Principles of Heresy (Part Three)

For the past two weeks we have reviewed some of the principles of heresy reported by Ira Y. Rice, Jr. in his 1966 book, Axe on the Root. One final point should be referenced from the main body of that work. It came to light previously when I was working on my Master's degree. Occasionally, while studying literature, we would come across some of the most bizarre theories about authors and their works, such as Shakespeare was not really a genius; someone else, allegedly, wrote most of his plays.

Some ideas were reminiscent of the theory that Moses did really not write the Pentateuch; eventually "scholars," many of whom still reside on the History Channel, assigned various writers to certain texts—even though the "proof" is slightly less convincing than that for the Loch Ness monster. An additional monstrous theory is that someone wrote a document called Q, from which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all got the material for their gospel accounts. No, you're right. You can't believe in such theories and believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures at one and the same time.

Those who engage in secular educational pursuits frequently run off the rails, also, and the reason for it becomes obvious when a person is in the academic environment for any length of time. Most of the good, solid, reliable analysis has already been written in thousands of theses and dissertations. So, someone needs to come up with a new slant on a literary work to catch a professor's attention. Saying the same old thing that has already been said and staying within the confines of a generally accepted framework lacks boldness and originality—even if it is safe. So, people write weird theories about literary works, and it gains them a fawning audience.

The same thing happens to some degree in the church. If God has given us the perfect law of liberty, then what lay behind all the attempts to change it? Remember that the uncertain sounds Brother Rice had recorded were emanating from students who had attended seminary classes at secular universities like Yale. In a conversation with Charles Chumley about these divinity schools, Chumley suggested his opinion was that

those going on for higher degrees felt they had to justify, somehow, all that extra energy, time and money expended in their attainment. If they don't come up with something NEW, he surmised, they just don't feel that the cost has been worth while (71).

This explanation also lets us see why students would be eager to jump on the new theory bandwagon. It also might be considered an appeal to pride. "Look what I've come up with; look what my generation has come up with. We've justified our existence!"

Responses

Rice's original book was only 73 pages. Later editions include 26 additional pages of responses to the original text, which prove very interesting. Only a handful of reactions were negative; hundreds were positive. Well-known brethren, such as Alan Highers and Guy N. Woods praised it lavishly. Woods said:

I have been warning of the things of which you write for quite some time, in pulpit and press, and on open forums, and only lately have the brethren generally become alerted to the threat of pseudointellectuals among us (79-80).

Of interest to those in Florida were the comments of Lynn Norwood from Daytona Beach:

I am disturbed in regards to the Modernism that is creeping into our Lord's church. Two elders have told me in the past few weeks that the word of God does not condemn drinking if done in moderation. Their reasoning is that Christ drank wine…" (83).

If the wine at the wedding feast was alcoholic, and if Jesus at that moment created more alcoholic wine, and the text says the guests had already well drunk, then the person using this argument is actually claiming (by implication) that Jesus helped the wedding crowd become totally soused.

Clayton Pepper reported that, when he went to conduct an evangelistic effort in a certain congregation that some of the leading members "had attended meetings at Oral Roberts University for the purposes of getting Holy Spirit baptism" (80).

Irony

Of course, these comments were made in 1966, shortly after the book came out. It is surprising to read through some of the favorable comments and realize that some who praised the book as conservatives ended up in the liberal camp. One, whose name I will not mention at this time, wrote that the church should stand "solidly for the Word of God without compromise" (95).

Yet the same congregation this man was an elder of invited a Baptist to speak at a Thanksgiving Eve service they were hosting. I still have the bulletin with the announcement in it. One of the members lamented: "He is so liberal that even other Baptists will not fellowship him." But he was a friend of the liberal "preacher" who was there at the time. In 1966, the elder advised brethren to steer clear of compromise, yet just eight years later, the congregation he helped to oversee invited a liberal Baptist to speak to brethren and the community. How shameful!

In Volume 2 of Axe on the Root, Brother Rice printed more favorable responses from brethren, including Roy Hearn (185), Roy Deaver (186), and H.A. Dixon, the President of Freed-Hardeman College, who wrote the following words about the first volume:

This book truly strikes at the root of a present day trend. I appreciate your courage in doing so, and I am grateful for the manner in which it is done. I am glad you had the courage to name the people of whom you were speaking.

The warning for all of us is in order. It is needed in our schools, and I am happy to see the many brethren who stand where you stand expressing themselves in the same way (190).

These endorsements are truly heartening, but we live in a different time and era. If Brother Rice had written such a book today, does anyone imagine that he would receive letters of congratulation such as these? No, instead he would probably be met with a stony silence and be ignored. The spiritual giants who once walked among us have gone on to their rewards, and new generations have arisen who refuse to follow their example in exposing those who teach false doctrines. In fact, they would be more likely to attack Brother Rice than those leading the church astray.

Dissent

Among those who openly disagreed with the contents of the first volume of Axe was a preacher named Smith who was with a congregation in Flint, Michigan. Brother Rice commended him for his courage to identify himself and allow his words to be used "for publication." He claimed that Brother Rice's motives were wrong and that his conclusions were not based on logical grounds—just opinion. He claimed that Rice was "driving these valuable young men and others like them away from the church…." Yes, he accused Rice of taking issue with all who disagreed with only his opinions and "destroying free thought and all logical pursuits of truth" (192).

Such accusations generally make their way onto the printed page at some point. Your congenial editor has even been accused of being a pope. However, in the instance of this book, neither Rice nor those who wrote in to agree with him misunderstood the men cited nor what they were teaching. No one was driving them away; they had already taken a taxi to the liberal side of town.

Axe on the Root, Volume Two

This book was published the following year (1967). "Surely, there can't be more," one might think after reading the first volume, but instead of only 70 pages in the next book, the contents mushroomed to 200 pages. How is that possible? Several had developed a liberal mindset, and they were on the march. A new publication had been announced, titled Mission.

The details are all set forth in the book; so, we will not repeat them except to say that their first editorial policy statement was sent out on June 25, 1966. Apparently, many protested what they intended to do, so they clarified their purpose in a September 11 revision. The new wording proved to be much better, but the magazine still went in a liberal direction when it began publication in July, 1967 (13-48).

The next few chapters deal with Gary Freeman and a few of the men he endorsed. He wrote a book with the title, Are You Going to Church More Now But Enjoying It Less? He actually possessed writing talent, and at times showed a flair for humor, but he leaned so sharply left that it was amazing that he did not lose his balance (maybe he eventually did). He claimed that the sermons and articles of many preachers tended toward tedium, with titles like, "Is It Wrong to Use Instrumental Music?" and "Can a Christian Dance?" He may have a point. Apparently, some brethren slept right through these messages, judging from the way some churches have gone recently. He also suggested that saying a brother preaches the "truth" is a euphemism referring to the point of view of his supporters. In other words, someone preaches the truth if he agrees with me (51).

A Sect

One attack on the church was from a bulletin article that Freeman wrote. In a statement obviously aimed at preachers in the Lord's church, he claimed that

A characteristic of sects is that they think they are the only ones who have the truth, and so have nothing to learn. Since the world is wrong and they are right, what do they have to learn from the world? Thus they dismiss the world as being incorrigible and the world dismisses them as being kooky (55).

Now, think about Jesus and read those words again. Did Jesus have the truth? Was the world wrong while He was right? Did Jesus need to learn something from the world? Now focus on Paul and ask those same questions, and then plug in the name of Peter. Someone might protest, "But no one today is Jesus, Peter, or Paul." True. But does this mean we do not know the truth? Solomon thought people could know it (Pr. 23:23). Jesus knew that whoever continued in His Word could know it (John 8:31-32). Peter wrote that Christians had purified their "souls in obeying the truth" (1 Peter 1:22). Furthermore, Paul wrote that brethren could understand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:4).

Therefore, if we have studied carefully, looking at the Scriptures from every angle, testing our beliefs with one another and in debate, why is it so farfetched to think that we can know the truth? The world is clearly wrong; certain theologies are likewise erroneous. However, no one (to this editor's knowledge) has ever said we have nothing to learn. But all information must be tested against what the Scriptures teach. Okay, some say we're kooky—like Jesus, the apostles, and Noah.