Does It Matter What We Teach? – Part four

“Of course, the Bible contains many contradictions.” The statement was made with the confidence of a sometimes cynical teenager.

My grandfather was a gentle man, of quiet, solid faith. “I will give you five dollars for each one you can produce,” he responded. In quoting him decades later, the monetary value is adjusted but the amount was significant for a person of limited means. I made no attempt to earn that money. Intuitively, I knew there would only be apparent problems, capable of resolution by careful study. In time, I came to share the conviction of this faithful man.

Years later that faith was severely challenged by developments which precipitated my critical re-examination of our most basic beliefs. Is there a God? Is the Bible true? Or are positive answers simply crutches for the feeble minded? It was time to marshal the evidence. This was done basically from three areas: the natural world, the field of human behavior and the Bible.

The evidence

In nature I observed marvelous phenomena including: the capacity for reproduction; the capacity for the healing of injuries; exquisite intricacy of design and engineering; complex interdependent relationships; mysterious, infinite realms of smallness and of vastness.

In society, I observed “good” and “evil” conduct with relative consequences.

In the Bible I had perceived much that was relevant to the issue of its authenticity:

• – It provides an explanation of the entire human condition and situation that is plausible.
• – It differs from all other writings in its comprehensive, authoritative presentation.
• – Its moral teachings are astute, pertinent and beneficial.
• – Its prophetic writings are remarkably accurate and detailed.
• – Its expositions are profound.
• – Its poetry is beautiful and perceptive.

What can be postulated as a reasonable alternative to its absolute veracity? The only viable possibility I could see involves conscious parallelism of thought on the part of the writers. If there is no God, these men shared a common, complex delusion which impelled them to write as they did, building intentionally on the themes of their predecessors or contemporaries. No other explanation comes close to fitting the facts.

On the basis of such an hypothesis, the Bible would present an apparent, surface harmony, a contrived consistency, that would crumble under critical scrutiny. Careful study reveals precisely the opposite situation. The Bible contains major apparent conflicts and inconsistencies particularly between Old and New Testaments. These are matters which are only resolved through detailed consideration of the whole of its message. Further, there are gems of intricate harmony awaiting discovery. They do not appear to the casual observer; they sparkle under the lens of the microscope.

Principles and implications

Out of a lengthy process emerged a personal conviction that the author of the Bible was indeed the Creator of the world. My faith was now stronger having survived a rigorous challenge. As a result, painful personal decisions had to be made. Several principles had become clear:

• – Consistency is the hallmark of a divine production. Conversely, conflict and inconsistency identify hu­man efforts.
• – Beliefs have consequences. There is an inescapable correlation between what we believe and how we should behave.
• – All elements of Bible teaching are interrelated and interdependent.
• – There can only be one true set of beliefs comprehending all aspects of Bible truth. On every subject, major or minor, all other views are wrong. From these points emerge various implications, including:
• – The teachings of other religious groups differ from the Truth not merely in isolated details but in their entire, integrated false structure of doctrines and practices.
• – Any unsound exposition of scriptural teaching undermines, in some degree, other Bible truths. Take, for example, the doctrine of a personal, supernatural devil. This conflicts with such doctrines as the supremacy of God, the integrity of angels, the mortality of man and his responsibility for his sins. The dangers of less serious errors are less obvious and, therefore, create greater hazards in our community.
• – Wrong teachings within the brotherhood have detrimental practical consequences.

The perils of pragmatism

“We who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1. All quotes from RSV). Because of that warning, this series of articles is undertaken with considerable reluctance and apprehension. The writing was prompted by an article in the June, 1990 “Tidings” and the responses published in the Sept., 1990 issue. While not wishing to be insensitive to the feelings of the writer or the editor, I assess the article, “Principle or Pragmatism” as both wrong and dangerous throughout. The problem goes beyond the ill-advised use of the objectionable term “prag­matism” as the entire article seeks to legitimize the incorporation of that approach into the disciple’s decision making process. In reviewing scriptural passages that may not be easy to understand, expositions are presented that seriously undermine the doctrines of the reliability of scripture, of the consistency of the Creator and of the subordination of human judgment to divine revelation. In addition, rational justification is provided for individuals and ecclesias which base some of their decisions upon expediency rather than on scriptural principles.

The conflict between principle and pragmatic expediency is as old and as basic as the struggle between the spirit and the flesh. When Adam chose the path of deliberate disobedience to keep the family united, he was swayed by unprincipled expediency. This is a devilishly seductive influence. Even the apostle Peter succumbed to its allure and had to be restored by Paul to the authoritative guidance of principles (Gal. 2:11- 14). Earlier, Peter had provided an inspiring example of absolute trust in principles: “We must obey God rather than men,” he said at the risk of his life (Acts 5:29). Principles are for those who have regard for the eternal perspective, who look to the ultimate outcome.    Pragmatism (“the pursuit of practical ends without being totally constrained by matters of principle”) is for the nearsighted, those primarily concerned with immediate consequences.

This is not merely an academic matter. The application of unprincipled expediency is a pernicious source of guilt in both personal and ecclesial lives. Whenever people decide it is permissible to disregard divinely revealed principles, the will of God is flouted. The individual who elects to do wrong in order to keep his job is a pragmatist. So also is the person who conceals pertinent information for financial gain. We should each examine ourselves to see where important principles may have been compromised and the cries of conscience suppressed.

Pragmatism in practice

It is in ecclesial conduct that we share joint responsibility for our decisions. Consider a practical example that, with variations, will be familiar in various parts of the brotherhood. A person, in difficult personal circumstances, applies for ecclesial fellowship to be granted. After careful assessment, the majority conclude the principles are clear – – acceptance should be granted. A minority threatens to resign if the majority decision is implemented. What should the majority do?

1. Hold the ecclesia together at all costs?
2. Make the decision based upon the size, value and influence of the minority?
3. Pressure the applicant to voluntarily offer to stand aside in isolation?

Affirmative answer to any of the options invokes pragmatic expediency. If that is done, scripture condemns such a humanistic approach: “Why not do evil that good may come?” as Paul was slanderous reported as saying.

Those who insist that the highest priority involves maintaining the current numerical integrity of the ecclesia will have difficulty finding a scriptural passage to support that view. The concept of the greater good of the greater number, divorced from the rule of principle, is foreign to scripture.

What takes priority?

Too often, discussion will be dominated by matters of personality, unrelated history and consequences. When such factors overwhelm an objective assessment of the righteous application of scriptural principles, we tread on perilous ground.

If there is an offer of the applicant to voluntarily stand aside, the re­sponsibility may be mistakenly regarded as having been lifted from the ecclesia. There is seen to be a parallel with the willingness of the Savior to become the one man to “die for the people; that the whole nation should not perish.” However, this submission did not lift the blame from those who were responsible.

When pragmatism dethrones principle, the following reasoning emerges:

1. We, the majority, believe the right thing to do is to offer fellowship to the applicant.
2. However, a sizable, valuable minority will resign if we do what Scripture requires of us.
3. We believe the minority to be wrong both in the issues of fellowship and in the threat to resign.
4. However, we believe that, at all costs, we must prevent a split in the ecclesia. We should not lose 20 members in order to gain one.
5. We will, therefore, do what we believe is wrong in order to retain the active membership of those whose position we believe to be scripturally unsupportable.

In real life, the issues will probably not be that clearly defined.

However, they will be there and if the majority acts against principle and in favor of pragmatism a fearful truth will have been ignored: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40).

Our responsibility

Unprincipled expediency should never be offered any semblance of legitimacy through specious reasoning. We are each responsible for the substance and the consequences of what we teach. While the caution of James 3:1 has particular relevance to those whose addresses and writings reach a wider audience, it applies to each of us in our personal conversations. The brother quoted in the first paragraph never gave an address or wrote an article in his life but his teaching had impact; his conviction survives.