|
 "We
are hearing a lot these days about "liberalism" in the
institutional churches of Christ. But when is a church
"liberal," and when can such a term be justified as
applied to an entire congregation?
Vehemently
and with an air of aggrieved innocence members of these
congregations disavow liberalism and deny that they are liberal.
How then can any fair person make such a charge? A quotation
from William F. Buckley, Jr. pretty well states the case:
"If
one sets out to show that a religious sect is corrupt, it does
not suffice to point to a member of that sect who has been
caught channeling money from the collection plate to his
mistress. He is proved corrupt, but not, yet, the movement.
Suppose, then, one approaches the delinquent's co-religionists
and asks them for an expression of opinion on the behavior of
their brother. If they show a marked indifference to it, if they
actively defend him, if they continue to countenance or even
move him up the ladder of their hierarchy, more and more one is
entitled to generalize...that the organization is corrupt"
(Up From Liberalism-Page 8).
Our
land is filled with sad examples of the very thing Mr. Buckley
was talking about. For years now faithful brethren have been
pointing out to their friends many of the "far out"
examples of social gospel liberalism in many churches of Christ.
And over and over again they have been met with the response,
"I don't approve of that; I am opposed to that; I think
that is wrong". Then, having thus absolved themselves of
all guilt in the matter,
|
|
having purified their
souls by a verbal note of protest, these brethren blithely and
cheerily go their way, attending the church which does that
which they disavow, giving their money to support that which
they say is wrong, lending their time and effort and influence
to build up that which they tell us they oppose! Under such
circumstances we think that any fair minded person is not only
'entitled to generalize' as to the basic liberalism of such a
person, but by the logic of the case is compelled to do so. To
say the least, one might be excused for entertaining a bit of
skepticism as to the avowals and disavowals of the one who
protests that he 'doesn't go along' with what is being
done".
The
above is a condensed portion of an editorial in the Feb. 6,
Gospel Guardian, by Fanning Yater Tant. We heartily recommend
the complete text.
How
do brethren justify support and furtherance of something they
say is contrary to their convictions. Some say they
"stay" to try and correct the wrongs. If one could do
this without being a party to the wrong we would see merit here
— or, if we had some evidence they were really trying to make
the correction.
But
the alternative looms as big as life, and there is little reason
to complain if people see it. Such people have very weak
convictions, they will compromise the truth, and that is why
they are called "liberal.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
