Chambers on being a "witness"

This is part 2 of a four-part blog entry (click here for part 1, part 3, part 4)...

This may seem trite, but I learned a lot about the term “witness” from Chambers.

1.) Chambers notes that one “is not primarily a witness against something. That is only incidental to the fact that he is a witness for something.” (p. 5)

A lot of Christians are confused about this—and are seen as against the World more than they are for Christian doctrine and practice (as the exclusive but free way to relationship with God—and the best way to live life).

You see the same sort of mistake in politics—where people are more often against policies than proactively proposing solutions (whether more or less government).

2.) Chambers notes that one’s “witness” is different from a “testimony” (p. 762):

“It was a simple witness...to expose the evil that beset and secretly threatened other men…But the testimony and the witness must not be confused…The testimony fixed specific, relevant crimes. The witness fixed the effort of the soul to rise above sin and crime, and not for its own sake first, but because of others’ need, that the witness to sin and crime might be turned against both. There was always the possibility that the world would see only the shocking facts of the testimony [against Hiss] and not the meaning of the witness [against Communism]…”

In other words, they could catch the big trees, but miss the forest. As to the underlying nature of this witness, given its connection to sin, Chambers notes that (p. 762-763):

“Plain men understood the witness easily. It speaks directly to their condition. It is peculiarly the Christian witness…A man must bear such witness only in shame and pain…[To do so], strength must come from elsewhere. That is why such witness completes a greater witness, and why, out of its ugliness and ordeal, rises the truth that fills men’s souls with hope.”

And here’s something I knew, but I love the way it’s expressed by Chambers (p. 798). Why is it important to fight such evil?

“...evil is not something that can be condescended to, waved aside or smiled away, for it is not merely an uninvited guest, but lies coiled in foro interno [in the inner chamber of conscience] at home within ourselves. Evil can only be fought."

In describing his call to witness, Chambers sounds like the apostle Paul in two key ways.

First, he was worried far more about faithfully dispensing his perceived duty than about how his effort would be received. (The watchman in Ezekiel 34 is along the same lines: the watchman must warn or the blood is on his hands; if he warns and they don’t heed, it’s on them.)

In fact, he believed he might well be on the losing side. He told his wife that they were “leaving the winning world for the losing world” (p. 25). But “I knowingly chose the side of probable defeat…in the last instance, men must act on what they believe right, not on what they believe probable.”

Second, Chambers pursued the call as well as possible—wrestling with dilemmas, overcoming barriers, being shrewd but truthful, walking by faith, and so on—whatever the cost. Chambers risked his life—at least to some extent. But he viewed the cost as worth it—given the stakes and more precisely, given the call.

One sees in all of this a fight for Truth—whether explicitly about Christianity or the outpouring of a Christian worldview opposed to Communism—and a fight walked in faith and dependence on God.