The following critique was originally published in Dialogue 1:3
(July 1994) 40-47 (a now defunct journal) in anticipation of LaGard Smith's upcoming
speech in the Denver Lectures in September of 1994. The hope of the article was to open
genuine dialogue with LaGard about the manner and content of his various speeches,
especially the 1994 Pepperdine Speech, Sodom's Second Coming. Because LaGard and I
had been friends for several years and had engaged in a bit of an interchange in Image
Magazine , I believed that he would accept the spirit of my article in stride. I was
mistaken about that. LaGard took great exception to the article. Instead of a dialogical
response, he submitted a terse rejoinder for the next issue of Dialogue which was
published along with responses from Rob McRay, and others, and a clarification and apology
from me for offending LaGard. All of these items are included below.
With this web-publication of the article and responses, I wish to make
it clear that I have no regrets about the original article
as a whole or my intentions in writing it. However, as a show of good faith,
and to avoid misunderstandings, I have removed the opening quote which caused
LaGard so much
objection and have placed it inside the body of the text where it is less likely to be
misunderstood. Aside from the movement of that opening quote to
another spot, the present article is identical to the one originally published
in 1994.
Despite LaGard's objections that
you significantly distorted the thrust and content of my lecture. From
your highly-edited version of my presentation, your readers were repeatedly misled as to
any number of points with which you took issue [see below under "Reply by LaGard
Smith" for complete comments]
I am quite satisfied that any fair group of people who wishes to examine
closely my critique with his original tape of the lecture will find that I had worked hard
to respect the intent, context, and content of his lecture as he delivered it —
something he did not do with those authors he continually (mis)quoted. I believe his
lecture is open to severe and legitimate criticism. What is worse, LaGard does not appear
to be bothered that he grossly misrepresented people he quoted in his lecture and he makes
no contribution to any sort of substantive dialogue.
Regardless, I still believe that genuine dialogue is a goal worth
pursuing. The point here is not to bash LaGard (or his theological positions), but to
encourage responsible critique of alternate viewpoints.
Gary D. Collier
February 11, 1998
Introductory Comments
LaGard Smith has become very well known in Christian circles both inside
and outside Churches of Christ. A teacher of law at Pepperdine University, he is a popular
speaker on Christian topics eagerly sought-after around the country. He has published
numerous books, including the widely used Narrated Bible, the well-known Out on a Broken
Limb, and the popular The Cultural Church, to name a few.
On top of all of this, I am told that he will be the featured speaker at
the Denver Lectures this Fall. For me, this is both good news and bad news. Good news,
first, because LaGard is a personal friend of mine. I have known and liked LaGard for more
than 15 years. He is quite intelligent, very amiable, and a joy to be around. We have
corresponded a few times over the years. And in his book Fallen Shepherds, Scattered Sheep
(1988), he printed for all to see, just under the dedication, "With appreciation to
Shirley Roper, David Davenport, Bill Henegar, and Gary Collier." My copy of the book
also has a very kind handwritten note:
He had sent me a pre-publication copy of the manuscript and I had made
some suggestions for the book, to which he kindly listened. All of this is very special to
me. LaGard is a friend.
His coming is good news also because LaGard has some very important
things to say. Anyone who has read my review of his book, The Cultural Church (in the
May/June 1993 issue of Image Magazine), knows that even though I was very critical of that
book at some important places, I also was very positive about other aspects of the book.
In his books and speeches, LaGard is addressing some very important issues, issues that
many other people are also discussing: the new morality, new age, postmodernism, political
correctness, cultural assimilation, gay rights, and the topic of hermeneutics. I have many
of the same concerns as he does about many of the same topics, even if we also have some
disagreements. When I hear that LaGard is coming to town, that's good news.
So, with all of this good news, what's the bad news? It is this: I very
strongly disagree with the way in which LaGard is choosing to discuss his topics. In fact,
I believe that his method is undermining his message and will ultimately contribute to the
disintegration of the fellowship he so desperately wants to help. Such is not, of course,
LaGard's intention (and I know this for a fact because I have talked personally with him
at length about it; his motives are admirable). But as it is, he is helping to drive an
already existing wedge even further into the grain of the fellowship he loves.
Of course, I am hoping against hope that LaGard himself will come to see
the point I am making here. So, in an attempt to make a positive contribution, both to
LaGard, and to those who listen to him, I will turn to one specific public speech which he
delivered at Pepperdine in April 19941 (which he tells me is typical of speeches he
delivers elsewhere). First, to be fair to LaGard, I will try to give the larger context in
which his speech occurs. (Please note that one of my chief aims in this article is to show
that it is unfair to any speaker/author to take his or her words out of context!)
Secondly, I will look specifically at portions of the speech I consider objectionable and
offer some critique. Thirdly, I will look at some of his unnamed sources. Finally, I will
offer some suggestions and hopes.
LaGard's topic, "Sodom's Second Coming," was a three-day class
(one hour each day) on the topic of homosexuality. The setting was the bustling Pepperdine
lectureship at which there is always far more going on than one can possibly take in and
far more said than one can possibly agree with. But the week is always stimulating and
challenging, if sometimes unsettling. Speakers ranging from LaGard Smith to Rubel Shelly,
and including both men and women, gave focused attention to Galatians and other topics.
Main Lectures (30-40 minute sermons) focused on some high points of Galatians, while
classes centered on the details and context of Galatians. LaGard's three day class was not
on Galatians, but nevertheless commented on the topic—on the last day in particular.
As to LaGard's class: on the first day, he read Romans 1, distinguishing
sharply between sin and sinners: "There is a law, law, law! that God has laid down
for all of us." Homosexual behavior is a sin before God, and we should be clear about
that. But we must be careful not to hate the sinner: "There is not one sin that is
greater than any other sin; sin is sin; sin is idolatry; sin is an inversion of the
perverted [sic., natural??] order as God created it to be."
The second day, he spoke about the gay rights movement, contrasting
homophobia and ambigua-phobia (i.e., becoming so intimidated by gay rights advocates that
we become ambiguous about standing for anything). He discussed many legal ramifications of
the gay rights movement, unashamedly noting that Christians "must learn to
discriminate against it" as a blatant and sinful movement which is primarily about
acceptance and approval.
LaGard himself described the third day as "an E-ticket ride"
(a reference to Disneyland's old way of referring to their best and most exciting rides).
Each day he encouraged his audience, "Don't miss Friday!" He meant it. This day,
though not focused solely on homosexuality per se, was for LaGard the most important of
his three speeches. Here he tied many things together into one grand theme: hermeneutics,
grace, law, homosexuality, role of women, instrumental music, baptism, Lord's supper,
divorce, and the Pepperdine lectureship itself. In his own words, "I want to talk
about pro-gay hermeneutics as it relates to our current discussion about hermeneutics in
the church—it will blow your mind, it will blow your mind!"
LaGard's third speech proceeded from his great concern for what he sees
happening in the Churches of Christ, and is shown in no place better than his concluding
prayer. With great emotion and tears, LaGard closed his third lecture with:
I pray for our fellowship which has elevated tradition in so many ways
that has shut out your word. And I pray for it more than ever now, that we don't go to the
opposite extreme and forget your law.
No one should doubt LaGard's motives. Surely, this is more than a public
prayer; it is a reflection of LaGard's heart.
The lecture itself was aimed directly at people in Churches of
Christ—especially those at the Pepperdine lectures, but not limited to them. As to
structure, LaGard built his speech around five publications not associated with Churches
of Christ: (1) Robert Williams' Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and
Christian (an openly gay, defrocked Catholic priest, dying with AIDS); (2) a letter from a
Baptist minister in North Carolina who had performed a "celebration of unity"
between two men in his church; (3) a report of the Presbyterian church in which a group
was advocating the "justice-love" argument (i.e., whether homosexual or
heterosexual, doesn't matter); (4) an article by David Neff in Christianity Today (Dec.
13, 1993) which analyzes the report of the task force on human sexuality of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and (5) Leonard Klein, "Lutherans in Sexual
Commotion" in First Things (May 1994). LaGard built his speech by reading (sometimes
large) sections from these authors (with whom he sometimes disagreed) and then by
comparing them to purportedly direct statements from, and indirect allusions to, unnamed
speakers within the Churches of Christ—and especially to unnamed speakers at the 1994
lectureship itself.
The upshot of LaGard's third speech is a warning: a warning against what
he calls the "grace gurus"; against the "new spirit of antinomianism"
residing in those who are teaching us; against those who have "conned" us;
against the "subtle and sophisticated form of idolatry" preached and practiced
by those at the lectureship who [this week] have continually taken "cheap shots . . .
unworthy of a serious pursuit of truth." LaGard's speech was emotion charged, direct,
and pointed. It received many "amens" and a standing ovation.
I turn now to offer some critique of LaGard's third speech. As to
contents, I want to go on record (again)2 in agreeing very strongly with LaGard in his
concern over what is happening in our world and in our fellowship in Churches of Christ. I
think LaGard is at his best when he is helping us to evaluate (from a Christian
perspective) what is happening on the legal front. He has a great deal to offer here, and
I wish he would do more of it. I applaud LaGard's warnings against sloppy argumentation,
against cheap grace, and against cultural assimilation. These are all very important
points, and he should be encouraged to continue sounding such warnings. Furthermore,
LaGard's reference to what has happened (or is happening) in other Christian fellowships
(Lutherans, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Baptists, etc.) could be very helpful to
us if comparisons are made carefully. As he himself says, it is silly for us to think that
we are somehow immune from the problems which others have already faced; therefore we must
watch carefully what we are doing.
In addition to these areas of agreement, I have some serious
disagreements over contents: I do not think LaGard understands Paul's argument in
Galatians against the law and law-keeping (although, LaGard never clearly spells out his
position on Paul in Galatians); I disagree with his implication that the law of Christ is
a system of doctrine replacing the laws of Moses, and that it consists of a
well-established list of required doctrines (instrumental music, women's role, etc.);3 I
reject his insinuations that there is no room for genuine discussion on doctrinal matters;
and I repudiate his simplistic and inaccurate use of the term "hermeneutic" as
if there are only two options: "our hermeneutic" and "the hermeneutic of
this age"—which also happens to be pro-gay. In this way, he is able to claim
that anyone who advocates a wider role for women in the church must logically argue also
in favor of homosexual activity. This is simply not the case; the discussion over
hermeneutics has many more intricacies than LaGard allows.
As to method, I have much more to say. First, I will state the problem
up front, then I will illustrate it: The problem is this: In his speech, LaGard is
careless (even if well-intended) in the manner he chooses to evaluate and address the
positions of his brothers and sisters. I want to be clear that we all (including LaGard)
have a right to take issue with positions advocated by others. But in doing so, we must
follow certain well established conventions for discussion:
(1) Accurately quote or summarize the people with whom you disagree,
keeping their statements in the context of what they said. In our time, it is not
considered proper or ethical to lift statements out of their original contexts, to set
them in new contexts, and to make them mean what they did not mean in their original
contexts. The reason for this is to protect the one being quoted and to allow proper
assessment by readers. Any statement can be perverted simply by giving it a new context.
For example, the following words were spoken by LaGard during his lecture:
"I don't know how to tell you this, I can't describe it to you
because you would never understand it; but in truth from a very early age, I didn't have
the same kind of attraction that you have. You, I know, were attracted to the opposite
sex. But I wasn't. I was attracted to my own gender. . . . For me, homosexuality is
natural. . . There is every chance in the world that homosexuality is genetic. . . . I was
the fair-haired wimpy one on the play ground. I had the rosy cheeks, that all the other
boys called "sissy." I had the limp wrist; I had the look that is associated
with those who are more effeminate."
LaGard said these words—word for word—as recorded above.
However, to read this statement in isolation from his other comments as though it were a
comment about himself would be a gross misreading of his speech. Why? First, he said these
words, not all at once, but in two or three separate locations. Second, he said them as a
summary of what some homosexuals say about themselves. He was not making the statement
about himself! But simply by making the words a self-contained unit (a new context),
their meaning is completely changed. The above quote is accurately stated, but it does not
accurately present what he said.
(2) Cite your source from which you get the information (including where
it can be found). This does at least two things: It is a way of saying, "I have
responsibly relayed what this person said, see for yourself if you want to"; and it
keeps a writer from lumping "everybody" together through general,
unsubstantiated statements: if one person said it, that person should be happy to take
credit for it (in the context it was made), and that person alone should be held
responsible for it. When authors or speakers do not cite their sources, they should be
immediately held under suspicion, for they have put themselves in a very manipulative
position to put words in the mouths of their unnamed sources and to sway an eager audience
by unsubstantiated or incorrect claims.4
LaGard's speech fails miserably in both of these respects:5 he both
misquotes and misapplies the views of his Christian brothers, and he never cites any of
them. In fact, he treats pro-gay authors more ethically than his own brothers on this
score! But most listeners will never realize this, and LaGard—being the good speaker
that he is, and a Christian lawyer!—will persuade by virtue of his passionate
presentation! Again, I do not think that LaGard is intentionally devious; but I do think
he is as careless as he is passionate. And in the end, with such tactics, he is doing far
more damage by falsely arousing people's fears and suspicions against brothers and sisters
than he is bringing healthy understanding.
No place in the speech illustrates this better than when he is
"evaluating" the 1994 Pepperdine lectures. For in this section, LaGard makes ten
(10) major methodological blunders while interpreting his brothers. I will point them out
as I walk through this section of his speech.
He begins by summarizing David Neff on the Lutherans (#4 above), namely:
"whatever smacks of law is suspect," and "ethical standards ought to be
dispensed with when they seem to inhibit the spread of the Gospel." In this way, (1)
LaGard sets up the Lutheran task force as a new context within which to interpret
statements made at the lectureship. His very next words are:
This week we have heard the following statements: "Paul's Gospel
was evangelistic. Law-keeping erects barriers to evangelism. Rules get in the way of the
Gospel."
When LaGard quotes these three sentences, it seems proper enough. But
already there are problems. LaGard not only (2) is clandestine about his source, he also
(3) misquotes him, (4) puts originally separate statements into one context together, and
(5) takes all three statements badly out of context (I will present the other speaker's
position later). He does this because he is being guided by Neff's "Lutheran"
context, as his very next words show:
What kind of rules are we talking about here? It did so happen that this
same speaker referred to a cappella music, weekly Lord's Supper, and baptism. When we look
to what inhibits the spread of the Gospel, we, like the Lutherans, may be tempted to
sacrifice ethical standards, as well as doctrinal standards.
In other words, LaGard never asks about the context or intent of the
speaker he is quoting, because he is too busy fitting snippets from what that speaker said
into a new context.
Having established this new context, LaGard continues, now labeling the
speaker's approach as a "grace only theology." After reminding us that,
"whatever smacks of law is suspect" (keeping the new "Lutheran"
context in front of us), he now offers a blanket condemnation of the whole lectureship:
If I've heard it once, I've heard it a dozen times. Sound familiar this
week? "Not law, but grace." . . . I indeed was for change before it became so
commonly talked about. But the "grace only" message of this week—I'm sad to
say—has been a poorly analyzed, unfairly balanced presentation of Galatians with
potentially disastrous consequences both doctrinally and morally.
Because LaGard still will not tell us who he is talking about, by
default (6) he has lumped all the speakers into one "grace-only" lump: what one
speaker supposedly says, the others mean.
After a brief critique of the week's lectures, LaGard proceeds next (7)
to impugn the integrity of the general lectureship audience and (8) to begin
"name-calling" the speakers.
They've been too easy—the cheap shots. And they are unworthy of a
serious pursuit of truth. The proof that we're preaching to a convinced audience is that
no one's been walking out the back door, and no one's been storming the podium. The grace
gurus are dancing a popular jig, and we're eating it up.
LaGard has a flair for the quotable, and he tends to play to his fans in
the bleachers. But the charge is very serious: as far as he is concerned, the speakers
have not been recounting their own struggles or experiences in our churches, they are
merely taking cheap shots in order to advance their "grace-only" position. (And
the audience is just as bad: they should be walking out!) With the phrase, "grace
gurus," the speakers have now been labeled. Who are they? We don't know. We won't
call them by name, we will just call them names—anybody who seems to fit the
descriptions given here must be dangerous, whether the descriptions are accurate or not.
Next, after charging that the lectures have been "unfairly
balanced," LaGard (9) uses Scripture to slap both speakers and hearers:
What we have witnessed this week is not merely a challenge to legalism,
nor Restorationist tradition, but a new spirit of antinomianism; a disdain for law, rules,
and doctrine. [But, he says, the problem is not the cheap grace of Rom 6; but of the
people who won't listen to sound doctrine in 2 Tim 3:16-4:6]: "Instead to suit their
own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their
itching ears want to hear."
Here, Scripture is used to bolster an unsupported and even false claim
which is based on inaccurate, out-of-context quotes. If the charge had been true, the text
might have been appropriate. But since the charge is merely polemical, the use of
Scripture is contemptible.
Finally, LaGard (10) attacks the character of everyone at the lectures
who does not stand against the lectureship speakers: for both speakers and hearers are
really devious idolaters!
What we've heard this week is not a clearly articulated exposition of
grace from the letter to the Galatians, but rather a subtle, sophisticated form of
idolatry.
Thanks to LaGard, we now know what is really going on with all of these
grace gurus among us: Idolatry, not grace! Not only so, but it is subtle and
sophisticated! Perhaps I misunderstand, but I do not know how else to read this except to
mean intentional, planned, devious, calculated perversion of the Law of Christ: a
fulfillment of Romans 1. And I believe this is exactly what LaGard intends in this section
of his speech.
The charges brought by LaGard are extremely serious, and whether he
intends them so or not, they are defacing to real-life people—both to the speakers he
will not name, and to any hearer who disagrees with his assessment! The ten blunders I
have mentioned are serious indiscretions, even if they are unintended (as they surely
are). LaGard may have a sincere heart; but his method is at once careless, insulting, and
divisive.
It is important to spend a bit of time in LaGard's unnamed sources to
substantiate some of the charges which I have brought against LaGard. The main speaker who
was criticized in LaGard's speech is Rob McRay, a preacher in the Milwaukee area. His
assigned topic was "Gal. 1:6-9: The Tragedy of a Perverted Gospel." 6
The speaker begins his sermon with a true story about a church in
Arkansas which refused to give
a mother milk for her baby because the church treasurer was out of town -- the church
believed
that all money given to benevolent causes must go through the church! The speaker asks in
dismay:
How can they do that? It's possible because people believe that they
must keep the letter of the law to be saved and they lose sight of the heart of the God
they serve. Its because they know the law and they don't know the Spirit of God. They come
to value rules more than they value people.
He goes on to illustrate some of the tendencies of the Pharisees in the
Gospels and Acts, and then notes that:
Paul's problem with Galatia was with exactly these people. It was with
Pharisees who had become Christians. . . . They were demanding that Paul's converts to
Jesus keep the Law to be right with God; after all, keeping the law was the only way to be
right with God. . . . The end result was, the Gentiles had to become Jews to be
Christians.
The issue in Galatians, he says, was the Gentile mission. What did
Gentiles have to do to be saved? Did they have to keep the law? Or was grace sufficient?
Paul's Gospel was evangelistic: it was for everyone. But
the Christian Pharisees were putting a barrier in front of evangelism. They were blocking
people's path to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They were saying "It's not enough to
believe in Jesus, you also have to keep the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai."
Our speaker then turns his sermon in application for today.
Paul's problem was with Pharisees who became Christians. I believe the
problem today, with Christianity, is with Christians who become Pharisees. . . . When
Christians become Pharisees, they fall prey to the same dangers that the Pharisees fell
prey to: [1] They can know the law and not the Spirit; they can value rules over people; .
. . They keep the letter of the law just to be safe. . . . [2] They create barriers
to evangelism. Rules get in the way of the Gospel. "You aren't really a
Christian if you don't line up right on all these views." . . . [3] They fight, and
argue, and divide over rules. . . . [4] They can practice racial prejudice while still
believing they are the only true Christians.
The italicized/underlined words in the two paragraphs just quoted
indicate the words misquoted and misapplied by LaGard (mentioned earlier as blunders 3 and
4). First, they come from two separate contexts; and secondly, the speaker did not say,
"Law-keeping creates barriers to evangelism" (as LaGard has charged), but
"Pharisees" create the barriers—clearly in a context which is assessing the
negative characteristics of Pharisees, not law per se. It is grossly inaccurate to
characterize this speech as "antinomian." The speaker does take a position
against law as a means of salvation, but that is Paul's point in Galatians. This speaker
builds a case against Pharisaical abuse of law, not against law per se.
This same attitude toward law was widely reflected in other lectureship
speakers. Note, for example, the very fine and balanced statement by Rick Oster:
And so we get down to [chapter] three and we're going to see some things
that, in my judgment, sound very negative about the law, and [are] really not the final
word on the NT teaching about the law. But the reason is, is these comments on the law and
the Mosaic covenant in Galatians are directed to a very specific issue, and that is:
"What does the Mosaic law offer Gentiles in terms of salvation?" And the answer
is nothing; the answer is nothing. Now if you want to talk about: "What does law have
to offer Gentiles in terms of morality and other questions?" —then we have to
expand the question and expand the answer. But the question that's being addressed in this
section is about what the opponents and agitators are doing. . . . So because of that goal
in this section of the letter, were going to have a lot statements that sound very
negative—and they should be stated very negatively about the question: "What
does it offer to Gentiles?" [his emph]
Another speaker, Rick Atchley, noted that as we preach about salvation,
grace, and law, we have three options: We are saved by works of law; by grace; or by grace
plus works of law. Nobody will accept the first, he says, and the second (though Paul's
point in Galatians) is extremely dangerous. So, we take the third option. This is a shame
and a denial of Paul's message, he says. But it does not mean that law is of no value:
I think a lot of people misunderstand legalism. Legalism is not
law-keeping. God has commands, and we should obey them. But legalism is depending on
law-keeping for being right with God. Legalism makes human response the essence of the
Gospel. Legalists fail to realize that the Law of Moses serves to illustrate the inability
of law—and I mean any law—to make people righteous. Look up here at Gal. 2:21.
Paul says, "I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness could be gained
through the law, Christ died for nothing!" The Galatian epistle is a polemic against
any law-keeping system that promises to be redemptive. Righteousness on the basis of law
negates the value of the death of Christ. [his emph]
Toward the end of his sermon, this speaker adds:
I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "If we
preach grace without a postscript, aren't you afraid some people will abuse it?" I've
got an answer for you: Yes! I know they will abuse it. I know Paul was a
much better preacher than I am, and if they misunderstood Paul, I can assure you they're
going to misunderstand me when I preach grace. But now I've got a question for you. Are
you ready to say that if we tell people just what the Bible says, as strongly as the Bible
says it, that God is not big enough to handle the implications? [his emph]
All three of these speakers agree with each other. And they are the ones
who spoke most clearly and directly to the kinds of things LaGard criticized. Were their
speeches antinomian? Hardly. Was anyone at Pepperdine reflecting an antinomian spirit? It
is possible, of course, but such a person or persons should be clearly quoted and cited
and given a fair hearing. He or she should not be confused with other speakers. Did our
three speakers advocate grace only? With respect to "What saves us?", they
certainly did, as Paul does in Galatians. Did they show disdain for law, rules, and
doctrine? Certainly not! Should their statements be placed in the context of pro-gay
activists and radical feminists and be called "idolaters"? That is as absurd as
taking LaGard's own statement, "For me homosexuality is natural" as a reference
to himself!
Again, I want to emphasize that LaGard came to his task with great
vigor, sincerity, and concern; and he is to be encouraged for all of that. Furthermore, I
think he has a very legitimate concern about potential dangers from pro-gay and radical
feminist theologies. The caution I raise here should not be understood as sympathy for
either of these causes, because I have no sympathy for them. My caution is, rather, that
zeal without care and accuracy can be very detrimental to all of us. There is no reason
for us to shoot ourselves in the foot—or the heart—in a legitimate defense
against destructive forces or philosophies. This has been our tendency, I know; but after
a while it looks like we should be able to learn how to take aim before we shoot. With
that in mind, I would like to offer to LaGard—and all of us—the following
suggestions:
1. Respect the faith and efforts of your brothers and sisters; try to
understand their arguments from their point of view. (This will help us avoid comments
against people's motives.)
2. Quote and summarize accurately.
3. Respect the context of your sources.
4. Cite your sources. (One can be just as acrimonious by not mentioning
names as those who mention names acrimoniously. Being "issue-oriented" [rather
than "personality-oriented"] does not mean that we should become irresponsible
about accurately and carefully citing the sources we quote or summarize.)
5. Leave room for discussion on doctrinal matters.
6. Don't lump people together indiscriminately.
7. Do what is right regardless of what "the other side" does.
(It does not matter that other people "on the other side" have bad manners, are
offensive, improperly question the motives of others, etc.—just because some people
do not know how to act, does not mean that we should act like they do when we disagree.
What is it our mothers taught us? "Two wrongs don't make a right!")
When LaGard comes to Denver in September, my hope is that he will bring
all of his strength and vigor to deal with the issues he has been asked to discuss; that
he will do so carefully and respectfully; and that he will not repeat the very bad
mistakes he made in his 1994 Pepperdine speech. Anybody can make mistakes. But I am hoping
that LaGard will come determined to help Christians in this area to find greater
fellowship with God and each other, not to waylay people for things they haven't done.
What is at stake in all of this is that we learn how to deal with each other in the midst
of controversy and disagreement. May we do so with prayer and Christian charity.
In this article I have attempted to evaluate only one speech. I have
tried to keep it in context and to judge it fairly in its setting, giving LaGard the
benefit of the doubt with respect to his motives.
I have not attempted to say what LaGard "really thinks" in his
mind, or to assert how LaGard will speak on similar topics in other locations. Only he can
do that. I would be delighted for LaGard to respond to my assessment. To that end, we have
sent a copy of this article to him with an invitation to respond.
1All of the tapes discussed in this article are available on tape
through Pepperdine University, Department of Church Services: Ph: (310) 456-4000.
2See my review of his "The Cultural Church," Image (May/June
1993); and my Pepperdine lecture, "Scripture, Culture, Music, Women," (April
1994); See also my forthcoming articles "To Build a Fire" parts 1 and 2 in Image
(May/June and July/August 1994); and "If You Love Me, Come Away" in Wineskins
(forthcoming in 1994-95).
3I have already commented on this matter in general in "Scripture,
Culture, and the Essentials," DIALOGUE 1:2 (1994) 22-28. Of course, James explores
the matter from a different perspective. However, Paul and James should not be merely
conflated. It would be very interesting to explore this in a subsequent issue of DIALOGUE
with several writers on the same topic.
4There is, of course, such a thing as "yellow journalism" in
which authors or editors will constantly "name names," accuse people of saying,
believing, or doing things, and never allow them opportunity to respond. (This is also
called "slander.") Such practices contribute only to acrimony, and those who do
such things should be shunned and ignored as divisive. But acrimony is not avoided—in
the least—by refusing to cite sources and then continually distorting those sources.
Such a practice is equally irresponsible with the first approach. A better approach is to
cite your sources, expecting and welcoming corrections to your bad characterizations if
you have misunderstood them. This is called "discussion."
5He also does this in the Cultural Church. See my review for details
(see fn. 2 above).
6LaGard also quotes from Larry James's speech at the "Annual Men's
Fellowship Dinner," but I have not included any of those sections here.
19
Responses
(unedited)
Thank you for inviting me to respond to your review and critique of my
final presentation at the 1994 Pepperdine Bible Lectures.
I too believe that it is unfair to take what others say out of context.
The dangers of doing so are made all the more evident by your own critique of my
presentation which, because you did not practice what you preached, significantly
distorted the thrust and content of my lecture. From your highly-edited version of my
presentation, your readers were repeatedly misled as to any number of points with which
you took issue. Likewise, your selective reporting of the lectures to which I was
responding (at least one of which, by Larry James, you did not include at all in your
review), never revealed to your readers the basis of my concern.
Distortion is, of course, the ever-present tyranny of any attempt to
reduce in summary fashion what was spoken at far greater length. And, too, there is always
the bias of the reviewer to be considered. Given those inherent limitations, perhaps we
should simply encourage your readers to listen to the lectures in question and judge for
themselves.
In order to avoid any future need for selective editing, let me
encourage your readers to come to the Pepperdine Lectures and listen "up close and
personal" to the various viewpoints that are shared each year on this campus.
Firsthand is always better than rumor.
LaGard Smith
24352 Baxter Drive, Malibu, CA 90265
***********
(unsolicited and unedited)
Thank you for your article concerning LaGard's speech at Pepperdine.
Like you, I am very concerned about how our fellowship has handled disagreements over
doctrine. Dialogue appears to be a helpful forum for addressing issues of concern in a
fair and responsible way.
I do not know LaGard personally, although his wife, Ruth, and I have
known each other for many years. I frequently recommend LaGard's book, When Choice Becomes
God, and have enjoyed some of his other works. LaGard's talents are quite impressive when
he addresses subjects like abortion, which are within his field of expertise.
However, I was very deeply disappointed in LaGard's comments in his
third class at Pepperdine this year. It was immediately obvious to all who heard my
lecture and then heard LaGard, that he was directly attacking my presentation. While there
might be some who would feel otherwise, everyone I know who heard both lectures agrees
that I was grossly misrepresented. My wife, Judy, was very upset by LaGard's comments.
I know that my lecture was not the only one at Pepperdine this year with
which LaGard disagreed. However, mine was virtually the only lecture which he quoted (or
misquoted). My lecture (along with others) was criticized as shallow and unscholarly.
LaGard (who is a highly qualified lawyer) may not be aware of my graduate education in
Bible and Jewish backgrounds to the NT.
I was assigned the task of applying Galatians 1:6-9 to the church today.
The issue in this text is the perverted gospel of the legalistic Judaizers in Galatia,
against which Paul makes a harsh attack. As you noted in your summary of my lecture, I
drew parallels between the Pharisaism of these Judaizers and the Pharisaism which has been
witnessed in our movement and in others. Respected NT scholars have affirmed that my
representation of the Pharisees was accurate.
LaGard also characterized my lecture (and others) as irresponsible and
antinomian. Surely being opposed to legalism does not make one antinomian. It is true that
my lecture did not discuss the value and necessity of obeying the will of God. Nor did I
discuss how to responsibly apply the Law of Moses to Christians today. I believe both of
these are critically important. However, Galatians 1:6-9 does not address these issues. I
was not assigned the text on the fruit of the Spirit. Had I been assigned that text I
would have spoken at some length about the nature and necessity of righteousness.
By quoting me out of context and even misquoting me, LaGard represented
me as suggesting that baptism and the Lord's Supper were not important. I did not suggest
any such thing. In listening again to my lecture I have concluded that I could have been
more clear in my very brief comments about the role of identity markers in religious
groups. Those who are unfamiliar with the role of circumcision, Sabbath, and kosher as
identity markers in the Judaism of Jesus' day may not have completely understood my remark
about the similar function of baptism, the Lord's Supper, a cappella music, and a
plurality of elders in our own heritage. The Sabbath was one of the Ten Commandments and
was obviously of great importance. However, as something used as a marker of a true Jew,
the emphasis moved to correctly observing the growing multitude of rules about the Sabbath
rather than remembering the creating work of God. Circumcision of the flesh was emphasized
over circumcision of the heart. And keeping regulations regarding food overshadowed the
holiness these regulations were originally intended to represent. Disagreement over the
traditions concerning these identity markers was not easily tolerated. My comments were
merely intended to call attention to a similar danger for us. Later in my lecture, in a
different context, I did assert that a cappella music is not a part of the gospel and
suggested that the divisions we have experienced over this issue were tragic and needed to
be healed. (I doubt LaGard's views on the a cappella question are dramatically different
from my own.) Nowhere did I suggest that baptism and the Lord's Supper were unimportant. I
believe exactly the opposite.
The thrust of LaGard's speech asserted that I (and others) am using the
same hermeneutical principles as radical feminists and homosexual advocates. The
impression was left that I do not respect the moral injunctions of God's Word and that I
would be in sympathy with such advocates. I can only assume that LaGard must not clearly
understand the radical hermeneutics used by these groups, or that he does not understand
the exegetical and hermeneutical principles which many responsible Biblical scholars in
our movement are using. There is an enormous range of options between the legalistic
patternism which has sometimes characterized Restoration hermeneutics and the relativistic
existentialism which dominates much of feminist and homosexual interpretations. To reject
legalism does not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to relativism. I believe the
Apostle Paul rejected both. If anyone wants to know my views on homosexuality, I would
refer that person to the lectures my wife and I gave at the Pepperdine lectures last year
(1993) on "Telling the Truth about Sex in a Sex-Worshipping Culture." I doubt
LaGard would substantially disagree.
LaGard's charge that I (and others) am guilty of idolatry was shocking.
Is it wrong to call a brother a fool, but acceptable to call him an idolater? What in my
lecture could possibly have warranted such an extreme attack? Is LaGard suggesting that I
should be disfellowshiped like the Judaizers and Gnostics who were excommunicated for
their perversions of the gospel? He does suggest that Christians should have gotten up and
walked out on my lecture. Such intolerance has divided our fellowship again and again.
I gave my lecture on Wednesday morning. LaGard responded on Friday
morning. Perhaps, if LaGard had contacted me between those two occasions, I could have
helped him better understand my position.
I have witnessed such unchristian attacks levied against my father for
much of my life, and have expected to receive the same. However, I did not expect to hear
them from someone like LaGard. Perhaps I misjudged him. I know he has misjudged me. Thank
you for attempting to set the record straight.
Rob McRay, Milwaukee, WI
****************
Other E-Publications by Gary D. Collier
(used by permission)
*********
"I just heard L. Smith's tape. Sir, on p. 47 you are the twister
& you misused those 7. You are the immoral pagan that is deceiving our assemblies. I
was neo-orthodox and a false prophet. The Lord freed me from this CRAPE [sic]. May you be
freed also."
Ed Vrell, Longmont, CO
*******
"Thank you for your excellent analysis of LaGard Smith's third
speech at the 1994 Pepperdine Lectures. Your description of his method as at once
careless, insulting and divisive' hit the nail squarely on the head."
Mark Henderson, Boulder, CO
********
"I have just finished reading the article you wrote on LaGard
Smith's 1994 Pepperdine Speech. I must say that although I am ignorant of what kind of
friendship you have with LaGard Smith, other than what you said in your article about the
relationship you two have, I didn't feel like you treated him as a friend at all. Even if
you were not friends, I felt like you treated him wrong as a Christian as well. I simply
want to ask you to use tenderness and care when writing about others, and especially when
you are critiquing them. I know we are different people, but I would not have written
anything about one I call a friend in a way that isn't friendly or that puts them down. I
don't believe the Lord wants me to even do that to an enemy. I feel you called LaGard a
friend, but you treated him wrong. Even if you are completely correct in what you wrote
(which I am not judging right or wrong) you were too harsh. I might add that there are
many other important subjects you can write about instead of critiquing another's speech
or sermon. Please know that I am not judging you. In fact one of the main reasons for this
writing is to hold you to what is said on the back of the edition that says "Articles
which comment negatively on the personalities or motives of others, or which are
considered to be negative in tone or content, will not be used." [his emphasis, GDC]
I feel like you have broken one of your own guidelines. But along with this, I am
concerned for you and for those you write about. We all make mistakes, even LaGard,
especially me. Thank you for taking the time to read this."
James T. Smith, Woodland Park, CO
*******
"I am writing to thank you for your response and critique of LaGard
Smith's class. I read it in the July issue of Dialogue and was glad that someone actually
articulated what I have been feeling ever since I listened to the tapes of his three day
class. I appreciated your loving and constructive attitude throughout the critique. I
sincerely hope that your critique is met with conviction and repentance on LaGard's part.
He is truly a dynamic person and his considerable gifts could be of great benefit to the
kingdom if brought under the Spirit's control."
Mark Turner, Bakersfield, CA
***************
In my attempt to critique LaGard Smith's speech1, I had hoped that by
offering both genuinely positive and pointedly critical comments, that both LaGard and
readers would be able to see at least an attempt at fairness.
1. LaGard himself did not seem to see it (see his response in this
issue). I regret that he did not want to discuss some of the substantive issues I had
raised about method, nor (as he informed me personally) to carry on any further dialogue
with me about this matter. That is his choice, of course, which I regret. I did not expect
him to offer a tit-for-tat response to my critique, but I had hoped for a substantive
reply instead of a mere assertion of denial.
The point is this: in our churches, debates, lectureships, journals, and
other forums, we have simply had enough of careless "quoting," misrepresentation
of viewpoints, of name calling, and of character assassinations. This is an accurate
description of at least parts of LaGard's third Pepperdine speech (1994), as a careful
review of the various tapes involved will show. That is the point I sought to illustrate
from a transcription of the various tapes by LaGard and by Rob McRay.2
I want to point out again that I am not—in any way—challenging
LaGard's character, intentions, or motives. I assume them all to be good. He raises many
important issues in this speech: his concern about the direction of Churches of Christ in
general and of the Pepperdine lectures in particular; his concern whether the evaluation
of Galatians (that week) had been balanced and fair; and his concern about perceived
ongoing attacks against conservative Christians. I think these are legitimate questions to
raise if one discusses them carefully and responsibly. He did not and it is very
unfortunate.3
2. In addition to LaGard's response to my critique, we received about 20
letters and phone calls from a wide variety of places: Colorado, Nebraska, Chicago,
California, and more. These responses were evenly split between people who agreed with and
appreciated my summary/critique and those who disagreed with it.
Of those who disagreed, only one or two had heard any of the 1994
Pepperdine lectures. Some said my critique was "mean spirited" or even a
"violation of your own writer's guidelines." My repeated attempts to get
permission to publish some of the "disagreeing" letters were declined (although
I did not ask everyone). At least four of the people who disagreed accused me of being
disingenuous, either implying or stating outright that I made the positive comments about
LaGard "only for show" but that I "really" didn't mean them.
Of those who agreed with my summary/critique, just over half had
attended LaGard's lectures or had heard his and other Pepperdine tapes. Three people (who
had attended the speech) called to describe the "standing ovation." All gave
essentially the same story although they were from separate parts of the country. One in
particular described that about one fourth of the audience remained seated in complete
silence and "shock" that any speaker would do the kind of thing which this
speaker had just done. She described "feeling sick" that such an abuse of other
program speakers had just taken place, or that three-fourths of the audience were standing
in loud applause (I'll return to this below).
I also received a phone call about my article from Rob McRay in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rob's speech was directly referred to by LaGard (though not by name)
more than any other single lecture and Rob was directly misquoted and misinterpreted. Rob
was not at all happy about it. We talked for about 25 minutes and it is safe to say that
the level of his dissatisfaction with what LaGard did with his lecture can hardly be
overstated.
Now, again, the point here is not to kick LaGard or anyone else.4 The
two points at issue are about method and the effort of dialogue: when we cannot or will
not discuss substantive issues carefully, openly, and receptively, we are left simply with
bland platitudes, hurt feelings, and misunderstanding. This is not necessary, and it is
hardly a Christian solution.
This goes back to that standing ovation in which three fourths of the
audience stood energetically and one fourth sat in utter disgust or shock. Our temptation
might be to choose sides: Should one have stood up or sat down? But that is the wrong
question. It doesn't matter who stood up and who sat down; what matters is this: here are
Christian people responding very strongly—to the very same stimulus—in just the
opposite ways. The division between them says something loud and clear: both groups of
people have powerful and legitimate concerns. Do we just dump on one group in order to
please the other (no matter which group you yourself might identify with)? The answer
clearly must be "No!"—no matter which side of the ideological fence one
comes down on, the effort to have genuine, responsible, respectful dialogue is of great,
great importance.
Finally, in a phone conversation this month, one kind gentleman said
about my critique of LaGard's speech: "Gary, if someone had written an article like
that about you, you would not have published it!" To which I reply, "You don't
know me very well, do you?" We will not publish irresponsible articles which aim at
the character or motives of others; we will publish responsible and well documented
critiques, always allowing and hoping for responses. That is what dialogue is all about.
We will not claim never to make a mistake, or that everyone will always agree with our
decisions; but we will promise to do our best to be fair and representative.
Gary D. Collier
1 See Dialogue 1:3 (July 1994) 40-47.
2 As to Larry James' speech, all LaGard needed to do in his own speech
(since he had decided to quote from any of the other speakers at all) was to quote Larry
carefully, keeping what he said in context, and then offer his criticism. Had he done
that, he would have been within his rights as a speaker. Furthermore, I did not criticize
LaGard's reference to Larry James. The point of my critique was not to say, "Here are
all the sources," but to say, "Here are at least some things LaGard did that are
methodologically not acceptable."
3 I should add here that I wrote my original critique for Dialogue only
after I had spoken at length with LaGard personally about the matter, and after I had
written him a lengthy private letter about the matter. This has not been an attempt in any
sense to defame or deface LaGard as a person, but to ask him and the rest of us to act
responsibly in the matter of quoting and characterizing our brothers and sisters when
disagreeing with them. This has been a continual problem in LaGard's writings and speeches
(see, e.g., my review of his The Cultural Church in Image 9:23 [May/June 1993] 23).
4 Every positive comment I have made about LaGard in the first article
(which amounts to about two full pages!) I meant sincerely, and I will not retract them
for anybody. If some wish to second-guess the reasons for my having said them in the first
place, that is entirely up to them.
|