be dubbed "the dogma of eternal security," because, if you disagree with them they get all unstrung and think you are about two-thirds pagan. A lot of folk are that way about their deductions. They even love deductions on their income tax forms.

     I don't accept their rationale, of course, but I am really not "bugged" by it too much. I am used to people getting red in the face and white around the gills, and regarding you as "a brother in error," if you don't buy their interpretations. If I had to make a choice I'd rather one would think you could not fall from grace and live up to it, than to think

[Page 131]

you could and be constantly trying to prove it. I know some who both believe and practice it!

     But I think my friends I first mentioned are bothered about what happened to Israel. Here were God's people, saved by the divine hand and able to sing the song of deliverance and triumph, but still they did not make it to the promised land. I know the answers that have been contrived to explain it. I have listened to the verbal quirks, quibbles, turns and twists made in debates. Anyone who has a presupposition to defend has to squeeze out of some tight spots and is liable to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar. In any event, I think that one who wills to accept Christ can will to reject Him, and if he does so he has had it. I don't think God puts a blow-torch to the human will or forces one to leave it on the front porch when he comes into Christ. His children are willing, but not will-less!

     God will not save those who stubbornly resist or those who deliberately rebel. This was an important thing to be remembered by those to whom Jude wrote. To engage in a life of immorality and to deny Jesus is to walk contrary to all we have learned about faith and holiness. The ungodly men who had stealthily crept in were blatant revolutionaries against God. To follow their leading would bring divine retribution. The writer to the Hebrews, referring to the same occasion in the life of Israel, writes, "Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God" (Hebrews 3:12). One who is saved by faith can never quit believing. To fall away from the faith is to fall away from the living God!

     And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day (verse 6).

     The rebellion of Israel in the wilderness was akin to the revolt of the angels in heaven. Jude urges that this be remembered, indicating that the ones to whom he wrote were familiar with the circumstances to which he refers. In our own case we can only take the scriptural statements and fit them together and from them make certain deductions which seem best to explain and tie together the information available unto us.

     There were angels who sinned (2 Peter 2:4). Their sin consisted of resisting God's authority and going beyond His will in assertion of their own. They did not stay within the limits of their proper authority but abandoned their dwelling-place. When someone does not keep his own position, trouble is going to result. Battles have been lost and armies defeated because someone did not keep his position. Professional football teams have been trampled under by the opposition because someone did not keep his assigned position.

     God did not spare the angels who did not keep their own position even though they were celestial beings. He threw them out of heaven and into Tartarus, an abiding place for unclean or evil spirits until the final judgment. Here they are chained or bound in darkness awaiting the great day of final doom.

     Of course, there is more to it than this and the Jews of Jude's day had recorded lengthy traditions which formed the basis of interminable discussion. My own view is that the being who came to be called Satan or the Devil, masterminded a plot which was intended to take over control of the heavenly region. He enlisted in the attempted coup a number of other angels and war resulted. Michael and the angels faithful to God fought against the Devil and his angels and vanquished them. They were cast out and flung down to the nether region of darkness. A description of the celestial conflict will be found in Revelation 12:8, 9.

     It is my personal view that this transpired before the creation of this planet. That the angels existed before the earth was made is evidenced from the fact that Job records they were present for the event and that they sang together and shouted for joy. Moreover, Satan was ready as soon as God placed man under the first restriction, to seduce the primeval pair to

[Page 132]

deny God and to enthrone self. Regardless of the paucity of the evidence available unto us there can be no question that when Jude wrote, the demons were bound in eternal chains awaiting their condemnation on the Great Day.

     But why mention this example? To me the reason seems obvious. The malignant teachers of whom Jude wrote were lifted up in intellectual pride and arrogance. They were wise above what was written. They were defiantly denying the right of God to exercise authority in His own universe, and challenging the faith once delivered in the person of the One made flesh. They were seeking to do on earth what the devil and his angels sought unsuccessfully to do in heaven. Just as Michael and the holy angels were called to do battle to vindicate the right of God to rule, so the holy people are called upon to contend for the faith which asserts the right of Christ to rule.

     The conclusion is inevitable. If celestial beings were not allowed to succeed in their devious plan certainly mere man will not be permitted to do so. Thus, this is another basis for realizing that the judgment of such characters is certain. It was foreordained in the attitude of God toward angels who attacked His sovereignty and refused to longer be subject to His will and purpose.

     Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

     It is at once apparent why Jude referred to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nearby towns. You will recall that there were five cities located in what was then the lush plain of the lower Jordan. Zoar was spared because of Lot's entreaty for a haven in which to find refuge, but Admah and Zeboiim perished in the holocaust of divine vengeance which hollowed out the valley so that it became the site of the Dead Sea.

     The area was a cesspool of vice. Homosexuality was rampant. When Abraham recognized the inadvisability of trying to continue with his nephew Lot with their increasing retinue of servants vying with each other, Lot chose the verdant pasture-land upon which these cities were located. Peter affirms that Lot was a righteous man who was greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked. According to Peter, Lot both saw and heard enough that "he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds." When the stench of their immoral behavior reached the nostrils of God and the agonizing cry of urban crime became unbearable he sent two angels to inform Lot of impending destruction and to urge him to flee for his life.

     The men were invited with characteristic Eastern hospitality to share the home of Lot rather than to sleep in some quiet corner of a deserted street where they were certain of being assaulted and ripped off. When their presence in Sodom was known the men of the city, both old and young, surrounded Lot's house and demanded that the foreigners be turned over to them that they could sexually abuse them, much as perverted felons in prison attack a new prisoner thrust into their cells. When Lot refused to surrender his guests, the infuriated homosexuals threatened to break down the door and attack Lot himself as a foreigner who had come to dwell among them. The angels struck the men with blindness but even this did not thwart or check their attempt to gratify their carnal and unnatural lust. The record says, "They wearied themselves groping for the door."

     There are times when the mass is so corrupting that salt cannot affect it and must be withdrawn for its own preser-

[Page 133]

vation, while the vultures take over. There is nothing to be gained in allowing a candle to burn itself out when the pall of darkness is so great that the light shines only upon the candle. Peter tells about the rescue of Lot when God visited condemnation upon the profligate urban areas, destroying them with fire, and making them an example to the wicked of what will happen unto them. His words are reassuring to those who must live in a world which lieth in wickedness.

     Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah "serve as an example." They certainly did to the Jews. Nothing else that ever happened made a greater impact upon the Jewish mind than the cataclysmic destruction of those cities with fire rained down from heaven. Their fate is repeatedly alluded to by chroniclers and prophets as well as by Jesus himself. The horror of the scene is felt in the description of what Abraham saw. "He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace" (Genesis 19:28).

     It is not unreasonable to suppose that the men about whom Jude wrote also "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust" as is affirmed of the citizenry of the ancient cities. Certainly they perverted the grace of God into licentiousness (verse 4), defiled the flesh (verse 8), boldly caroused together (verse 12), and followed their own ungodly passions (verse 16). This provides an opportunity to lift up my feeble pen against the tendency in our nation, and even by some professed Christians, to water down and weaken the opposition against homosexuality and lesbianism in our day. Nothing can be more calculated to damn us to destruction than the kind of gobbledegook and garbage to which we are treated by some of the media. If the devil wants to flush America down the drain he can more effectively do it with the slime and hogwash to which we are being subjected than by any other means. That some who are disciples of the Master should be canned into keeping quiet, or even into speaking apologetically about the moral morass in which we find ourselves is almost incredible.

     The word of God is plain. It warns us against deception, as if such a warning on such a subject is needed. "Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9, 1.0). Do you think they will? Do you think they might? If you do, you are off base and you have your head screwed on wrong!

     Paul says that women who exchange natural relations for unnatural, and men who give up natural relations with women and are consumed with passion for one another, commit shameless acts. There is a natural use of sex. Perversion of it is branded "dishonorable passion" (Romans 1:26). Such persons as engage in lewd and lascivious acts are given up by God "to a base mind and to improper conduct" (Romans 1:28). The fact that such a homosexual may pretend to be a preacher does not alter God's view of either his mind or his conduct. To call such people "gay" is just about as silly as to talk about a pious devil. There are no gay homosexuals and no happy hookers. "The wicked are like the tossing sea, for it cannot rest, and its waters toss up mire and dirt. There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked" (Isaiah 57:20, 21).

     The word of God decrees, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). The original Hebrew for abomination refers to something to be loathed or despised. Anyone who encourages or condones homosexual acts is encouraging an abomination. The Glide Memorial Church in California, composed of homosexuals and with a homosexual pastor is an abomination. It is a little Sodom dressed up with religious garb and decorated with ritualistic performances to make it respectable. But it is not respectable, it is a warped yardstick by which a crooked world measures itself.

[Page 134]

     A state legislature which enacts a statute providing for and licensing homosexual "marriages" between consenting adults is simply approving and licensing an abomination. Such a homosexual union is not a marriage and no amount of sophisticated reasoning can make it so. That we will fall for such panderer's pap, and open such a Pandora's box of sexual evils, is proof of how far the mighty have fallen, and how far down the road to hell the cocktail set has led our nation. That's the way I feel about it and I just wanted you to know. On the university campus I am constantly hearing wild, pie-eyed philosophers who spout the humanistic, relativistic, non-moral approach to life. I say to you as I say to them, "No matter how thin you slice that, it is still bologna."

     Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

     Peter calls these same men false teachers. He says they even deny the Lord who bought them and declares they presently occupy the same position formerly held by false prophets. In the old covenant scriptures the prophet was associated with "the dreamer of dreams" and the people were warned against such a visionary who would come and say he had a revelation from God in a dream and seek to seduce the people to go after other gods and serve them. The command to Israel was as severe as it was specific. "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God" (Deut. 13:5).

     The saints in all ages have been plagued by flighty fanatics and fallacious fanciers who imagine God has singled them out in the universe to bring some special message to the world. Many of these are harmless rhapsodists who are mentally disoriented, but some are dangerous. These latter delude men by writing "other scriptures" and claiming an inspiration which they do not possess. The first deserve pity and compassion, the latter censure.

     Since God has revealed his will for the kingdom presided over by his Son, and that will was announced by the twelve emissaries who were called, chosen and commissioned for the task, I do not believe he speaks to men today through dreams, visions and trances. So far as I am concerned the apostles were uniquely the divinely-authorized ambassadors to the world. I accept their testimony as being that of the Holy Spirit. I categorically reject as having any spiritual significance the mental meanderings of Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or any other self-proclaimed prophet of our day.

     The dreamers with whom Jude had to do were especially vicious, assertive and arrogant. They manifested this in three ways. First, they defiled the flesh. The Gnostic theory that all matter was inherently evil led to two especially dangerous extremes. Since nothing really mattered but the spirit, nothing that was done physically mattered. Thus, one could engage in any kind of sexual abuse and gratify physical passion without concern for control or moral inhibition. Again, it was argued that grace was manifested to cover all sin, and the more sin the greater would be the grace. Thus grace was converted into an occasion to sin. It seems incredible to us today to even think of this kind of senseless trash being dumped upon communities of the redeemed but that is because we no longer live in the world of idolatry and pagan philosophy with which the called out ones were once surrounded. At that, it was not much different than some of the claptrap which we hear today.

     Secondly, the filthy dreamers who claimed to possess special knowledge unavailable to the common saints, rejected authority. It was because of their boasted superiority that Jude calls our wholeness in Christ "our common salvation." The ungodly persons who perverted the grace of God into licentiousness claimed to be free from all authority, and rode roughshod over all restraints. They claimed to

[Page 135]

have insights reached by special knowledge not even vouchsafed to the apostles through revelation.

     One historian says the Gnostic speculations developed in the second century "into the most monstrous system of philosophy so-called which the human brain has ever conceived." Tertullian saw the danger to the faith which was once for all delivered, when he wrote, "Away with all attempts to produce a motley Christianity, compounded of Stoicism, Platonism and dialectics. Possessing Christ Jesus, we want no curious disputations; we want no philosophical inquiries, after once enjoying the gospel." Anyone who claims to be "wise above that which is written" is a wolf at the door and a viper in one's bosom.

     Thirdly, the infiltrators of whom Jude wrote reviled the glorious ones. The King James Version says, they "speak evil of dignities." The New English Bible renders it "insult celestial beings." The Authentic New Testament says "they speak slightingly of dignities." A footnote in the Revised Standard Version shows that the Greek word translated "the glorious ones" is literally "glories." I am quite convinced that W. E. Vine is correct when he says the word refers to "angelic powers, in respect of their state as commanding recognition." The meaning is that the false teachers actually poked fun at the angels and spoke derogatorily of celestial beings.

     The Gnostic view that the angels were simply emanations from the divine energy, and that they (the Gnostics) were superior, as possessing a degree of knowledge to which the angels could not even aspire, caused them to speak slightingly of them. It is especially appropriate for Jude to refer to this fact in conjunction with what he had just said about Sodom where the men of the city pounded upon the door of Lot's house and demanded that the angels of God be turned over to them to humiliate and carnally abuse. It is bad enough to insult men who are our equals, but it is even worse to insult celestial beings. Peter says of these men that, "Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones."

     To show the consummate folly of mere men reviling higher beings Jude records that even Michael the archangel would not revile the devil, but turned him over to God to administer whatever reprimand his conduct demanded. In presenting this argument Jude does not quote from sacred scripture, but apparently draws upon an account in an apocryphal book The Assumption of Moses. Origen, who was born in Alexandria, Egypt, about 185 A. D., and whose name most of you will recognize, speaks of this book as being extant in his day. He says it contains this very account which Jude cites about the contest between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses.

     The word apocrypha refers to that which was hidden as to source, and therefore adjudged as spurious. It does not necessarily imply that everything about an apocryphal writing is false, but rather that it did not proceed from the proper source. The Apocrypha refers to a collection of books not regarded or recognized as belonging to the sacred canon of scripture because they could not be proven to have been produced under divine inspiration. Sometimes these were called "bastard books" because their father was not known.

     I see no reason for becoming upset that Jude quoted from an apocryphal book and used an illustration from it to make a point. Certainly the esoteric Gnostics would be familiar with such books. There is some evidence that they produced a few of them. The Assumption of Moses relates how God delivered the body of Moses to Michael to inter in a valley in the land of Moab opposite to Beth-peor. The devil made an appearance and demanded that the body be turned over to him, basing his contention upon two grounds.

     First, the body deprived of the spirit was matter, and since matter was evil, and evil was his domain or jurisdiction, the body should be surrendered to him, to do with as he saw fit. Second, he argued that Moses was a murderer, having slain an Egyptian who was quarreling with an

[Page 136]

Israelite, and it was knowledge of this homicide which forced Moses to flee into Midian. It is implied that if Satan could have gained possession of the body of Moses he would have enshrined it and used it as an object of veneration, thereby causing many to regard it with idolatrous intent. However, Michael did not give in, and the sacred scripture says, "No man knows the place of his burial unto this day" (Deuteronomy 34:6). I am glad they do not, or tourists would all be showing you little rocks they had picked up in the vicinity and lugged back home.

     The essential thing for us to remember is that, regardless of the details as to the source for Jude's report, he is making the point that blatant blasphemers can take a lesson from Michael. Even though he was an archangel and the devil was a fallen angel, Michael did not speak evil of him or throw his celestial weight around. Remember that, in the heat of contention and dispute Michael did not lose his angelic cool and engage in a railing accusation. Instead he said, "The Lord rebuke you." If it is wrong for an archangel to speak derogatorily of a fallen angel, it is wrong for a human being, regardless of how proud he may be of his professed wisdom, to speak evil of any angel. I am sure there must be a lesson in this for some of us but I'll let you dig it out for yourself!

     But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

     Our English word revile is from a term which literally means to despise. It is easily seen that it is from re and vile, and it has come to mean "to assail with abusive and contemptuous language." We have a word in our language which is spelled vilify. It is from the Latin and means "to make cheap." This is what we do when we defame, malign or slander. We should be willing and eager to give proper value to every person, thought or thing. To cheapen high ideals in the marketplace of thought is to eventually undermine the value of moral and ethical conduct.

     It is bad enough to degrade what we understand but there are some who drift into the habit of adverse criticism and negativity until their whole life is colored and tinged by such an approach and they slander things they do not understand. It was this accusation which Jude makes against the characters about whom he warns. It is especially interesting because the Gnostics were boasted "know-it-alls" who claimed to be on the inside as to the mystical and mysterious. Frequently such persons deride what they do not understand rather than to admit their ignorance.

     There are some things which we do not need to arrive at by reasoning or research. Such things we know instinctively, and in this respect we are like animals. These matters properly belong to the soul and not to the spirit. The soul, as here used, refers to the vitalizing or animating principle in the flesh, that which causes our lungs to expand and contract and the heart to palpitate. An animal has a soul but not a spirit, and rationality is a spiritual attribute.

     The body (somo) makes one an animal, the soul (psyche) makes one a living animal, the spirit (pneuma) makes him a living human animal. Among the instincts which we share with irrational animals is that of the perpetuity of the species. This makes man a breeding animal. He possesses a sex drive in common with other living creatures. But because man can reason about what he knows instinctively he can fall lower than the other animals, and indulge in such carnality as no beast could or would imitate.

     The sexual instinct is given to be creative and not destructive. We use the word "potency" which means power, to describe ability to engage in sexual congress and we label as impotent one who cannot exercise such ability. Power can be used constructively or destructively depending upon how it is employed. It is a commentary upon the so-called philosophers that they were ignorant of many

[Page 137]

things, and in those things they knew by instinct they destroyed themselves and those who came under their baneful influence.

     Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion.

     Apparently those to whom Jude wrote were familiar with the old covenant scriptures. There is no intimation that the events herein recorded were couched in myth and legend as some of our more modern "Gnostics" would like for us to think. Cain, Balaam and Korah were treated as real historic figures, a view about which I entertain no doubt. There is no ground for doubt since I know plenty of Cains, Balaams and Korahs myself. The originals merely attest to the fact that human nature has not changed.

     Comparing the false teachers to these three does not say much about their nature. Cain represents the practice of sin through jealousy. Balaam represents the teaching of sin through covetousness. Korah represents the encouragement of sin through rebellion. The enemies of the faith once delivered were jealous, covetous and rebellious. They were graspy, greedy and godless. Cain was shaken by fear, Balaam was slain in conflict and Korah was swallowed by the earth. The way of the transgressor is hard. Jude says, "Woe to them!"

     It is now time to reaffirm one of my purposes in engaging in this little analysis of Jude. In my initial article last month I pointed out that a great many of my brethren are seriously mistaken in their identification of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Betrayed by the party spirit into almost rabid defence of the peculiarity which gave their faction birth, they confuse peculiarity with the faith and conclude they are contending for the faith when they are merely debating a singular deduction, opinion or interpretation.

     Such people brand as "false teachers" every person who disagrees with their particularity. They cannot be wrong and are therefore never false. Actually, each faction among us assumes that it has an infallible interpretation and that it is endowed with wisdom possessed by no one outside of its pale. This species of self-righteousness is the most dangerous enemy to the spirit of humility and understanding which ought to prevail among all of the saints.

     Frequently it happens that the most dedicated and serious followers of Jesus are stigmatized as heretics and liberals, and brethren become their avowed enemies on borrowed testimony who have never read a word they have written. Their only crime is that of thinking. Their gravest "sin" is a refusal to be intimidated by editorial "hatchet men" who use every United States mail carrier as an innocent purveyor of poison pen literature. All of this stems from a false philosophy coupled with ignorance of what is involved in the faith for which we must contend. Let me suggest a few things for the consideration of honest minds and hearts.

     1. No man denies the faith who believes with all his heart that Jesus of Nazareth has been raised up and made both Lord and Christ. Any person who has reformed his life and conduct and been immersed in the name of Jesus Christ upon the basis of his acceptance of that transcendent proposition is in the one faith. He is God's child and he is my brother.

     2. No one denies the faith once for all delivered by taking a position either pro or con upon the partisan issues which have been elevated to such prominence among us. Whether one regards instrumental music as justifiable or unjustifiable, whether he is premillennial or postmillennial, or whether he concurs or disagrees with the present method of supporting Herald of Truth, has nothing to do with his relationship to the faith.

     3. No man is contending for the faith once for all delivered when he engages in debate on any of the aforementioned issues, or on any of the other factional matters which have fragmented, splintered and shivered us. One may earnestly

[Page 138]

contend for the faith and never mention these opinions, deductions, or human interpretations, and a preoccupation with such matters may hinder his diligent contention for the faith.

     4. No one is a false teacher in the context of the new covenant scriptures simply because he may have formed a wrong opinion or given a wrong interpretation to some passage. He is a "mistaken brother" if the deduction he has reached is contrary to the tenor of God's revelation, and in some respects all of us are in this category since we are limited by human fallibility. But no man is a false teacher merely because he expresses a view on instrumental music, charismatic gifts, the millenium, Sunday-school classes, or any other controversial matter in our feeble little circle of thought, even though such expression may be contrary to the dogma of the party "somewhats."

     More harm is done to the cause by labelling such saints "false teachers" than by any expression of their views, whether such views be correct or incorrect. Many brethren in the primitive congregations were seriously mistaken about a lot of things, yet the term "false teachers" is only used once by an inspired apostle. Peter said there would be false teachers among the congregations of the saints as there had been false prophets among the ancients. The word for false is pseudo, and the word pseudos refers to "a conscious and intentional falsehood." A pseudo-prophetes is "one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehood under the name of divine prophecies." A pseudo-christos is "one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the divine Messiah" (Matt. 24:24).

     One cannot escape the fact that the word false as used in the sacred scriptures has to do with deliberate lying. It represents a conscious attempt to deceive by invention or fabrication. The only time the word "false teachers" is used, a description of their character is given. They were men who secretly brought in destructive heresies. They actually denied Jesus, the Master who bought them. They enticed many by their licentiousness. They caused the way of truth to be reviled. Because of insatiable greed they exploited the believers with false "words.

     To apply the term false teachers to humble brethren who disagree with some of our views and deductions is as sinful as it is absurd and ridiculous. It makes of us slanderers and false accusers. It causes us to speak evil of one another when we are specifically told that we must put away all "evil speakings." The anomaly of the whole thing is that if being mistaken about the implication of a spiritual term makes one a false teacher, a lot of brethren are false teachers about "false teachers." "They desire to be teachers of the law without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions" (1 Timothy 1:7).

     We have been betrayed by the party spirit, a work of the flesh, into the mistaken view that we are the authorized interpreters of the sacred scriptures because we are "the faithful brethren." But there are now more than two dozen "loyal" Churches of Christ, with no two of them recognizing each other. In our mixed-up mess and messed-up mix, the faithful brethren in one group are the unfaithful ones to every other group. Every person among us is a "false teacher" to someone, and every one is a heretic to someone else.

     Much of this stems from the fact that we confuse the faith with the letters addressed to those who are in it. The faith is the proclamation of the divine relationship available unto us through the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the action of God in human history by which reconciliation was made possible for those who were alienated through sin. The faith is not a written code. It is not a compilation of moral and ethical precepts. It is not even the completed canon of new covenant treatises and letters. These are all tremendously important and we could not live without them, but they are not the faith which came and delivered us from the child-conductor of law.

     Certainly it is important that we search, probe and investigate the sacred writings.

[Page 139]

We must embrace every truth contained in them as we become aware of it. No truth in the universe is unimportant. No truth that God has revealed can be unimportant. But all truths are not equally important. The body of truth, like the human body, is composed of many members, some of which are essential to being, and others of which contribute to well-being. The faith once delivered has to do with our relationship to Him who is the truth, as well as the way and the life. One can be in Him who is the Truth without comprehending every truth, else no human being could be in Him.

     Until we come to a clear conception of this we will continue to divide and form a new sect to guard, protect, promulgate and defend every deduction which we make and which we regard as a truth to be bound on earth as we imagine it to be bound in heaven. It is always better to be right than wrong. It is never right to be wrong and never wrong to be right. But our life does not depend upon being right but upon being in Him who is the right one.

     It is time that we daringly and boldly reassess both our stance and our slant. Surely we have more to contribute to the world visited by the Prince of peace than schism and division. If we are going to change for the better and sow the seeds of peace we should start now. Someone has said, "You cannot repent too soon, because you do not know how soon may be too late."

     William Barclay wrote, "A church can be torn in two about the color of a carpet, or a pulpit hanging, or about the shape or metal of the cups which are to be used in the Sacrament. The last thing that men and women seem to learn in matters of religion is a relative sense of values; and the tragedy is that it is so often dispute and magnification of matters of no importance which wreck the peace."

     It was Gilbert Chesterton who said, "Truths turn into dogmas the moment they are debated."