The April issue of Contending for the Faith published my recent review of the February lectureship book, Profiles in Apostasy #1. I had previously printed it in Spiritual Perspectives on March 21, 2010; it is also on our Website, www.spiritualperspectives.org.
This lectureship and book have elicited something quite unusual—responses. Most of the time, liberals just ignore everything that faithful writers say. In fact, silence is common; Max Lucado has used it for years. But for some reason, putting together a collection of reviews of their various nefarious works has really gotten under the skin of a few. One of those who has taken sharp exception to the book reviews is Al Maxey, who because of his exceeding passion shall herein be referred to as Maximum Al. This is not necessarily a derogatory phrase. Although he is in error, one must admire the fact that he is moved to write about what he believes when most others will not defend their doctrines. A few comments will suffice regarding his reply.
He begins his review of the April issue of Contending for the Faith thus:
I suppose I will never cease to be amazed by the antics of the hardened legalistic patternists who profess to be devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, but who in reality are little more than rabid, rigid religionists. Their numbers are shrinking daily (thankfully), and at some point in the not too distant future they will be little more than a footnote in the history of our movement.
As the saying goes, “You have never been loved until you have been loved by a liberal.” Generally, when they are not preaching on love, they are trying to convince their audiences not to be judgmental (usually against those preaching heresy). It never occurs to them that, when they say such passionate things against those conscientiously trying to follow Jesus, they are themselves judgmental. Maximum Al, however, is not even wound up yet. Although he is capable of penning a good alliteration (rabid, rigid religionists), such epithets cannot take the place of evidence. I’m surprised he did not say, “legalistic logicians,” but he does find fault with those who believe there is a Divine pattern given to us in the New Testament. Was God a “legalistic patternist” when He instructed Moses: “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5)?
He may actually be right about the shrinking numbers. However, it might be good to ask the question, “Did the number of the faithful to God shrink before the time of the Flood?” or “Did the number of the faithful shrink before the time of the captivity?” When an unscriptural organization began to permeate the churches in the fourth through sixth centuries, was there a Maximum Alphonsum who wrote about legalistic patternists who could not accept men to rule over numerous congregations? Did he express thanks that their numbers were shrinking daily and would soon be nothing more than a footnote? It happened just that way. Numbers do not prove correctness of doctrine or clarity of thinking. Most people think that salvation is by “faith only.”
Perhaps Maximum Al has a movement, but genuine Christians are simply trying to live by the teachings of the New Testament (Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2; et al.), which has been the case since the first century.
Perhaps we should have added the descriptive word relentless in front of maximum, also. Al continues his verbal tongue-lashing of us for several more sentences, closing with: “and the Lord will deal with whatever is left of them when He returns” (the dwindled down number). Since I know and talk regularly with many of the men who gave reviews for the lectureship, I can say confidently that they are ready for the Lord’s return at any time. We have nothing to fear.
He claims that “these people” hate those who are grace-centered, Christ-centered, and proclaim liberty in Christ. He also calls us Diotrepheses (3 John 10), who want to impose our will on others and silence them. I must apologize for not taking some of these charges seriously, but they are so over the top as to be laughable. Diotrephes was so arrogant as to refuse to accept the apostle John. The liberals, not us, have that problem—particularly when that same apostle wrote about those who refused to abide in the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9-11. Liberals fall all over themselves in an effort to make the passage say something—anything—than what it actually teaches.
The fact is that liberals have bombarded the brotherhood with books that are filled with error, yet we are trying to silence them? Well, we’re not doing a very good job if that is our goal. Rush Limbaugh has received this same type of criticism for decades for his exposure of politically liberal ideas. As he puts it (and this is paraphrased): “I get up in the morning and see what institutions and beliefs I hold dear are under attack, and I offer a defense.” We do the same thing. The liberals have assaulted the Biblical teaching on marriage and divorce, the doctrine of eternal punishment, the distinctive nature of the church, and we defend the truth with respect to those crucial matters.
Limbaugh does not make things up. He plays sound clips of what political liberals say; then he responds to it. The writers of Profiles in Apostasy #1 do the same thing. They quote from the liberal’s own material and show, through the Scriptures, where the error is. Furthermore, we do not want liberals to be silenced; we want them to debate so that others can hear firsthand what they teach.
In his review of the April issue of Contending for the Faith, Al decides to call it Contentious for the Faith, which is not original; most of us have heard that phrase for three decades. Al, can’t you be a little original? How about calling it Cantankerous for the Faith, or Crabby for the Faith?
The Review
Now that Maximum Al is warmed up, he devotes attention to my review of the book, which he calls a “shameless plug.” Well, what did he think “Recommended Reading” would be—a plea to ignore the book because it is so crummy? Shameless is inappropriate, however, because the review highlighted some of the best material presented therein.
Mr. Summers begins the article by declaring (and I assume he does so with a straight face), “Profiles in Apostasy #1 is one of the best reference works of this century.”
Yes, the comment was straightforward—and accurate. Nowhere, to my knowledge, have such evaluations been gathered together into one handy volume, with abundant quotes from the authors under review.
Maximum Al takes issue with what I wrote concerning his book, Down, But Not Out: “For years, various name brand liberals have been writing books to influence brethren away from the Scriptures.” Al claims that his book “sought to do just the opposite….” Well, of course he would say that. Wolves usually claim to be sheep, but the claim does not make them sheep. Max. Al writes:
The book is filled with references to both OT and NT passages pertaining to the topic of marriage and divorce (in fact, I have dealt with every passage within the Bible pertaining to this subject, something, to my knowledge, no other book on this topic has ever done).
Okay, so Maximum Al deserves credit for being the most thorough heretic on this subject. Of course, he claims that he is leading people away from the “traditional misunderstanding and misapplication” of brethren back to what the Scriptures actually teach. In truth, however, brethren were once united on what the Scriptures taught—until James D. Bales, James Woodroof, Olan Hicks, and others began leading people away. Al is simply one of several to follow in their footsteps (although he may be more thorough). Covering every passage does no good if your presuppositions are faulty to begin with. He continues:
Olan Hicks, a very dear friend, who wrote the Foreword to my book and with whom I was blessed to spend some time at the recent Tulsa Workshop, stated within his comments, “This is no slanted, narrow-scope treatment. This book puts the matter in the context of the entire Bible and of history! Each Old Testament book is summarized separately and a perspective is drawn from each by sound exegesis. The New Testament text is also treated with a thoroughness that is rare and an objectivity that is refreshing. … It is very much textual and contextual” [Down, But Not Out, p. 5].
Max. Al says much more than he may have intended here. First of all, faithful brethren do not attend the Tulsa Workshop; it has been a haven for liberals for decades. Second, for Maxey to seek Olan Hicks’ endorsement is somewhat like Boo Boo calling Yogi Bear as a defense witness when charged with stealing a picnic basket. Third, since Maximum and Olan are such good friends, does Al also believe that the use of instrumental music is all right? Olan does. [See the 7-part series concerning the debate I had with Olan Hicks (see October and November, 2005 on our Website).]
The next thing that Max. Al complains about is that I must not have read his book. That much is true. I did, however, read the book that I reviewed, and two brothers who did read Maxey’s book analyzed it. They gave good evidence for their conclusions, and I trust their judgment and their correct use of evidence. Besides, Olan Hicks would not endorse a book that did not hold a position similar to his.
Most of the rest of Big (as in Maximum) Al’s article takes issue with the writing of Daniel Denham and David Brown in the same April issue of CFTF. His article is posted at: www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx443.htm for those who want to read it in its entirety.
The Pattern
As indicated previously, Maximum Al is not much on patterns (Emily Dickenson might be disappointed; come to think of it, she might agree). He says that he does “deny that the New Testament is a divine blueprint or pattern.” Really? Then what is it? This is a curious position. Jesus told the woman at the well that true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth. How does one worship in truth without specific commands or an example that serves as a pattern?
To illustrate, we have an example of the church in Troas meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Is that a pattern that we may follow? The Corinthians were obviously meeting regularly, and Paul told them to lay aside a gift on the first day of the week. Is that a pattern or a coincidence? If it is not part of a pattern, upon what day of the week should we meet? Does the day matter? Could we just select Tuesday and proudly proclaim, “We don’t have a pattern for what we are doing, and all of you pattern-hating brethren can feel free to join us”?
Does it matter when we observe the Lord’s Supper? Can we observe the Lord’s death in that way every night of a gospel meeting? Or can we do it like many denominations do—just a few times a year? If we don’t believe in Divine patterns, then what are the answers to these questions?
What about giving? How often should that practice to be observed? Should it be on the first day of the week? On Tuesdays? When? Paul tells brethren to give generously (2 Cor. 9:6-7). Now if we only knew when to do so!
If there is no Divine pattern regarding worship, can we gather at the gymnasium and let various members of the congregation divide up into teams and play basketball for worship? The rest of us could cheer. We can open and close with prayers, sing during the quarter breaks, and have a devotional during half time. Probably more effort would be put forth on the part of some worshipers than is usually given, eh?
Is the organization for a local congregation, one of elders and deacons, something the church today must follow? Do we even need to have these functions today? Paul gave qualifications for these roles of leadership in the church. Is that organization intended as a pattern, or are we now free to disregard it? Can women lead in the church and in worship? Could we not have one man, or a council of men, rule over several congregations in an area? How about having one man rule over all the churches, if we are discarding Divine patterns?
Back to the Simple Teachings
Big Al said that his book was designed to lead people back to the simple teachings of the Scriptures. Really? Let’s take this excerpt from Maximum Al’s book, as quoted in Lester Kamp’s review. Al wrote in his book the following words:
When Jesus declares that adultery has been committed, He is stating far more than the fact of two people engaging in a physical act, he is declaring the fact of a broken covenant between the husband and wife. Although sexual infidelity may well have ultimately been the cause of some of those disunions, there is little doubt that in some of the Lord’s statements about divorce and remarriage sexual infidelity is not even remotely being alluded to when he utilizes the word adultery… (122-23, Emphasis mine, LK) (467).
What? Oh, sure. How many times have you read Jesus using the word adultery and said to yourself, “I bet He’s not talking about the physical act”? Apparently, claiming that adultery does not refer to the physical act is Maximum Al’s way of returning to the simple meaning of the Scriptures. Must we cover every passage? Okay.
In Matthew 5:27, Jesus refers to the quote from the Law, as do Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, and Luke 18:20: “You shall not commit adultery.” Was that covenant breaking or the literal act? Already the definition of the word adultery is clear in 4 out of 12 times Jesus used it. In Matthew 5:28, He says that a man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart. Right! How many worldly-minded men, when a beautiful woman passes by, begin thinking of breaking a covenant? Or are they imagining a literal action?
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 define marital adultery (an unscriptural divorce followed by an unauthorized marriage. The newlyweds are living in an adulterous relationship. Mark 10:10-11, along with Luke 1618, deal with that same sin.
The final two times are found in John 8:3-4, when the woman was taken in the very act of committing adultery. Was she covenant breaking? Maxey’s statement that Jesus was not alluding to sexual infidelity is preposterous. Of course, He was. And no one, reading the Scriptures, would think otherwise. One needs to have help from men like Olan Hicks and Al Maxey in order to arrive at some other explanation.
We have no appreciation for Al’s doctrines, but we do appreciate him for sending an e-mail with his response to my book review in it. Although we are confident that the teaching of his book, if believed, would do great harm, we do appreciate the fact that he spoke up to defend himself, which is more than can be said of most other liberals. We have no personal ill will toward him whatsoever and pray that he and the others whose books were reviewed will come to see the truth and abide in it, as most of them once did.