by Harry Osborne
The charge of "Pharisaism" is commonly made towards those who try to live strictly by the commands of God as recorded in the Bible. Yet, the Pharisees rejected the commands of God to walk in their own traditions (Mk. 7:8-13; Matt. 15:3-9). Nonetheless, those standing upon book, chapter and verse teaching and practice have been called "Pharisees" by the advocates of error. Supporters of institutionalism labeled as "Pharisees" brethren who upheld the pattern of truth. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside charged those opposing their "unity-in-diversity" concepts with "Pharisaism." Others did the same during the Grace-Unity Movement of the 1970's. The epitaph continues to be hurled.
It has gotten to the point that one of the identifying marks of apostasy is the false charge of "Pharisaism" made towards brethren who are holding to the old paths. Thus, it should not be surprising that such false accusations can be heard in many quarters today. A class book full of such charges is now in wide use. The book, written by David Chadwell, is titled Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees. It should be noted that Mr. Chadwell is not only a supporter of institutionalism, but is among the number calling for a "New Hermeneutic" justifying things that even many liberal brethren call "liberal." Though it is almost expected from those who left Bible authority behind years ago, it is sad to see the bitter misrepresentations and cunning defense of apostasy given. Far more distressing, however, is the fact that some among our own brethren have encouraged the use of this book in Bible classes. As a means of dealing with the false charges of "Pharisaism" made towards faithful brethren, I would like to note a few of the more glaring problems found in Mr. Chadwell's book.
Chadwell's argument for greater tolerance for diverse doctrines and practices rests upon a false premise as well. He says, "One can accept Scripture as authority, but be unable to determine the true meaning of Scripture" (27). That will come as shocking news to the apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit who inspired the command, "Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17). Chadwell by repeatedly claiming that much instruction found in Scripture lacks sufficient "clarity" for us to understand and apply it. He terms such "gray areas" (81). This false assertion forms the premise upon which much of his argument is made for tolerance of those teaching diverse doctrines and practicing some sins. Failure to accept such diversity is labeled "Pharisaism" despite the fact that the Pharisees made the same claim that the law was not clear in some areas, thus, paving the way for their rejection of God's law in favor of their reinterpretations (Mk. 7:9-13).
Mr. Chadwell further charges that brethren "commonly" recognize "no area of opinion today" (75). Were you aware of that? He goes on to claim that "many congregations" would regard "as a model Christian" a man "who does not drink, who does not smoke, who forbids his wife and children to wear brief or tight apparel, and who faithfully attends the weekly assemblies" and yet "his covetousness is accepted without comment" (75). Later he says, "There are even those who have concluded that unless a person responds during the invitation song his conversion is suspect" (101). Really? Who says such? With his straw man erected for use, the beating may commence in earnest.
"To define and preserve autonomy, one must define "a congregation." Perhaps the most critical definition made in the church today is the definition of "a congregation." The accepted definition today is a reasoned conclusion. From that reasoned conclusion have arisen some stringent laws about "a congregation," laws which often produce hurt and division. Those laws are the spirit and essence of the divisive anti-cooperation movement... They legislate a 1000 matters about which Scripture is silent."
Where are the thousand laws of brethren opposed to sponsoring churches? Who made a new law when the elders of the Highlands church in Abilene took oversight of a national program called "The Herald of Truth" and called for all churches to subordinate themselves by sending funds from various churches to be overseen by the Highlands elders? Who made a new law when the Prestoncrest church in Dallas called upon all churches to work under their oversight in taking the Gospel to Eastern Europe? It would indeed be interesting to have Mr. Chadwell explain how the one holding to the truth that elders are to "tend the flock of God which is among [them], exercising the oversight thereof" is the modern parallel to the Pharisee binding human tradition. It is truly hard to believe that Mr. Chadwell has even read passages like 1 Peter 5:2, Acts 20:28 and Acts 14:23. Consider his words as follows:
"Like the Pharisees, many Christians allow reasoned conclusions to void specific revelation... That reasoning declares 1) congregational autonomy is sacred and must be preserved. 2) Leadership must be confined to a single congregation. 3) A congregation is a group of Christians meeting in the same building. 4) The autonomy of that group must be preserved regardless of the cost" (104).
Whether one calls it "autonomy" or not, the limitation of elders' oversight to one congregation is explicitly stated in Scripture. How much clearer could it get? Though Mr. Chadwell misrepresents faithful brethren as believing a congregation is a group of Christians meeting in the same building (I know of no one who says they are any less a congregation if they meet in the open air as many do in the Philippines), he could surely understand that a congregation is a group of Christians who agree to work and worship together in a given locality (1 Cor. 1:2; 11:18). Mr. Chadwell's "gray area" regarding autonomy is the result of his smokescreen rather than a lack of "clarity" in Scripture.
After much preparation, Chadwell gets to his real agenda in chapter 12. He urges brethren holding to the necessity of finding Bible authority for all thing to see such "perceptions of scriptural authority were flawed" (99). He proposes to reject approved examples and necessary inferences as expressions of God's binding authority. Through whatever hermeneutic Chadwell now uses, he tells us that Romans 14 allows us to differ in "ethical questions" like drinking alcohol, dancing and immodest dress (99). His method of interpretation even allows inclusion with the Christian Church in the "restoration church," whatever that is.
Lest we think the problem is far off, the same concept is present among non-institutional brethren. While no calls exist to include the Christian Church in our fellowship, calls for tolerance of drinking alcohol, dancing and immodest dress based on Romans 14 have invaded us. Some seek loose views on divorce and remarriage as the Pharisees did, yet label "Pharisaical" those who abide within Christ's doctrine (Matt 19:3-12). In recent months, I have even heard it asserted by a preacher that preaching attendance at services is "Pharisaical." Let us uphold truth, and a mirror, for such brethren to see the true Pharisees.