Searching the Scriptures is a quality gospel journal with consistently thought-provoking and edifying articles. The issue for November 1991 is no different. Among the headings was "Musings" by J. Wiley Adams (p. 9), which will certainly stand on its own merits. In fact, I have reproduced it at the end of this article so that you can profit from it. However, I think the author failed to consider that when some brethren speak of "gray areas," they are approaching what is right and wrong from a perspective that is different from that of another. In other words, some things may be wholly "right" for some people but unquestionably "wrong" for others. With this understanding, I do not see how anyone can deny that there are matters that are not clearly delineated in Scripture, which might be categorized as "gray."

Does perspective really make that much of a difference? I would think we could all see that, as illustrated by the old fable of the four blind men who each encountered an elephant. The one, touching only the flank, concluded that an elephant is like a wall. Another, experiencing the tail, thought it was like a snake. The third, while feeling a leg, thought the beast was like a tree. And the last, with a hand on the trunk, thought the pachyderm was comparable to a hose. What they all missed was that it was gray. Let us never miss the gray because of diminished vision.

As for the "where is it" of the gray, let us consider that we need to understand what men mean by the use of the term. What is generally meant is that not all things can be said to be always right or always wrong, regardless of circumstance. There are sometimes no absolutes, even when matters dealt with in Scripture are referenced. We need to recognize this!

Not Always Black or White

Consider the issue of alcohol consumption. Nobody is more of a hard-liner than I when it comes to such. However, I am not prepared to say that consuming such is always wrong. Neither was an inspired writer. (I Timothy 5:23 "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.") The perspective shifted (from recreational to medicinal), and the conclusion changed accordingly. The product falls into the gray area; its use falls into the categories given by our esteemed brother.

What this points out is that we need to be very careful not to gauge things as black or white, which God never color-coded. This, however, we tend to do in our zeal to oversimplify Christianity. Let us consider another "for instance."

Is dancing wrong? Few of us would conclude otherwise. However, tap dancing of the Shirley Temple variety lacks the elements of sensuality that I could identify as being evil. The same can be said about many forms of folk dancing as well. While this line is not intended to appease the intemperate among us, I suggest that we reevaluate what we say about dancing and clearly identify what it is that we object to.

In Matters of Fellowship

Who can deny that we are to have no fellowship with the works of darkness and those who practice such things? (See Ephesians 5:11). Yet, when it comes to severing or extending it, we operate frequently as if we believe in the gray areas that we may deny exist. For instance, I know of one church that has forbidden smokers to wait on the Lord’s table; yet, it will not withdraw from such. Why? If it is a sin to smoke, which was the position of the church, then smokers should be withdrawn from summarily. The preacher explained to me that they believed in "giving them time" (whatever that means). Sounds suspiciously like the "space to repent" given Jezebel, which that very preacher denied should exist.

The "grayness" may not stem from what is truly right or wrong, but rather from our inability to precisely define what is right or wrong. As one brother said, sometimes sin is very hard to define. Let me give you an example.

Modest Apparel

Oh, how many times I have "waxed on elephant" on this topic. My position then, and now, was very clear — immodest apparel was to be avoided always, absolutely, with no questions whatever as to what constitutes it. The passage was plain (I Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array") and could not be misunderstood. Discussing the length of attire may have been dodging, but it should have been given greater consideration than some were willing to give it. Why? Because the length of the attire isn’t even mentioned in the text. Gold, pearls, costly array, and elaborately braided hair are! Have you ever heard a preacher, other than this one, mention those things while commenting on this text?

I once heard a preacher railing against shorts and looked over at his wife, who was wearing a mink coat! Gray area? He surely thought so. It seems more than a little strange to me that we can conclude that what is mentioned explicitly in the text is sometimes (always?) acceptable, but what is never mentioned is always wrong. (I will take some of the pronouncements of preachers on this text more seriously when they quit wearing wedding rings, expensive suits, and expensively coiffed hair!)

Some things do not simply fit the easy-to-define categories that we would like to believe exist. This is what most men who discuss gray areas are referring to.

What About Romans 14?

Since he knew that eating meat was right, why didn’t Paul lambaste those who had a problem with it? Eating meat is white. No controversy. Yet, to some, it was wrong. This is what constitutes another gray area. Some things may be right for me but wrong for another. There simply is no permanent absolute that can be hauled forth to stop the controversies that may arise. Some seem to think, however, that the Gentiles are all gone (or perhaps the Jews), so there really is no reason to ever apply the principles of Romans 14 to anything that exists today.

"All is either black or white and needs to be debated to end controversy and confusion." Such seems to me to be both unfair and shortsighted. Some things may be wrong for me but acceptable for you. Is this really that hard to see? Are there not, then, some things that may be "gray" rather than clearly black or white?

What Gives Rise to the Gray?

Brethren are speaking more of the "gray" areas today than in the past because of the mean-spirited semantical arguments introduced a few years ago. Brethren, responding to these tirades, pointed out that not all things can be simply pigeon-holed to make them always black or white.

The semanticists among us (but not of us) cannot see that not all things are black or white in every case and have been ridiculing faithful brethren who have appealed for honesty when it comes to matters that cannot be absolutely defined for every circumstance. It is not unreasonable to say that absolute guidelines cannot be drawn by mere men for a diverse brotherhood when God’s word is not always that sharply defined, not always clearly black or white.

Because of the unfair and unreasonable tactics of men, I am ready to admit to a degree of partiality when it comes to dealing with some of my brethren. Stated plainly, I am becoming increasingly antisemantic when it comes to considering what some brethren say or write. When the arguments consist of nothing but semantical meanderings intended to blaspheme men and God, I am turned off and tend to give no credence to anything they might say. This may be unfair, but it is a fact.

Finally

Are there some things which are "gray" and neither black nor white? In the limited view of Brother Adams, "no." I would agree. But when broadened to include what brethren generally mean by the term "gray," it would seem to me that nobody would deny it. "Yes, Virginia, some things are gray."