[Editor’s note: A few months ago a member from an area congregation recommended that I read and comment upon a series of seven sermons by Rubel Shelly. It has taken awhile, but following is our review of those messages.]
The first of the seven sermons in Rubel Shelly’s series, “What Makes Us Who We Are,” is titled “A View of Scripture” (presented June 6, 1999). The first page or so contains a delightful affirmation that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The reader rejoices to see the integrity of the Scriptures upheld, but then Shelly throws away everything he has painstakingly established.
That the reader may unquestionably see what he does, we first want to mention the former approach that he took with respect to the Scriptures when he published in 1975 the book, What Shall We Do With the Bible? The bulk of this book is devoted to proving that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Having accomplished his purpose, Shelly then drew some conclusions. Among other things he wrote that “the Bible is our only hope for religious unity” (128). He correctly pointed out that all men need the same standard of authority–namely the Word of God rather than traditions of the past, the teachings of learned men, or their own feelings about things (128). In similar words he affirmed, “The true guide in religion is the Word of God!” (128) and “The Bible is a reliable guide. In fact, it is the only reliable guide and standard of authority for our age and every age” (129). All of these statements presume that: 1) all people can comprehend the Scriptures, and 2) all of us can understand the Bible alike.
No man who has access to a copy of the Bible can plead ignorance of God’s will! The Scriptures leave one without excuse! God has revealed and communicated his divinely-ordained requirements for salvation through the written Word. Woe to the person who refuses to take the time and expend the necessary energy to learn and obey them. To turn one’s back on the Bible is to turn away from the God who authored it (130-31).
So said Shelly in 1975. He spent over 100 pages demonstrating that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and then concluded that we can all understand it and are responsible to it. The 1999 Shelly begins the same way. He establishes the inspiration of the Scriptures, but he draws an exactly opposite conclusion:
At that point, with a certified Scripture in hand, the process called inspiration ends. Contrary to the haughty and patronizing attitude some interpreters exhibit, their efforts at interpreting the Bible are not on a level with the original documents. They are not incontestable, as our historic failure to see the Bible alike demonstrates. We don’t and won’t see the Bible alike on many subjects because of our psychological wirings, diverse life experiences, and personal predispositions. The limitations of our ability as students–coupled with the personal blinders and cultural baggage we bring to the interpretive task–caution us to exhibit great humility with our conclusions.
Surely the reader can see the dramatic shift in viewpoints that Shelly has undergone. Whereas he once knew that we can understand the Bible, now he is defending a multitude of different interpretations!
Not everyone may realize what he is espousing in the paragraph cited, but this writer obtained his Master’s degree under professors who taught decon-structionism. This literary theory is reflected by Shelly. Below the two ideas are contrasted.
In years past students of literature would be taught from this perspective: “What did the author intend to say?” Whether students were studying drama, short stories, novels, or poetry, the text was considered an objective thing. The writer gave clues, and the reader’s task was to figure out what he intended to say. Of course, a writer could be intentionally ambiguous, but (barring that approach) there was a specific point being communicated and a specific point to be grasped.
But that approach to literature is now passe. It does not matter what thought the writer intended to convey; all that matters is what the reader gets out of it. We all have our own psychological wirings, our own diverse life experiences, our own preconceptions, our own cultural baggage that we bring with us to the text. We cannot be expected to understand an author alike; we can all interpret the text differently and be correct–it’s a beautiful thing.
Shelly has now applied deconstructionism to the Biblical text. We cannot be expected to see the Bible alike because of all these factors; therefore, we cannot bind our “interpretations” upon others. In other words, the Biblical text has no objective meaning; its meaning depends on what any individual thinks he sees in it. Apparently, Shelly learned his “new hermeneutics” at Vanderbilt University.
In effect, Shelly is arguing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but nobody can know with any degree of certainty what these inspired Words mean. How different from what the apostle Paul wrote:
How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) (Eph. 3:3-4).
Paul did not ramble on and on about how some of them might not understand what he wrote because of their psychological wirings, diverse life experiences, personal predispositions, personal blinders, and cultural baggage. If Jews and Gentiles could both be in one body (which is the mystery to which Paul refers) and both could understand this message, it is possible for all to do likewise, since there could be no more culturally diverse groups with different cultural baggage.
Shelly is simply defending the existence of denominationalism. The very fact, however, that many have come out of denominations shows that the Truth is still more powerful than preconceived notions we may have been taught previously. Perhaps unwittingly, he is Exhibit A against his own teaching, because he has departed from the truths he was taught (and which he also once taught). People can and do change; no one is locked in to a set of beliefs–except by choice.
Shelly further states: “And we want to encourage mutual respect among people who exercise their right to personal study and draw conclusions different from mine or yours.” Why not instead encourage people to come to a knowledge of the truth (John 8:31-32)? Although on some difficult texts in the Scriptures such a view may be advisable, Shelly applies the statement to what the Bible teaches on salvation and on what constitutes correct worship. Although he teaches immersion (lesson #3), he fellowships as Christians those who have never been immersed. He can do so because we all have our own “personal blinders.” So, those who have never been immersed have simply drawn different conclusions from ours.
In this “sermon” (presented Jun 13, 1999) Shelly tries to convince us that we owe our existence to the American Restoration Movement. He writes:
Churches of Christ…arose from a nineteenth-century phenomenon called the American Restoration Movement. Against a naivete that says our identity derives directly from the New Testament without influence from post-biblical events, the truth of the matter is that we are necessarily conditioned by them.
Mr. Shelly notwithstanding, the churches of Christ arose in the New Testament (Rom. 16:16). Can he prove that there was ever a time that churches of Christ did not exist? Certainly, historical records are skimpy, but Shelly is well aware that many churches of Christ were in existence before the 19th century. Perhaps he can tell us who invented the phrase, American Restoration Movement? The idea of returning to the New Testament as our authority was popularized by Luther several centuries earlier. Some may have never departed from the concept. We are not ignorant of the historical accounts of religious developments (as he accuses), but we also recognize that we do not have complete historical accounts of everything that occurred.
If we are all influenced and “necessarily conditioned” by “post-Biblical events,” then how is it that Shelly rose above his conditioning? And how is it that some of us who were “conditioned” by denominationalism have departed from it? Furthermore, neither we nor Shelly ever studied the Bible with someone and began by saying, “We’d like you to learn the creed of the American Restoration Movement. We want you to learn what Campbell thought and Stone taught.” Shelly knows that the churches of Christ have always asked people, “What does the Bible say?”
Shelly next discusses many mottoes that the “American Restoration Movement” has used. Two of the five this writer had never heard. The first of these is “union in truth.” Union would probably do in this case because the basis for it would be Truth, but “unity in truth” would still be preferable; this latter expression is Biblical, since it echoes 1 Corinthians 1:10. The second unfamiliar motto was “We are free to differ but not to divide.” This sounds like a noble sentiment, and it is somewhat alliterative, but places togetherness above Truth, which the Scriptures do not do.
Of the three mottoes that were familiar, two of them are Biblical. “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” This idea recognizes that the Scriptures teach that we must have authority for what we teach and do; if a certain practice is not authorized, then we should not engage in it (Col. 3:17). The second is: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.” This motto reflects New Testament teaching (1 Cor. 1:10; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 13:4-7).
The final motto is: “We are Christians only, but not the only Christians.” This saying may help reduce the number of attacks made against us and foster good relations with others, but it is not accurate. Only those who obey the Gospel as taught in the New Testament are Christians. Anyone can call himself one; the question is, “Has he done what the Lord Jesus taught?” To say that those who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) are somehow Christians anyway is to say that there is more than one way to become a child of God, which denies the teaching of 1 Corinthians 12:13–and a host of other passages.
Shelly has concluded that it is arrogance for the “Church of Christ” to emphasize its “exclusive position” as the body of Christ. Perhaps he should define his terms better and explain what he means. Does he mean, for example, that the Presbyterian Church (one with whom he has fellowship) is a valid entity, when it was begun by men and not by God? Is he implying through his plea to recognize history that the “Church of Christ” is a denomination? If so, he is refusing to recognize the principle of restoration.
When Hezekiah and Josiah effected reforms and cast idols out of the land, were they starting a new nation–or restoring what God had given in the first place? They returned to the teachings of Moses which had been the only appropriate pattern to follow before apostasy had prevailed. When we return to the Bible and are governed by the principles and teachings of the New Testament, why are we therefore a new denomination instead of the restored church which Jesus built? Shelly’s view of the church has become so perverted he cannot tell the true church from man-made ones.
“Finally, it is not the commitment of my life to be a Restorationist but simply a Christian.” Shelly did not need to tell us that he is not committed to restoration; we had already figured that one out. The problem is that he fails to see that a Christian is a restorationist.
Think about the meaning of that statement. One who is not committed to being a restorationist is not committed to Truth, the authority of Christ, or correct worship (has not Shelly correctly labeled himself, since he ignores all of these?). Can anyone honestly imagine Hezekiah or Josiah saying, “We are not committed to restoration; we’re just committed to being Israelites”? How silly such a position is!
When God gave the law to Israel through Moses, He said: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). If that admonition is not a charge to be a lifelong restorationist, what is? One must continually examine things to be sure they are, in fact, what God has revealed and requires of His people. Similarly, Joshua was told: “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). Any time one realizes there has been a departure from God’s ways, the correct path must immediately be restored.
In the New Testament Paul tells Timothy: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16). We all have a commitment to be restorationists–if we expect to be saved. It simply means that we are concerned about what God has revealed to us. We want to practice pure Christianity rather than some weak or watered-down version of it. Therefore, we have a commitment to Truth. It is not an approximation of Truth which sets us free (John 8:31-32); it is Truth itself.
Likewise, a restorationist has a commitment to doing what God has authorized (Col. 3:17), rather than doing what he or she feels like doing or what is popular. Without this precept we would be likely to add handclapping to singing or substitute choruses and solos for congregational singing or even add instrumental music–all of which Shelly fellowships. He speaks the truth when he says he is not committed to restoration.
The sad thing is that hundreds probably heard Shelly deliver these lessons and thought he made sense. In these first two “sermons” Shelly has demonstrated that he has no respect for Truth. He admits that the Bible sets it forth, but then inconsistently says we cannot all be expected to understand it alike–nor be committed to restoring it, if we depart from it. Of what use is it?