1This Theological Conference paper dealt with James Durham’s volume, A Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal. The first section printed last month, considered Durham’s life and writings. All page references in the text of this article refer to this volume.
Section 1.
To proceed to an analysis of each section of the work in turn we may notice, first of all, Durham’s actual definition of scandal, since that is fundamental to his whole argument. Scandal is sinful offence, derived from the Greek word, skandalon: a bait-stick used to cause an animal to fall into a trap. To scandalize is to ensnare or cause to stumble, as “Balaam, who taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel”. The opposite of scandal is edification: to act in a way that secures the spiritual good of oneself and others: “edification and offence never lie upon the one side”, he argues (p 31). Such complete opposition between scandal and edification is also fundamental to the whole of Durham’s argument, for he proceeds to apply the concepts in all the subsequent discussion of ecclesiastical offences, doctrinal errors and schismatic divisions.
Durham deals initially with the nature of offence in general, for there can be no public scandal unless an action, or course of actions, is offensive and contrary to edification. He points out that by the term offence he does not mean anything that may displease or grieve someone else. “For there is a great difference”, he notes, “between displeasing and offending, as also between pleasing and edifying”. Although he does not furnish us here with an illustration, we might suppose that a wise and needful rebuke given in love may grieve its recipient, yet it is not legitimate ground for offence and thus is not offence in Durham’s definition. “Offence”, he argues, is to be taken in opposition, “not to a man’s being pleased, but to his edification” (p 2). Durham quotes Paul in Romans 14 on the strong and weak with regard to meat and drink: “All things are indeed pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom 14:20-21).
A person can give offence and yet none may be taken, as in the case of Peter rebuking the Saviour, who told him “thou art an offence unto Me” (Mt 16:23); yet Christ, of course, never fell into sin as a result. On the other hand, offence can be taken when none has actually been given, as when the Pharisees were offended at Christ for allegedly transgressing the traditions of the elders (Mt 15:12). But offence or scandal usually consists of “something active on the one side that is apt to draw another to sin, and something that is yielded unto on the other side, and the bait is accepted”. Whether intended or not, or whether the person is stumbled or not, “one act may be offensive in many considerations, as one deed may be against many commands, and be many ways sinful” (p 3).
Durham recognises that many things may be harmless in themselves but can be the occasion of stumbling to others when the lawful act breeds, or occasions, misconception or rash judging in another and thus becomes offensive to him. He gives practical guidance to the effect that men ought to be very careful to abstain from the least appearance of what is reckoned to be their greatest fault and to avoid anything that might give offence or be misinterpreted, including matters of dress, diet and recreation. The example of walking to a field to meditate on the Sabbath he puts forwards as a legitimate activity, yet one which may need to be forborne since it might give occasion to someone else to play sport on the Sabbath, using the godly man as an excuse to justify his own sin. In cases where offence seems to be given whatever way we act, we should seek to follow the course where the least offence is given, even if some are displeased by it. Paul circumcises Timothy on one occasion, but forbears to circumcise Titus on another, because each time he chose the path that would cause least offence (p 30).
A man’s spiritual condition will greatly bear on his attitudes in this whole area. Durham cogently observes that “we will find that men are tender and conscientious in the matter of offence, and the use of their Christian liberty, as they are tender or untender in the material duties of religion towards God and towards others”. The effect on the Church is of great consequence: “untenderness in the matter of scandal has been as prejudicial to the Church of Christ in respect of her outward beauty and peace, and the inward thriving of her members, as either error or profanity, which have been but the product of it” (p 18). Scandal then, and carelessness in the things that cause offence, are the causes of the doctrinal and practical evils that deface the Church.
At times when offences abound “and when there is too much readiness both to give and to take offence”, a Christian must act respectfully towards the consciences of others and not just his own. He ought to have a readiness not to take offence, even when stumbling blocks are put in his way. He should beware of despising others but endeavour practically to love them: “offences could neither be given or taken if love to our brethren were fresh” (p 34). Mutual faithfulness in admonition on the one side, and a sincere desire to remove anything that may offend others on the contrary side, is indispensable. Furthermore, we ought to be careful to examine our own motives and ends, that we may truly have “the glory of God mainly in our eye”.
He argues that a prime task of the ministry is to seek to remove offences. They must be eminent in godliness themselves, for if ministers are not shining lights, what can be expected from the people? Durham notes that ministers in general have had a prime hand in the offences which have shaken the Church. The abounding of offences in the ministry, he adds, cannot but lessen the authority of ministers among the people.