What Did Doctor Shelly Say?

In a previous article, we noted some of the history and beliefs of Dr. Rubel Shelly and other speakers at the Harding University "Inspire 2025" Lectureship. We asked the question, "What Would Dr. Shelly Say?" Now the lectures are history; Shelly spoke last Sunday evening; so, we can now approach the subject from the viewpoint of what he actually said.

However, before we get to his comments, we also want to take a look at Harding University and what was said prior to Shelly speaking. The president of the university, Michael D. Williams, made introductory comments. He spoke of Harding's goals, one of which is the "pursuit of truth." He was pleased to announce that 14% of the student body were Bible majors and 15% were theology students, but that their goal was to "pursue truth in every discipline." No one could disagree with any of these aims.

The Subterfuge of Liberals

Many viewers might conclude that there was no trace of liberalism in the introduction. Perhaps we think that liberals, when they get up to speak, will say something like, "Yes, I'm a liberal—and proud of it. I'm going to blatantly disagree with the philosophy of restoring the New Testament church based on the Scriptures; furthermore, I'm going to argue that people do not need to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it."

This is not the way liberals operate. They are calm, seldom raising their voices, speak a great deal of truth, and subtly make their case. After stressing Harding's goals and commitment to the truth, a video was played, in which faculty members set forth their beliefs on a number of vital issues, such as believing the Bible to be the Word of God and Jesus being the Son of God. Most of these were fine—until we got to Al Frazier, who is with the Business Administration department. He was chosen to make a statement about baptism. His exact words were: "…and is baptized into Him for a new life filled with the Spirit's fruitfulness."

What is noticeable? It's true as far as it goes, but in a brief description of how to be saved, is it not remarkable that he did not mention baptism is for the forgiveness of sins? No. This is probably not an accident. It will be explained further as we examine Rubel Shelly's speech.

After the video, President Williams said that Harding was committed to "non instrumental, male-led worship." Really? Then why have speakers on the Harding lectures who use instrumental music? When evaluating liberals, one must not pay attention only to their demeanor and likeability; one must consider their words and actions. Incidentally, did anyone else notice that all through the video, playing softly in the background, was what sounds like organ music?

Rubel's Errors on Various Subjects

Rubel began by asserting that the church is not named in the New Testament; it is only described. So, he began with a truth that we all recognize. The disciples were called "Christians" first in Antioch, but they had other descriptive names, also. Of course, there is a reason for that. The Gospel was just being preached for the first time around the world, and no religious denominations existed. When Paul traveled to a city, he observed temples to idols but not various denominations or Christian cults. Over the centuries, in order to find like-minded brethren, a Biblical description, "the churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16), became used as a designation so that we could find one another.

Dr. Shelly then made a false statement when he said the church had never been united (he stated it more than once). Surely, Acts 2:42 slipped his mind: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." Yes, the church was united initially. Why? The apostles were united in what they taught. The church in Jerusalem had no outside influences yet to bring in false doctrine.

Shelly alluded to the first problem in Acts 6, but that was not a division over teaching—but in practicing New Testament principles. Furthermore, it was resolved! As might be expected, Shelly jumped to the division in Corinth, which is obvious. However, he neglected to point out that this was a young church, still carnally-minded in many respects—and that in a few months, by the time Paul wrote his second letter to them, most of the conflicts had been resolved.

Shelly said that 1 Corinthians 5 teaches us that it is not the purpose of Christians to tell the world how to live; rather we are to be a light. That statement sounds good, but is it true? What we learn from 1 Corinthians 5 is that we are to withdraw from a brother who is committing immorality (1 Cor. 5:9-13). Paul said we do not judge those on the outside—in the context of withdrawing fellowship. Have we no obligation, however, to oppose sin? If we do not, how do we account for John the Baptizer telling Herod it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip's wife (Matt. 14:1-4)?

Racism

Once again, all will agree with Rubel when he said that God's purpose is to create one new humanity out of the Jews and the Gentiles and that we must reject sinful division in the church. We can further agree that racism is wrong. He told the story of preaching in a congregation in Northeast Mississippi at the time Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated about 70 miles away in Memphis. The following Sunday he preached on unity and the sin of hatred, racism, and division. The elders told him he would have to repent or be fired.

Apparently, this was the first hint for Dr. Shelly that a church of Christ might not be perfect. However, examples like these do not prove that the teachings of the Bible regarding the church are wrong; they only prove that Christians—even elders—can act in a sinful manner. Your congenial editor was shocked when a preaching brother told him of some of the racist attitudes in the south where he preached. He was shocked again to hear that a congregation threatened to close down a gospel meeting rather than have African-Americans attend it. Such is unthinkable! But it does not change the fact that Jesus said to love one's neighbor or that there is only "one body" of Christ. It does not furnish an excuse to become liberal.

Besides, if Rubel was so disillusioned about the ungodly attitude of those elders in April of 1968, then why did he agree to be Associate Editor of the Spiritual Sword in October of 1969 (as previously noted)? The theme of that issue was "The Gospel Versus Liberalism." He continued to preach the truth for another decade and never revised his view of the church (publicly) during all those years. Could it be that he knew that his concept of the church was accurate—even though some members in some places were guilty of unrepented sin?

Ephesians 4:1-3

Shelly's assignment was to discuss the "one body," which is part of the seven ones in Ephesians 4:4-6. Before getting to that, he wanted to spend some time on the three preceding verses, which talks about attitudes and dispositions. He claimed that Paul celebrates four attitudes—but did not name them. Here are the verses.

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you are called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-3).

Read the verses again and see if you agree with Dr. Shelly's interpretation given below. He says that you and I have learned from these verses:

You can be very wrong (emph. his) about being absolutely right. And if you take what you're right about and you beat other people up with it or attempt to do that, you so alienate them that they cannot hear what is true. And they will not embrace it as coming from a God of love.

That's what Paul meant in Ephesians 4:1-3? It sounds more like what he wrote in Ephesians 4:15—that we should speak "the truth in love." Can people be very wrong about being absolutely right? Sure. Consider the adherents of the Muslim religion—or of Hinduism or Buddhism. Closer to home, what about Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? Catholics also believe they are right. But does that mean we cannot know the truth (John 8:31-32). We can also be very right about being absolutely right.

The only way we will know is to be honest about what we read in the Scriptures and compare what we think with what others believe. For more than 200 years we have debated just about every doctrine imaginable. It would not be wise to feel secure on a casual reading of the Scriptures, but we have progressed far beyond that point. Does Shelly suspect that he is very wrong about what he believes is absolutely right? It would be interesting for him to say more about that.

Is it possible that Shelly is using just a little "spin" being when he refers to beating others up with the truth? Certainly, that can happen, but it is not necessarily the case. Overheard at a lectureship on one occasion was a person who said, "If someone had not told me I was wrong, I would still be lost in a denomination." Was that person "beat up"? Some brethren would eagerly accept an opportunity to debate Shelly, or does he now consider debates beating up others with the truth?

Does anyone suppose that Jezebel thought that Elijah beat up her prophets with the truth? She vowed to kill him because of what happened at Mount Carmel. Did Paul beat up with the truth Hymenaeus and Alexander when he delivered them over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20)? Did Paul beat up with the truth the Corinthians when he excoriated them for fellowshipping the immoral man? Did he alienate the Jews at Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13 when he said, that they judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life and that he would now "turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46)?

The point is, if we have the truth and refuse to share it, we may as well not have it. It is presumption to describe members of the Lord church the way Shelly does. He insinuates that the majority of members are wrong instead of it just being a few—and that we should not press the truth on others.

Shelly also made this statement: "You don't have unity unless you have a great deal of diversity." As Sybil once asked Harold Abrahams in Chariots of Fire, "That sounds clever. What does it mean?" How does anyone begin to break the allegation down? By diverse, is it meant Jew and Gentile? People of diverse backgrounds can strengthen a congregation; such a population has many advantages.

But if Shelly is referring to doctrinal diversity, how does that help? Is there strength in agreeing to disagree? There can be—if we are dealing with opinions—or things that do not matter one way or the other, as in Romans 14. But if we are dealing with doctrinal matters, Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 1:10:

Now I plead with you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Does anyone see diversity in that verse? Paul calls for unity of teaching (to be continued).