[This article continues to look at the teachings of Mark Henderson which he presented at Abilene “Christian” University’s annual lectureship on February 19th of this year. There are some eye-opening things to deal with yet from the first of his four points, but this article will evaluate his second one.]
2. “We must learn to allow for some diversity in belief and practice among congregations and individual believers.” While this bit of wisdom is certainly in accord with the humanistic philosophy of the day, how does it compare with the following Scriptures?
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4:17).
Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27).
A few years ago one could visit a congregation of God’s people almost anywhere, and the only difference one could find was whether the Lord’s Supper preceded or followed the sermon. What happened?
Now when members visit other churches while on vacation, they do not know what they are likely to find–due to diversity of beliefs and practices.
“Those issues which are central to the faith are presented clearly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures.” Most would probably agree with this statement, but what does the speaker mean by it? What does he consider ambiguous? Would he argue, for example, that we cannot take a firm stance against instrumental music because to do so involves logic and the use of implication?
These are valid, God-given tools of interpretation. The Sadducees failed to see the importance of the statement, “I am the God of Abraham. . .” (Matt. 22:23-33). The issue of the resurrection had been debated for centuries. Apparently, even the proponents of the doctrine had not drawn the correct inferences from Exodus 3:6, or the dispute could have ended much sooner.
If we understand that we need authority, the authority of Christ, for all that we teach and all that we practice (Col. 3:17), then we will not desire to introduce anything into our teachings or our worship that lacks authority. That kind of attitude will maintain unity. Division results from people saying, “Well, maybe there’s no Biblical authority for this practice, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, I like it.” Some may claim certain things are ambiguous so they may do them in the absence of authority.
“The Sounds of Silence”
Henderson continues: “We have divided over our opinions about what the Bible says concerning other matters and our opinions concerning the silence of the Scriptures.” In some instances, this statement would apply. Some have misunderstood and misapplied the silence of the Scriptures, which illustrates that we must be very careful. But the flawed logic which was used by those brethren has been exposed in public discussion. Such did not always end the division, but at least it afforded the opportunity for all honest hearts to hear the truth.
Those on the “right” have generally proven to be more “noble” than those on the left because they are willing to put their views to the test. They believe strongly in them and are willing to defend them. But liberals (those on the “left”) remain silent when it comes to defending their beliefs. They either tersely decline or resort to ridicule (“I refuse to puke with buzzards”).
When a person refuses to stand up for his beliefs, one has to wonder why. Are liberals not confident enough to put their beliefs to the test? They sound arrogant enough most of the time. [Of course, there is a difference between arrogance and confidence.] Perhaps they don’t hold their views that strongly (in which case they should quit propagating them). Or maybe they just know they are false teachers and don’t want to be exposed.
Can anyone imagine Paul refusing to defend his beliefs? Engaging in controversy was the norm for him because to him truth was paramount. Can anyone picture Jesus our Lord refusing to answer those who questioned Him? On many occasions the multitude marveled at His answers. Today’s liberals would amaze most brethren if they would even appear on the polemic platform. Their cowardice bears witness to the fact that they have not the spirit of Christ.
“Excuses for Diversity”
Henderson now begins to explain why we should fellowship divergent views. These will be categorized below and stated in his own words.
1. “As long as we who are sinful, uninspired readers attempt to interpret words inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, we will inevitably arrive at differing conclusions.” This statement denies the power of God, who created us and who inspired the Word. Fallible human beings can understand an infallible book, or God wasted His time. God knows man’s shortcomings and weaknesses, but He also knows our capabilities, and He charged us to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.”
2. After making the “human frailty” argument, Henderson next tries the “we’re all in error on something” gambit.
I believe we will more readily allow for diversity of practice and opinion if each of us will simply acknowledge that our doctrinal positions and opinions are necessarily and inevitably a mixture of truth and error. The only alternative I know to that admission is to claim that we have perfectly understood and perfectly obeyed every teaching in this great book, and I know of no one among us who would be willing to make such an arrogant claim.
In all candor we must admit that we are astonished at this doctrine–not because it holds any validity, but for its confusion and obfuscation. Read the first sentence of the above quotation again. Notice that he equates opinion with doctrinal positions. Which is it that we are discussing: opinion or doctrine? The two cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered equivalents. In matters of faith (doctrine) there must be unity; in matters of opinion there should be liberty. They are not, nor ever have been, the same, but Henderson uses them interchangeably.
Equally egregious is his outlandish statement that our doctrinal positions are a mixture of truth and error!! What does such a fantastic suggestion do to the inspired word of God? Several Scriptures will need to be rewritten.
“And you shall know the truth (though because you are human and fallible it will be mixed with error), and the truth (albeit mixed with error) shall make you free” (John 8:32).
If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God (except he can’t because he is a human being and will therefore mix the oracles of God with error) (1 Peter 4:11).
Why was Paul so harsh in his statements to “mark” false teachers (Rom. 16:17) if we all teach a mixture of truth and error anyway?
In the second part of the above quotation he says we would be arrogant to claim to have understood perfectly every teaching and to have obeyed perfectly every teaching. Of course we would! Even the apostles could not do that; Peter was to be blamed in Antioch (Gal. 2:11). But notice that we have now jumped from opinion to doctrine to obedience, as if no difference existed in these concepts.
As human beings, we will always fall short of practicing what we preach; does that make the teaching any less true? And does not understanding every intricate teaching in the Bible prevent us from teaching its fundamental principles? Henderson is arguing that imperfection implies fellowship of everything.
“An Invitation to Humor”
On the way to his next excuse for diversity, Henderson makes an irresistible offer for critics to have a little fun at his expense. “I have no doubt whatsoever that I currently embrace some wrong opinions and conclusions concerning what the Bible teaches.” AMEN! In fact, he provides an example shortly. “I do the best I can. I approach the Word with all the integrity I can muster, but my understanding is limited by my own ignorance. . .” Well, what else can be expected from someone who spent three years in Abilene’s graduate program? With professors like Carroll Osburn, it’s a wonder he hasn’t become part of a man-made denomination.
3. “. . .and sinfulness. . .” The admission is appreciated, but such does not necessarily impair one’s ability to understand the Bible. It could, as in the case of dishonest homosexuals who pervert the Scriptures to try to justify their sins. But even atheists and the most immoral people alike can understand what the Bible teaches. They may not want to accept it or to repent of their sins, but they can comprehend it. Notice that the accusers of the immoral woman were sinful, but they understood what Jesus said (John 8:2-11).
4. “. . .and a lifetime of immersion in a western culture which in so many ways is foreign to the Bible.” Granted that the more information we gain from our study of the Scriptures, including cultural insights, the more we profit. But God knew these things when He gave us the His word in the Greek language. [He also knew that many peoples would need to rely on translations into their own languages.] God knew that we would still understand the major doctrines of the Bible–even if we did not catch all of the nuances.
“My thinking is not always clear. . .” (AMEN again); “. . .my motives are not always pure.” Henderson may be the first liberal who has questioned his own credibility; we shall not challenge him concerning it.
5. “Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 that on this side of heaven our knowledge is always going to be partial; so I don’t suspect that I’ll ever have it all figured out.” WHOA!! This is the example of a wrong conclusion of what the Bible teaches. What Paul actually said is quoted below.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they shall cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away. . . Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then shall I know just as I also am known (1 Cor. 13:8-10, 12).
“1 Corinthians 13”
The purpose of 1 Corinthians 13 is to demonstrate to the church that there is something better than spiritual gifts. In terms of quality love far transcends the spiritual gifts. In fact, one could possess the ability to speak in unknown tongues, to prophesy, to know spiritual truths without studying, or to miraculously move mountains (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Yet without love none of those things matters.
Furthermore, those things are not only inferior in quality; they are inferior in duration. All those spiritual gifts shall fail, cease, vanish away. When? At the end of time? If such is Henderson’s position, which his statement indicates, then he could not deny that spiritual gifts are in use at this very moment! The text, however, indicates that the temporary gifts will cease while faith, hope, and love abide (1 Cor. 13:13). They abide now. In eternity faith and hope will be unnecessary (Rom. 8:24).
Paul’s overall point is that the gifts are temporary; he therefore contrasts the temporary with that which is permanent. Prophecies, tongues, and knowledge all pertain to the revelation of God’s will, which was incomplete at the time Paul wrote. When it became complete, the means of revelation (prophecies, tongues, knowledge–the gifts, in other words), would be done away.
Henderson makes a dangerous statement when he says that our knowledge is always going to be partial this side of heaven. First of all, he has ignored the context of 1 Corinthians 13. But even worse is that he has denied what the other Scriptures plainly teach.
. . .as His divine power has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness. . . (2 Peter 1:3).
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
If God’s revelation to mankind is not complete, then inspiration must have continued to this present hour. Either God has given all of His revelation to us, or He has not. If He has, then we can know and understand it. If not, we are at the mercy of everyone who claims to have seen a vision.
Paul (in 1 Cor. 13) was not saying that the best we could do this side of heaven was to have partial knowledge; partial knowledge was the best Christians could do until the revelation was complete. It is wrong to imply that if we fail to understand every Bible nuance, we will be lost. No one believes that. Even the first century Christians understood salvation and worship, which is more than can be said for liberals.