[* Handing a website card to
a friend, and saying it contained writings by godly men, some of which may
surprise or even shock her; she responded immediately and said, “I hope it’s not controversial, but I’ll have a look …” –
Ed.]
To-day
every truth is challenged, every doctrine assailed, every landmark assaulted,
and every battle has to be fought over again. The crisis has its dangers, but it also
enters like iron into the blood: for all who rest on the infallible Word of
God, enormous accession of strength comes with every truth mastered afresh for
oneself. Controversy, therefore,
can be a channel charged with blessing, as well as the occasion of very subtle
peril. In the words of Archbishop Whately:- “We must neither lead men, nor leave them, to mistake
falsehood for truth. Not
to undeceive is to deceive.”
THE DANGER
But it is well,
first of all, to keep some consciousness of our peril steadily before us. Wise words were written by John Newton more than a century ago:- “There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise
those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think
we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God. Whatever it be that makes us trust in
ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with
contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof
and fruit of a self-righteous spirit.
Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a
man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox
notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. If ever the defence of the truth were
seasonable and expedient, it appears to be so in our day, when errors abound on
all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly
misrepresented. And yet we find but
very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own
importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw
their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of
the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most
are but of a secondary value. This
shows that if the service is honourable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains
his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble,
tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of
his presence is made?”
CHRIST AND
CONTROVERSY
It
is critical to observe how our Lord, dealing with an identical situation,
acted; for it is written (1 Pet. 2: 21) that
He left us an example, that we should follow his steps. One writer (A. G. Knott, B.Sc.) has well expressed it thus:-
“The
Gospel is steeped in controversy.
It would be difficult to find many pages in any of the four Gospels,
except the prayers of Jesus in
THE COMMAND
For now we confront the command:-
“Contend
earnestly for the Faith”
(Jude 3). Every problem is at bottom a religious
problem, and religion, being deeply felt, deeply divides: that a question is
‘controversial’ means that it is
burning and alive, and cannot be touched without storm. If all controversy is avoided, Satan
has but to stir up controversy on a given truth, to silence its testimony for
ever. The mere statement of truth is a
challenge to error: to speak on justification by Faith was once violently
controversial. Now the call not to
flinch is imperative. Why? Because truth may be one thing, while
what a man thinks to be the
truth may be quite another, and gulfs asunder; and no sincerity or devotion will save the man from the consequences of his
error. A doctor writes a
prescription, containing deadly ingredients: may a man not a chemist, and
wholly ignorant of dispensing only he be sincere, be trusted to make up the
prescription? If so, the patient
goes in peril of his life. Do we
put in a railway signal-box, to manipulate its complex levers, a man wholly
ignorant of the code of signals, the scheduled timetable, and the block system,
if only he be honest and sincere?
If so, the passengers go in hourly peril, of their lives. How much more is it
a matter of life and death to know truly and to state rightly the facts of the
Gospel out of which alone springs the salvation of God: in contending for the Faith we
are fighting for the very life of the
world. So also with the Church. “Sanctify
them through
Thy truth” (John 17: 17): truth unknown, or ignored, or disobeyed makes sanctification
impossible; and each truth is designed for its own specific sanctification: so
in contending for the truth, we are fighting for the very life of the Church.
THE CONTENTION
How
are we to contend? The merely contentious spirit is so obnoxious
to God as to disqualify a disciple from holding office (1 Tim. 3: 3, R.V.), and the Church is responsible to see that
this prohibition is enforced.
The word Jude uses is our word ‘agonize’: not, contend bitterly, or angrily, or
uncharitably; for the moment we are angry, we have ceased to contend for the
truth, and have begun to contend for ourselves: but (as the word means)
contend, standing firmly planted on that which the enemy is trying to drag from
under us: “agonize
over the Faith.” But thus
to contend for the Faith, we must know exactly what the Faith is; which means
hard, close, comprehensive, and unprejudiced study of Scripture: and it calls
for a character so richly ripened as to speak
the truth in love. If (as
someone says) it is personal, drop it; if it is principle, die for it. So far as what we utter is the truth,
and so long as we keep our tempers, all that is of grace and God in our opponent
is on our side. The Spirit enforces the Truth. Had those who first deeply disturbed the writer on his own early doctrinal
positions, and so ruined his worldly prospects, withheld for peace’ sake,
he would not have thanked them, as now he will throughout eternity. But
it was done in love. Bishop Brent has a suggestive and
warning word: “Conference is a measure of peace; controversy a weapon of
war. Conference is self-abasing;
controversy exalts self. Conference
in all lowliness strives to understand the viewpoint of others; controversy to
impose its views on all comers.
Conference looks for unities; controversy exaggerates differences.” Let us ponder the word of Carlyle:-
“Sarcasm
is the language of the Devil.”
THE CONTENDERS
Who
are to engage in this sacred toil of controversy? “The Faith once for all delivered” - not to apostles or prophets, for how then could the
truth have been expounded in ages which had neither? not
to universities, or schools of theology; not even to evangelists or pastors or
teachers: but – “to the saints.” The saving Faith has been committed to the saved; the
saints of every age are responsible to pass it on intact to the saints of every
succeeding age; and all the saints are responsible for all the truth, and its transmission, pure, whole, and
undefiled. Every saint is responsible to
contend earnestly for all of the Faith that he knows: we are “set for the defence of the gospel”
(Phil. 1: 16), as well as for its dissemination. Lift the enforced controversies out of
the life of Christ, and how much of each Gospel remains? With what giant strokes Paul lays about
him, felling fearful errors: “be ye
imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11: 1). “To-day,” as Dr. Campbell Morgan has said, “there is a
tolerance abroad which is high treason.
There is a passion saturating the air for a comprehension which
sacrifices the very heart of the Christian religion, and the very core of the
Gospel of the Nazarene.”
THE FRUIT OF
CONTROVERSY
Without controversy no truth was ever yet
established, or, when established, preserved; and it can be most rich in its
outcome. We quote Mr. A. G. Knott again:- “The outcome of
true controversy always results in revolutions taking place in men’s
thought and actions. Many a person
has been compelled under the imperious demands of truth, mediated to them
through controversy, to change their values and re-orientate their whole
personal and social living.
Controversy has constrained men to alter their faith, choose the way of
poverty, offer their lives to holy causes, re-think their Christian beliefs,
change their whole attitude to money and re-interpret their personal
relationships to one another.
Further, in controversy many have heard the voice of God as they have
heard His voice nowhere else. Their
weaknesses have been exposed, their insincerities have been shown to them,
their faith has been tested as to what stuff it was made of, their spirit has
been deepened and they have been led out into a larger place where ‘His will’ has been seen
and felt.”
D.
M. PANTON.
* * *
A
By
R. H. BOLL
If
in the midst of the multitude of religious bodies and denominations, which make
up the professing Christendom of our day, a number of men should rise up
professing themselves simply Christians, and as not identified with
any sectarian body whatsoever,
but as belonging only to the one Church of the New Testament, it would be
proper and right to ask them a few pertinent questions. On what ground do you try to distinguish
yourselves from the various bodies and denominations around you? By what right do you appropriate to
yourselves that universal, non-sectarian name ‘Christian’? Are you
standing on such a free, broad, universal Christian ground that the simple name
‘Christian’ describes you and your position? If so, what is your position and in what
respect does it differ from that of the various denominations? And by what right do you claim to belong
to the very New Testament Church itself, alone, in contrast with all the denominational world?
These
are fair questions and demand a fair answer. It
is evident that no man has the right to call himself simply a Christian if he
belongs to some peculiar and distinctive clan or sect. Nor can he honestly and honourably claim
to be simply a member of the
WHEN IS A MAN JUST A CHRISTIAN?
A
Christian (if he is just that and nothing else) is a man who belongs to Jesus
Christ - one who has accepted Him as Lord, Saviour, and as the Christ, the Son
of the living God. And of course,
that means as the only Lord and Saviour
and Christ. Such a one is therefore wholly and exclusively committed to Christ for
everything. From Him alone he has his life, in Him alone he rests his hope. From Him alone he takes orders; from Him
alone he receives light, instruction, truth, guidance.
He has no other spiritual authority; no
other master, rabbi, teacher. The
Lord Jesus is the one only source of light and truth to him; and Christ and
Christ’s Word is his only standard and criterion. The Word of
Christ’s inspired messengers, the Apostles, is to be expressly included
in this statement as being Christ’s; but all outside and human authority, and all merely human standards are expressly
excluded.
Now
if one who confesses Jesus as Lord does
at the same time acknowledge other lordship and authority in spiritual matters,
he ceases to be simply a Christian.
He is then of a special kind and stripe, according to the kind of alien
authority to which he owns allegiance.
He is, as it were, a ‘hyphenate’
Christian, one whose loyalty is divided,
and whose obedience to Christ is limited and modified by the human overlordship to which he is subject. His
allegiance to man’s creed and authority makes him an adherent of the
particular sect and party which adopts those particular human standards. And in all fairness and honesty he should
not pass as a simple Christian, but should adopt some appropriate human name by
which he can be known or distinguished.
WHAT IS THE
The
Regardless
of any relative merits of any questions involved in any particular controversy
- this is a matter of principle. It is
fundamental. The very existence of
the un-denominational
THE UNITY PLEA
It
may be urged, however, that unity must be maintained, and that therefore
disturbing teachings must perforce be excluded. This principle has its measure of truth,
but can with the greatest ease be abused and turned into a weapon of spiritual
tyranny. This false unity-plea is really
the genesis of all authoritative human creeds. They
were all ‘unity’ measures at first;
and they have all been the fruitful cause of division and sectarianism. “You must cease to teach this or that, or there
will be division,” say some reputed
leaders. And straightway they themselves
see to it that there is
division. They, will have their way, and their doctrine, or nothing. If a man will not submit he must be
marked and avoided (Rom. 16: 17, 18) because, forsooth, he is causing division. Now if any man can distinguish this from
creed-making, and see any difference between this sort of procedure and the way
of the sects, he must have a better microscope to detect fine lines than the rest of us possess. That is not the way of unity: it is the
exercising of arbitrary jurisdiction over the minds and hearts of God’s
people: it is the imposition of a human yoke. Nay, already it is altogether a fault in
us if the honest presentation by a
brother of what he has found (or, say, what he thinks he has found) in
God’s Word should cause ‘trouble’
in the Church. Why should that cause
trouble? To
be sure, if the offending brother
had denied the Lord Jesus Christ, or the inspiration and authority of the
Scriptures, or if he had rejected the Gospel, or if he had claimed for himself
some special right to depart from the Word of God, or if he had tried to form
and lead off a faction, or had tried to introduce some practice which would
force a separation among God’s people - we must needs deal with such
a one according to the instructions of Rom. 16: 17, 18. But if it is merely a case of some
thinking that they have the very last
word on Bible truth and wishing to cast off any who differ with them - it ought
to be obvious that such are assuming pope-ship over God’s heritage, and
that they do not know and perhaps have never known what New Testament
Christianity is.
NON-ESSENTIAL
DOCTRINES
Again
it is argued that if trouble is caused over non-essential doctrines, say, about matters of
prophecy, such doctrines ought to be suppressed. We can be saved without them. It is not necessary to bring them up at
all. It is mere wantonness to stir
up trouble over such matters. No
one knows or can know anything about it at any rate, they think, and every man
should keep his ideas on prophecy to himself. This specious and fallacious reasoning seems to have weight with
some. They do not see that it finally
rests on the authority of men who presume to lay down to their brethren what
is, and what is not, necessary, and therefore what is, and what is not, to be
taught. It would be strange if
a Christian, having the Word of God in his hands, needed somebody to define for
him what part of it is necessary and what superfluous; and what can be
understood and what cannot; and what should be taught and what should be left
out. Surely no sectarian leader
would wish any wider concessions than that, and any
man given that right would have no difficulty in constructing a human creed for
the Church. What part of
God’s Word is unnecessary?
What is the irreducible minimum of essential doctrine? Perhaps only a few verses - say fifty,
or a hundred? And shall we discard
all the rest, then, if someone challenges it, lest it cause trouble? And what if the man who sorted out the
essential from the non-essential made a mistake? Is any part of the Word to be
set aside as valueless? Granting,
however, that a man could be saved without a knowledge
of Bible prophecy - ought not that to be the best reason for mutual tolerance
on the subject? But with strange
perverseness some will make that very thing an excuse for intolerance. The
sin of division lies not with those who differ, on one side or another of any
question of scripture interpretation, but with either side, whichever sets up
its view as an authoritative standard of fellowship and doctrinal
soundness. Any contingent that does
this is no longer the simple
VIGILANCE AND
“For freedom did Christ
set us free: stand fast and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” This
admonition applies especially to those who would be simply Christians. Here also it is true that eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty.
But liberty is not licence.
We do not advocate individualism and self-will. The free Christian will feel all the
more responsibility to consider his brother’s interest, to weigh well his
speech and guard his teaching, because of his liberty; for through love we must
be servants one of another. But watch we must for ever more; for on one
pretence or another, under one cover or another, comes the danger of thraldom
to man’s creed. The high
position of the simple Christian and of the un-denominational Church must be
zealously maintained against all encroachment of false authority and against
the spirit of sectarianism.
‑Word and Work.*
* It is exceedingly interesting that Mr. Boll, who is among the rare souls
who understand Scriptural Catholicity and can express it, was once a Roman
Catholic. Roman ‘catholicism’ is a right
‘universality’ applied to the
totally wrong substance; for it is the
universal communion of all the infant-sprinkled (for
-------
