"Going"

CHANGING OUR MINDS

The old saying goes: "I'm steadfast in what I believe, but he's just plain stubborn." The point of the maxim is that we are both alike; we just have different perspectives. But the saying can actually be true. If one person has gone where the evidence takes him; he actually is standing firm. On the other hand, when someone clings to a position that cannot be proven—or has been disproven, then he is stubborn—and probably irrational, also. Most of us ought to be willing to change a viewpoint if the proof warrants it—but stand firm if it does not.

With respect to this observation, it seems worthwhile to attempt to clarify something written by Denny Petrillo in the May issue of the Gospel Advocate. He wrote the following words in his article, "The Responsive Heart":

I once heard a preacher boast that "in forty years, I have not changed my view on one single biblical teaching." Even Peter and Paul could not make such a claim (27).

Wait a minute! Exactly what did Peter and Paul change their views on—as apostles? Surely Paul the apostle and Saul the persecutor of the church did not hold the same views, but when did any of the apostles ever teach something differently than what he always had taught? If that were the case, does 2 Timothy contradict 1 Thessalonians? Did Peter change what he taught on the Day of Pentecost by the end of his life when he wrote his second epistle? What is the evidence of that? Yes, the apostles may have improved their behavior at times (from when Peter denied Christ or separated himself from the Gentiles in Galatians 2), but when did they improve their teaching? To imply that Peter and Paul changed their doctrine over a 40-year period seems considerably reckless.

This writer has no way of knowing who Petrillo had in mind with his quote, since he did not document it. Perhaps he did not quote it correctly. Brother Guy N. Woods made a similar statement when he hosted the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman College many years ago (in fact, probably more than 40 years ago). But first of all, he was not boasting when he said it, and, second, the context was different. Brother Woods, for those who may not know it, wrote three of the commentaries in the Gospel Advocate series. He was also a former editor of the magazine, and he certainly knew better than to make the statement quoted above (if he is the one being referred to). In fact, he taught explicitly contrary to that notion. In stressing the importance of continual study, Woods once said: "The day that I quit learning will be the day I die." So what did he say similar to the quote provided? He said:

In forty years, I have not changed a single fundamental position that I hold.

Far from being a boast, it was a testimonial to the fact that he had been taught correctly and had continued to remain steadfast to those truths. Isn't that what Paul wrote to the Galatians to do with respect to the gospel? He told them: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). They had been taught the truth! If anyone tried to move them away from it—if even Paul who taught it to them attempted to teach them something different—he was to be accursed. Did they not need to stand firm in the teaching of the gospel?

What's Negotiable?

It stands to reason that if we study the Scriptures and Biblical topics, we are going to learn—right up to the moment we depart from this earth, as Brother Woods said. But how many of us are changing our minds on fundamental issues? Do brethren really want us to be wishy-washy in those areas? Let's consider moral issues first. There was a time when few preachers ever said anything on the subject of abortion. That was prior to 1973. We were silent because it was illegal, and we had therefore not really thought much about it. However, once the Supreme Court legislated from the bench its legality, it became of concern. Once the facts of the matter became known—that a human being was living in the mother's womb—we all took a pro-life stance, and we have never reconsidered. Why not? The evidence still stands as it did in 1973. Nothing new has been discovered to undermine medical facts or the fact that God calls the child in the womb by the same Greek term as one who has already been born (Luke 1:41, 44 and Luke 2:12, 16).

Another issue that we have not altered our views on is that of fornication. Despite the fact that 70% of couples are living together outside of marriage has not changed our minds on what the truth is. The same can be said for our culture's acceptance of homosexuality. Bible students have not developed a new outlook on that subject to accommodate those who are pushing for its acceptance.

Unfortunately, some did change their views on marriage and divorce. They decided that if young couples divorced before one of them became a Christian, then it was all right because baptism washed the previous marriage away in addition to one's sins. Then others came along and began to teach that even Christians could divorce and marry as often as they wished with impunity. Some actually did change their views, and it became the case that we could no longer fellowship them. But the remainder of us stood where we always had. Should we have all changed just because someone came up with an innovative way to turn darkness into light? Would we not prefer that preachers remain inflexible on fundamental matters?

Likewise, what should happen if a preacher decides to change his view on the inspiration of the Scriptures and no longer believes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? What if he comes to think that maybe not all of God's Word has yet been revealed? Or what would a congregation do if a preacher admitted that he had come to believe that only the ceremonial aspects of the Law were done away with? What if he gradually thought that theistic evolution was appealing to him?

Would the congregation feel comfortable if he began to teach that baptism was not essential to salvation? What if he never preached or taught on the distinctive nature of the church and how it differs from denominationalism? Would we think he had changed on fundamental matters? How about if he began to encourage brethren to clap their hands while singing spiritual songs or promoted the formation of a choir or singing groups to "entertain" during worship? Or suppose he said something as worthless as, "The New Testament doesn't say not to use musical instruments"? Would we conclude, "Wow! He's really growing," or, "He's changed his fundamental positions"?

Suppose he decided to follow the denominations in only providing the Lord's Supper once a month or told the youth groups to start having fundraisers? What if he told the men, "We can more than double our leadership capabilities by appointing women as elderesses and deaconesses"? Would we praise such men for being open-minded and tolerant, or would we say they are no longer standing for the truth?

Presumably, if a preacher said that he had re-examined the subject of spiritual gifts and now thought all Christians ought to speak in tongues, it would throw up a red flag. Yet some people have been reluctant to refuse to fellowship those, such as Mac Deaver, who teach that the Holy Spirit operates on us directly (His Spirit on our spirit, just as in inspiration). Some reacted more to who was teaching than the teaching itself. Mac has not remained true to the convictions he once held. He changed—and not for the better.

Open-Minded

This writer agrees with Brother Woods: He has not changed his mind on any of these fundamental matters in more than 40 years—because he believed the truth concerning each one of them from the outset. That does not mean that no learning has taken place during that period of time. In fact, just the day previous to this article being written, he discovered an interesting footnote in the Berkeley translation on Proverbs 1:4. Of the Hebrew word translated "simple," the translators wrote: "One 'wide open' to every opinion." Interesting!

Strong says of the Hebrew word [6601]: "simple, foolish, open-minded." This is not the kind of open-mindedness that readily accepts truth. The NIV (not a recommended translation) says of it: "The Hebrew word rendered simple in Proverbs denotes a person who is gullible, without moral direction and inclined to evil." The New American Standard translates the word as "naïve." In other words, this individual is perpetually open to all suggestions—even harmful and immoral ones. In other words, his mind is too open. It is wide open. He lacks stability.

This person is reminiscent of 2 Timothy 3:6-7, where some made "captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Are those the kind of preachers we admire and desire to emulate? Do we need those whose minds can change with each gust of wind that blows in a peculiar thought? No, the church does not need doctrinal innovations.

What is the Real Problem?

If we were to compare the church today with the church of forty or fifty years ago, what would the biggest problem be—inflexibility or wide open-mindedness? Those who still fundamentally believe what they did all those decades ago are not the problem. Those who have changed with the culture are. Congregation after congregation no longer stands where it once did. Most of "our schools" cannot be safely recommended any more. Some schools of preaching have loosened their bonds of fellowship to be more "inclusive."

While composing this article, your congenial editor was asked if he knew Jesse Winn of Tuscumbia, Alabama, to which the answer was, "No." The following beliefs are taken from an article by Winn on the website of the Shoals Church of Christ in Tuscumbia, Alabama: "I believe that, generally speaking, as a movement, we need to be less afraid of change when necessary and more willing to question things." What does he question? Name it. These are his own words.

I believe one is saved at the point of genuine faith (Spirit immersion) and then is baptized as a sign of said faith.

I believe instruments in worship are fine so long as they are not the item of worship.

I believe women can be deacons, preachers, and lead singing.

I believe drinking is okay (although not always wise) but being drunk isn't.

I believe that the fate of the wicked ends in total destruction, not eternal torment.

Seen enough? These five points are just the beginning. There are 25 more. This individual is not a faithful gospel preacher; he is not even a gospel preacher. He is an amalgamation of various junk teachings. He is the epitome of the one who is always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. The church would be in far better hands with those who have not changed their fundamental views in more than forty years. The Winn philosophy will lead to its extinction.