Barton-Fielder Exchange: Brother Barron's Objections Reviewed
Brother Barron agrees that "Kenneth's memory served him well and he represented me correctly," and in his last paragraph says, "Those 'beliefs' he stated seem to me to be very reasonable and sound" and he even offers to defend those beliefs if I 'challenge the truth of them'." His detailed defense would only give his beliefs "more fully." Thus he has made it a matter of record that he believes what he is charged with and that his objections have to do only with his attitude, a fine point on "judging," whether his teaching results in division and destroyed faith, and my failing to answer his beliefs.
In order to be perfectly fair with Brother Barron and to remove any misunderstanding or false impression concerning his good attitude, I wish to say that, by using the expression, "Brother Barron objected to my answer," I only meant that he disagreed with my answer. He was not ugly or out of order. On the contrary, he was very patient and considerate. He is by nature a calm, mild-mannered person. In my article to which he refers I said, "He is congenial and likeable." And he is. One can object without being "objectionable," as well as to disagree without being "disagreeable." He simply did not agree with what I preached that night, and after the service he said enough to Brother Bland to let him know that, and we made a date for the next day to talk it over. I think his action was in perfect harmony with the principles of Christianity and common courtesy and I meant to leave no other impression in my former article. I appreciate his excellent attitude, if I cannot agree with his teaching.
I do not think I misunderstand Brother Barron on the point of "judging." I did not "pre-judge" or "condemn" (in the sense that I set myself up as the judge) anyone, yet Brother Barron thought I "judged" others. I only pointed out their errors, like all faithful gospel preachers are commanded to do. It will help the reader to see what Barron really believes on "judging" to read, in his own words, what he says:
"To declare, for instance, that one is condemned for changing from one fellowship to another (from the Church of Christ to the Methodist Church) would be judging. 'Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls'."
If Brother Barron will just tell under what circumstances and in which cases error may be pointed out (of course, it would always be in order to condemn a "legalist" gospel preacher!), we will be glad to try to understand him better.
Barron states that our conversation was a disappointment to him also. But I fail to see how this could be, for, in our conversation I assured him that I had "inwardly committed" myself to Christ, and, since he thinks that is the important thing and all else is "just an outward form," consistency demands that he rejoice in my condition and be disappointed in someone who has not "inwardly committed himself" to Christ, unless, of course, he does not believe me when I say I am "inwardly committed" to Christ — in which case he is judging me!! It does seem a little strange that he is not disappointed enough in a group of -unimmersed Methodists to preach to them their error and yet is disappointed enough in me, a brother in Christ, to tell that he is. If an "inward committal" is good enough for one, why isn't it good enough for all, and if one has that qualification why let a little "legalism" be disappointing.
Brother Barron objects to my saying that he is serving to destroy faith and create division. I maintain that his teaching will certainly do that, no matter who the teacher may be. Does Barron want us to think that there is no objection to his teaching fellowship with the sects? Does he expect us to believe that one can teach that baptism is non-essential, among a group of faithful Christians, and not either destroy faith or cause confusion or division. Is he suggesting that he can teach that "you can use the mechanical instrument of music if you want to,' 'and avoid trouble? Does he mean that he has had no objections to his teaching that "baptism is no part of the new birth; the water in John 3:5 is the natural birth"? Brother Barron is too optimistic! If Barron thinks his teaching has not caused confusion, disbelief, division, and destruction, he would do well to visit the scenes of his past labors, or the scenes of his fellow "anti-legalists." Or, he might read a bit in the history of digression, or take a second look at some of the buildings now being used by the Christian Church, which buildings formerly belonged to faithful brethren, or, if nothing else, he could take a look at one of the deeds of church property belonging to faithful brethren who have experienced the influence of his type teaching.
A letter is quoted, from someone whose faith, he says, has been "strengthened." Yes, Brother Barron, but what about those in the same congregation who feel that this person's faith has been destroyed? Brother Barron's teaching will result in one of three things: First, all may accept it, in which case, I am willing to affirm, their faith has been destroyed. Second, some may accept it and others reject it. This of course, would mean division. Third, all could reject it. This, unfortunately has not happened, as evidenced by the letter from which Brother Barron quotes. Yes, not only Walter Barron, but also all like preachers, are "serving only to create confusion and disbelief, and destroying what many faithful men before them have stood for."
Next, it is said that I "did not grapple with the issues" but thought that "the mere statement of those issues" was "sufficient" for my "purpose," and that I "pre-supposed the prejudice of my readers." Why, of course! The very point of my article was to point out to brethren that Brother Barron, whom they normally would have expected to share certain convictions, did not share them. If some brother started teaching that Jesus was not born of a virgin, I would not start at first trying to prove to my brethren that Jesus was born of a virgin, but I would warn them that said brother was "subverted" and was to be "marked" or recognized. If the issues need to be "grappled with," I have no disposition to avoid taking them up. But that was not the design of my former article. Brother Bryan Vinson, Brother Roland Johnson and Brother G. H. P. Showalter recently had similar articles in various journals, designed to show the brethren that a certain Brother was not walking according to "sound doctrine," especially with reference to mechanical instruments. These articles were not written to refute the "music" arguments at all, they were simply to point out that one was violating recognized scriptural teaching. And so with mine.
I do not believe that Barron's "beliefs" are "reasonable and sound." I "challenge the truth of them" on the basis of what the Bible teaches. If he wishes to offer arguments in support of his beliefs, I will be glad to "grapple with" them.
My continued hope and prayer is that Brother Barron will get a firm grip on himself, make a determined restudy of Christ's word, and, as a result, give up this false doctrine he is teaching. If he does not, it will lead to where it almost invariably leads — to a complete loss of convictions in the most fundamental Bible principles and full fellowship and affiliation with anything called religion. May God help him to escape.