CONCEALMENT AND CONTROL D. R. Martin

I have just finished reading a little book by John Stott entitled, The Authentic Jesus. To be authentic requires openness—nothing hidden, freedom from hypocrisy, no pretence about yourself or a given situation. Jesus was a very transparent person. As a consequence, he set people free to discover the truth for themselves and about any problem situation.
Stott begins the conclusion to his book with the following insightful statement:
‘I have almost finished what I have felt impelled to write. Some readers may consider that I have been unnecessarily controversial. For nowadays all kinds of controversy are distasteful, and none more so than religious controversy. Yet to shrink from it is characteristic of the age of uncertainty in which we are living, not of Jesus Christ and his apostles; they contended vigorously for what they believed to be the truth. It is not conducive to the health of the Church to sweep our differences under the carpet or to pretend that all is sweetness and light when it is not. Nor are these subterfuges consistent with Christian integrity. It is more healthy and more honest to bring our disagreements out into the open. This necessitates being outspoken, without ever needing to be rude.’1
Obviously, Stott is calling for change, and if we apply it to our church, where does change take place? When it has been put into effect at a high level it may not have begun there. People in positions of authority need to know when there is dissatisfaction with the status quo. And ordinary members need to know that change is not always apostasy. We do not expect things to be swept under the carpet, but if there is some truth in what is brought to the notice of the leaders, it should be seriously discussed and passed on to honest open-minded scholars, and then, if found to be in harmony with Scripture, to be put into effect.
I am directing this essay to those in positions of leadership, for in my church there is a tendency—if not, a policy—to keep certain things under wraps, to not reveal any truth that would unsettle the members of the church lest things get out of control.
I know of at least one intelligent member who is crying out to be informed. Her comment was, ‘Why do they treat us like children?’ An attitude of protection gives the impression that members are incapable of handling any situation that may disturb their equilibrium. If growth comes with trauma, we should not be afraid of trauma.
On one occasion I expressed the truth that whenever the phrase ‘they that dwell on the earth’ appears in Revelation, it refers to the unconverted, not to God’s people. This is the accepted interpretation of most evangelical theologians. This being the case, the judgement hour of Revelation 14:7 is about the judgement of the unconverted and not the judgement of God’s people. The one in charge responded, ‘You would never preach that, would you?’ But what is the alternative? Let people go on believing a false interpretation. Truth requires openness and our times demands it.
Someday the question will be asked, ‘Why did you not tell us these things?’ The unsatisfactory answer may be given, ‘Well, we tried to protect you because we didn’t want to disturb you. That was our pastoral responsibility.’ But is it really a pastoral responsibility to shield church members from the truth, to allow them to continue believing in a falsehood? Defensiveness in that situation is resistance to the Spirit of truth.
There was no hush, hush for David after his affair with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband. People may be shocked with such revelations, but while the truth may hurt, it is to be revealed rather than covered up. Proverbs 28:13 makes it clear that ‘He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.’ And of even greater force are the words of Jesus, ‘So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that shall not be disclosed, or hidden that shall not be made known’ (Matt. 10:26).
Do you remember that Desmond Ford was accused of pastoral irresponsibility? It was also pointed out that he was a man of integrity—‘true to duty as the needle to the pole.’ He brought his understanding to the highest authority in the Adventist Church. But at Glacier View the brethren were not allowed to use the Bible when discussing a theological position, but simply to discover whether proposals were in harmony with positions already taken and stated in what is known as ‘Fundamentals.’ Most scholars sided with Ford to the dismay of administrators, and some registered their protest at his treatment. After all it was his denomination that sent him to do his degrees. Should they not bear some responsibility if his conclusions differed from the accepted norm? Again, do we not believe that the goal of true education is to ‘teach men to be thinkers and not imitators of other men’s thoughts’? No one can control the thoughts of another person, particularly when that person has the welfare of the Church at heart.
A further question arises: Is it right that the recorded notes of the Glacier View Conference were not made public, simply because what some administrators said did not look good? If that question is not answered by revealing what was said, then suspicion is aroused instead of trust.
To conclude this brief discussion, let me ask, Is it the responsibility of people in positions of administration to determine what is truth? If not, then they are responsible to work together with anyone who believes that he has truth to share, to humble their hearts and pray that the Spirit of Truth will prepare people to receive what is agreed to be truth. Disturbances will come. In this age it is impossible to hide ideas. Truth needs to be revealed to members by those in a position of leadership. It still may disturb, but it will also develop trust. It will say to our people, ‘We may have considered you immature in the past, but that time has passed. Light has been shining and we must change and grow with it.’ Then pastors will be trusted to deal with any ensuing problems at the local church level. But they must be prepared beforehand. After all, the Holy Spirit is the ‘Spirit of Truth’ and he will reveal it to those who are prepared, and this is a time to prepare people to receive truth even if it disturbs, instead of lulling them into a sense of false security.
Endnote:
1. John Stott, The Authentic Jesus, (Marshall , Morgan & Scott, London, 1985), p.85.