Is the church of Christ Close-Minded?
Well, somehow I did it again. I was in a restaurant with some friends who were meeting a friend of one of my friends. Let’s call him ‘Jim’. Toward the end of our meal Jim asked each one of us in turn if we ‘had a church’. I knew what he meant. He meant did we attend regularly somewhere. The discussion for how many churches there are is another story. Everyone answered in their turn. Then, it was my turn. I pray very often for God to send me people to teach, and that I would always be a good ambassador for Christ when in the world. I am continually surprised at what things I will be confronted with and how to handle them. But, I answered, “I go to a church in Tunnel Hill (Georgia)…I go to Westside church of Christ.” His eyes darkened for just a second. He said that he had been married to a ‘church of Christ’ (again, I know what he meant-but if taken literally it would mean he was a member of the Lord’s Body, the one true Church-but what he meant was that one of his wives was a member of a church of Christ) and then he made a motion with his fists (like someone boxing another) as he spoke and said that he and she often fought or were at odds with one another. I took this to mean on religious matters. I mused in my mind what this must have been like. But, I was searching for something to say to this when he did it again (made the boxing motion) clearly wishing for a response. I supposed that he wanted some type of discussion, so I decided to try to engage him in discussion. Thinking that he wanted to make a cut at me for being a member of the church, but wishing to engage him without taking offense and with the knowledge that all who say they are a member of the church are often far removed from the truth, I decided a good response would be to acknowledge that sometimes it was unfortunate what the sign says on the door. I thought that maybe this would show him that we could talk about it. This he did not like and I surmised that it was not the response he expected. Good, I thought, I have his attention, perhaps we can talk. But, he asked what I meant. So, I elaborated that some of the groups that have ‘church of Christ’ on the sign over the door were so liberal that there was no way they believed what I believed. He darkened and was clearly flustered. He then made motions to leave asking for the check, fumbling with his wallet. He mumbled about something seemingly trying to come up with a response. He finally got his bearings, looked me in the eye and said, “better to be liberal than close-minded” and hurriedly stood up and left. I was cognizant of the rest of our party staring at me. Too quickly, conversations resumed as I showed a small grimacing smile.
This did not go how I wanted. It went rather badly. But, it has given me pause to think. I gained another perspective on how far away we are from having an honest dialogue with many who attend some form of religious body. It has made clearer the notion that there is a stigma associated with the name, ‘church of Christ.’ This is disturbing to contemplate, but overwhelmingly obvious nonetheless. We have a disclaimer on this site to clearly make it plain that we want no association with the Trinity Church of Christ of Jeremiah Wright fame. Why? Because they teach a doctrine not found in the Bible; they teach a doctrine of racial prejudice and hatred. They don’t know the Christ of the Bible; while I do believe they will become acquainted with Him soon enough, I don’t believe it will be on the terms for which they might hope. And, yet, this is only one of the groups with which we want no association.
A better way to say, “Who We Are” would be to show and define the doctrines we do believe and show the authority to have such beliefs by appealing to the authority found in the Bible. If this makes us ‘close-minded’, then so be it. But, upon closer consideration, would it not be better to be sure than doubtful? I believe there is such a proliferation of churches today because there is no appeal to authority and that many people want to find a church that fits their pre-conceived notions about what a church is or should be. But, if everyone is right and has the truth, why is there a need for so many belief systems?
When ‘Jim’ said it was better to be liberal than close-minded, what he meant was that it was better to be doubtful (not really sure about one’s faith and the truth of the Bible) than it is to be decidedly in favor of a particular position. Also, implied in his statement was that it is somehow ‘wrong’ (but if you are open-minded, you are supposed to be open to all positions) to have decided what beliefs are right and wrong. See, it is sort of like saying, “You are wrong to think that I am wrong”. This doesn’t work. In trying to be open-minded and somehow more tolerant, one has to take a position even if that position is not to take a position. To make a statement that says that one position is more desirable than another is to take a position—that which he condemns in me. So, we must conclude that if it is close-minded to take a position, then we are all close-minded to a certain extent. No matter how liberal you become in your thinking, you eventually have to take a position, thus killing your argument.
One big problem today is that people have great difficulty saying what they mean—being honest about where they stand. Imagine turning in a math test in your elementary days where a problem is 2+3=? Would you turn in your answer that the answer is more than 4 but not more than 6? Of course not. But, this is what happens today in religious discussions all the time. So, to disguise this cowardly action, we claim enlightenment from some unknown force and deny that anyone is wrong. But, someone has to be wrong. If ANYTHING is right, something has to be wrong.
Even people who have no religious beliefs can look at an activity, deem it as unfair, based on their own sense of justice, and claim that thing as wrong. It seems that many in society today who have no claim toward any religious belief system can somehow raise an appeal to a sense of judgment and fairness. I would submit that this is not a result of mere association with others of like opinion-that it is innate-I believe given to us all by God. But, that is another discussion. Nevertheless, back to this discussion, we must deal with this idea of the accusation of close-mindedness. If we can agree that there is an authority for how we should co-exist, we must agree that to not do a thing that authority demands or allows is a violation. And, if this is the case, some actions must be declared as right and some things as wrong. Thus, the thing that needs to be done is that we need to find out what is right and do that—whatever it is. This, by implication, means that we must not do the things that are wrong. If anything is declared to be right, all other things have to be wrong!
This is true in society as well as in religion. Christianity appeals to the authority of the Bible. We believe that the Bible contains all authority and that there is no authority for actions in or by the Church that can be found outside the Bible. We believe that it is the complete and final Word of God-that it is the container of all communication from God to Man.
So, by implication, any action that cannot be derived from the authority of the Bible is wrong. If this makes us close-minded, then so be it. Can a group be in subjection to the authority of the Bible and claim to be in line with its authority if it acts and does things that cannot be found in the Bible? Is this to be open-minded? I believe it is what our friend ‘Jim’ meant. He bristled at the term ‘liberal’ and was seemingly offended at my use of it. Could it be that he did not want or like the implication-that those with a liberal interpretation of the authority of the Bible-are not convinced that the Bible, the Word of God, is to be considered as final. The liberal view of the Scriptures leads to any interpretation as being ‘right’. And, logically, this falls apart. All views of Scripture cannot be right. The nature of right-ness is exclusive by nature. That is, logically, if something is true, all other answers must be false. And, further, if anything is false, it cannot be true at the same time. And, if stating this means we are close-minded, then I guess we are. Our current sociological situation frowns on close-mindedness, but we are not concerned with that. Gods’ Word frowns on lack of conviction (another word for close-minded) to the truth.
In our country now, the political climate is full of discussion between the two main political parties. Each of course, claims to be the best for the country as they vie for political supremacy each election cycle. One considers itself to be conservative and the other to be liberal. To what does this conservative and liberal discussion refer? It refers to the position of the party to its interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. One party takes a conservative view of it; the other a more liberal view. The Constitution is the document that the founding of this Nation is based upon. The authority contained within is said to be granted by the people (and to the people by God). The party with the liberal view of it tries to cast a negative light on the party that takes the more conservative view by calling it close-minded.
In religious matters, the appeal or lack of appeal to the Scriptures is very similar. In another way it is not similar at all. For all who claim some kind of belief in the Bible do not always uphold that which is true but that which is easy. The things that call one to be responsible for their own behavior are often overlooked. Many look at the Bible as a list of guidelines and seem to want to rename the 10 Commandments to the 10 Suggestions. They seem to want to relegate God to a force and His Son as a good moral teacher and His Spirit as a whimsical mystical illusion.
Close-minded? To any liberal view of Scripture-yes. To the truth, no. Truth is narrow. We are Open to it. What are you?
Read MoreWhy They Don’t Believe – Part 6
by Bill Walton
This article reprinted by permission
Some people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because of the false doctrines that are taught in the name of Christianity.
The apostle John tells us of a time during the personal ministry of Jesus when many of His disciples turned away from Him because they misunderstood Him to teach some things that were absurd and grotesque (Jn 6:60-66). And undoubtedly there are many people today who refuse to believe in the God of the Bible because of some of the absurd and grotesque doctrines that are falsely attributed to Him.
The doctrines of John Calvin have been particularly hurtful to the cause of Christ. Calvin’s doctrine of inherited depravity and his doctrine of unconditional salvation and damnation are still taught by some of the Protestant denominations. Many people mistakenly believe these doctrines are taught in the Bible. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth (Ezek 18:20-28; Ac 10:34-35).
Then again, some people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity. Some people foolishly and illogically blame God for the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by false-Christians. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials are often cited as examples. But the truth of the matter is those who took part in the atrocities were not real Christians. And Jesus said there would be many false-disciples in the day of judgment who would claim they had acted in the name of Christ, but He will condemn them and say, “I never knew you” (Matt 7:15-23).
Again, some people do not believe because they have given in to their emotions. Some tragedy in their life has turned them against God, and because they are angry with God they deny Him. Job’s wife, in the Old Testament, was like that. When Job lost practically everything he had and was afflicted with boils from the top of his head to the sole of his feet, his wife told him he ought to curse God and die (Job 2:9).
Many people have reacted to their suffering, or the suffering of their loved ones, by denying the God who would allow them to suffer. But we would all do well to imitate the wisdom and faith of Job (Job 1:20-22), and of David (Psa 34:17-19).
There are many reasons for unbelief. But none will be of any comfort in the day of judgment.
Read MoreWhy They Don’t Believe – Part 5
by Bill Walton
This article reprinted by permission
Some people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because they have not seriously considered the alternatives.
They have considered the evidence. They have heard the arguments. And they are not convinced. It just seems too incredible to believe that there is a Being who is without beginning and without end who has the power to create the universe and the power to create life. They think, “That’s just beyond belief. How could that possibly be?”
Now, with all candor, we must admit that the Biblical explanation for the universe and life in the universe is incredible. It’s incomprehensible. But so is any other explanation!
Consider the alternatives. If God is not the Creator then we must believe the universe (or matter) is eternal, or we must believe that the universe (or matter) materialized out of nothing. And then we must believe that matter sprang to life spontaneously by chance.
If you think it’s hard to prove the existence of God to an atheist, just try to prove either of the two alternatives to anybody! If you have ever felt foolish in trying to defend the truth that the living God is eternal, how do you think you would feel if you tried to defend the idea that lifeless matter is eternal? Or the idea that something can come from nothing?
The idea that the universe (or matter) is eternal is not only incredible and incomprehensible, it’s demonstrably false! For example, if the universe were infinitely old there would be no hydrogen left in the universe, because hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium throughout the universe and this conversion is a one way process; that is, hydrogen cannot be produced in any appreciable quantity through the breakdown of other elements. If matter were infinitely old, the universe could not consist chiefly of hydrogen as it does. It was evidence of this kind that drove Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer and atheist, to believe in “continuous creation” (creation of matter out of nothing).
Hoyle suggests that matter is continuously being created out of nothing in the empty spaces of the universe. And he argues that “continuous creation” must be true because it’s the only alternative to an infinitely old universe. (See Hoyle’s book, The Nature of the Universe, ch. 6). Of course, he refuses to consider God. He cannot believe that everything came from God, but he has no trouble with the idea that it all came from nothing! But the fact that this nonsense is coming from the mouth of a scientist does not make it any less nonsense. The idea that something can come from nothing is not only incredible and incomprehensible, it’s lunacy!
Philosophically, there are three possible explanations for the existence f the universe and life in the universe. But, as a matter of practical reality, there is only one: God.
Is there any evidence at all to suggest that the universe (or matter) is eternal? No. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary.
Is there any evidence at all to suggest that something can come from nothing? No. None at all.
Is there any evidence at all to suggest that lifeless, dead matter has ever spontaneously generated life? No.
But there is compelling evidence that God created the heavens and the earth. And there is compelling evidence that God created all living things and created man in His own image.
Thinking through the “alternatives” ultimately brings any honest person to the realization that there really are no alternatives. There is only God. Anyone who thoughtfully considers the vastness of the universe, the complexity of living things, the orderliness of nature, and the moral sensibility with man must conclude that it couldn’t just happen. The evidence of design all around us, and within us, makes it obvious that there is a Designer.
The creation provides abundant evidence of the Creator, and every honest person intuitively understands that there is a Creator.
Matter is not eternal. And something cannot come from nothing. And we all know it.
(to be continued)
Read MoreWhy They Don’t Believe – Part 4
by Bill Walton
This article reprinted by permissionSome people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because of their close-minded presuppositions with regard to miracles.
Obviously, if there is a God there is the possibility of miraculous intervention in our world. And, obviously, if God created the universe and life in the universe, and if god inspired men to write the Bible, and if God raised Jesus from the dead, then there has been miraculous intervention in our world.
I believe there is convincing evidence that such miracles have occurred. But some people exclude the possibility of miracles even before they have considered the evidence. In many cases the unbeliever is unwilling to consider the evidence.
Their rejection of anything and everything supernatural is not a conclusion based upon a consideration of the evidence, but a philosophical presupposition. They start with the presupposition that it is not possible that anything miraculous or supernatural has ever occurred or can ever occur.
Randolph Bultmann, in his book Existence and Faith, says: We must
“understand the whole historical process as a closed unity. This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural powers and that therefore there is no ‘miracle’ in this sense of the word.”
And, in his book Kerygma and Myth, Bultmann says:
“A historical fact that involves a resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceivable.”
Because of this close-minded, pseudo-intellectual blindness,
“If there is a living God who is the Lord of history, who has chosen to act in historical events as the Bible witnesses,”
these so-called scholars have
“no way of recognizing that fact” (George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 13).
It’s interesting that while unbelievers consider anything miraculous or supernatural to be ‘utterly inconceivable” they have no trouble swallowing the idea of spontaneous generation – non-life springing to life spontaneously. They cannot conceive of life coming from God by an act of creation. That would be a miracle. But they can conceive of life coming from lifeless, dead matter by magic. Oh, they make it sound scientific by calling it “spontaneous generation” but they’re really talking about magic. And they know it. Robert Jastrow, the well known physicist and agnostic, says:
“The record of the first billion years of the earth’s existence has been erased – the magic period when life evolved here” (Robert Jastrow, Until The Sun Dies).
But their willingness to dabble in magic goes far beyond spontaneous generation. Three highly respected British astronomers (Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle), in an effort to defend the idea of a universe that is expanding and eternal, have suggested that
“new material might be created continuously out of nothing in the empty spaces of the universe” (Robert Jastrow, Until The Sun Dies, pg 31).
I suppose they could call that “spontaneous materialization.” Yes, that has a scientific ring to it.
“professing to be wise, they have become fools” (Rom. 1:26). They have rejected miracles and embraced magic.
(to be continued)
Read MoreWhy They Don’t Believe – Part 3
by Bill Walton
This article reprinted by permissionSome people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because they are overly impressed with science and scientists.
But the fact is, science does not have the answer to the ultimate questions of life. And there are those within the ranks of the religious skeptics in the scientific community who have been candid enough to admit it.
In his book, Until The Sun Dies, Dr. Robert Jastrow says,
“The universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause.”
He says,
“In science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation.”
And concerning life in the universe, he says,
“At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth.” And he admits, “The chemical origin of life is held by scientists as an article of faith without proof.”
Those who are prone to accept without question the unproven theories and dogmatic pronouncements of skeptical scientists need to be reminded that scientists have been proven wrong many times. In the middle of the last century the French Academy of Science listed more than fifty instances of conflict between the Bible and accepted scientific thought. The French Academy of Science has since been proven wrong in every instance.
It is also a fact that scientists can be as blind, prejudiced, and unreasonable as anyone. In the Moody-Lovell debate on the existence of God, Frank Lovell, a scientist and skeptic, admitted he could not disprove that there is a God. But he said he would not believe in God even if it could be proven that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after His burial. When asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him of the existence of God, he said:
“If an orderly sequence of numbers were discovered in the permutations of Pi, that might cause me to believe in God.”
And listen to this candid admission from Niles Eldridge, the paleontologist:
“We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the theory of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not.”
And then we have this from Stephen Jay Gould:
“We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a sage of accumulating excellence.”
And here is a candid and enlightening observation from Fred Hoyle, an astrophysicist, in his book The Intelligent Universe:
“Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”
What is proven to be true, is true. But nothing has ever been proven to be true that contradicted the Bible. Nothing. And many will lose their souls for blindly trusting in false science and biased scientists.
(to be continued…)
Read MoreWhy They Don’t Believe – Part 2
by Bill Walton
This article reprinted by permission
Some people do not believe in God, and Christ, and the Bible because they are unwilling to believe anything that would condemn their ungodly way of living.
This is exactly the charge the apostle Paul makes in his letter to the church at Rome:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, … Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness…” (Rom. 1:18-22; 24-29).
And Aldous Huxley, himself an atheist, tacitly agreed with Paul’s charge in a bold confession he made on page 270 of his book, Ends and Means:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning. And consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially a philosophy of liberation. The liberations we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
(to be continued…)
Read More
