Who should you trust? Who CAN you trust? Separatism and degrees of separation. Reforming Fundamentalism--Part III

I ran across an article two weeks ago on a fundamentalist website as I was looking for information about some of the people I count as spiritual ancestors. I have run across these kinds of articles in the past. I figure it is time I at least acknowledge their existence and say something about them.

As so many other such articles, The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree attempts to paint all efforts at Christian unity--working together for the advance of the Kingdom of God worldwide--as virtual blasphemy. No one who refuses to be quite as "holy" ("separate") as those who write these articles escapes the brush. Thus, as I have discovered, almost all of the men and women I have held up as Christian heroes are not heroes at all. As David Cloud of the Fundamental Baptist Information Service suggests by way of an article written by Jack Stephens that Cloud has published at least twice: a willingness to compromise on virtually any point of Christian doctrine will, eventually, lead to an unwillingness to stick up for the truth in major things. Compromise, wrote Stephens, is like creeping kudzu--the "creeping vine [that] was introduced into the Southeast of our country for the purpose of providing ground cover and erosion control."

Any Southerner can tell you the result [of the introduction of kudzu]. This vine gradually encroached on the land and, where it was not constantly kept in check, it choked out all other plant life, climbing utility poles and following the connecting lines to span roadways and other obstacles in its steady onslaught to take over every inch of available land. In short, from its innocent beginnings, it has become a bane and a pest to the land.

In much the same way, compromise seeks to infiltrate and take over the local church and its work. Its beginnings always seem small and innocuous, but it stifles the true work of the Spirit in God's people and smothers the Gospel in the twisting vines of a weak, watered-down, worldly message.

And so, writes Cloud, today there is in most churches--evangelical as well as fundamentalist--a philosophy that says Friends Can't Criticize Friends. His website is filled with illustrations of exactly this kind of behavior . . . and counter-examples of him making sure he provides the kind of criticism he believes is so sorely lacking elsewhere.

I appreciate the warning. I see how important it is that we be on guard. I think Cloud is correct: Too often, Christian leaders today (and, therefore, we, their followers) lack discernment and the willingness to call each other out for foolish compromise. I read some of the examples of various supposedly evangelical leaders' behavior or statements and--assuming Cloud is reporting these incidents accurately--am appalled at some of the things I find. (See, for example, Cloud's article about Billy Graham in which Cloud notes that Graham stated publicly--in 1967--that the gospel as preached by the Roman Catholic Church is the same gospel as that which he preaches. "This is simply amazing," Cloud notes. "Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he [did]? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called 'Mr. Facing Both Ways'!") Again, assuming Cloud is communicating the truth, enough truth to give a fair representation of what Graham really said and meant, I find his comments germane and appropriate.

At the same time separatists like Cloud make me nervous.

I remember a defining experience I had when Sarita and I first moved to Southern California to work at the U.S. Center for World Mission.

Within a month or so of arrival, I ran into Phil, an older gentleman who was working at the Center and who had been a missionary to Japan under the mission board of the RPCES (Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod)--the theologically nitpicky denomination of which Sarita and I had been members while in seminary. Phil was still officially associated with that denomination’s mission board. I was amazed, therefore, that he was being permitted to work at the Center.

You see, the Center included on its staff people from almost every Protestant Christian persuasion imaginable: Baptist, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, United Methodist, charismatic, Presbyterian, Evangelical Free. . . .

“How can you work here?” I asked Phil.

He told me a story. “When we were in Japan,” he answered, “we lived in a neighborhood with some 55,000 people. In that entire neighborhood, there were three Christian families. You better believe we got along! We had to! We prayed and worshiped together. It was a matter of survival. . . . Here at the U.S. Center for World Mission, we recognize we have to get along just as much. If we are going to accomplish our goal, we have to cooperate. . . ."

While at the U.S. Center for World Mission, I came to learn what true cooperation can mean. Here was a young charismatic man, a man mighty in prayer. You know what? We turned to him to pray for us!

There was a United Methodist man who was deeply involved in an almost ascetic pursuit of personal holiness. We actually listened to him when he spoke about holiness.

And so it went. The atmosphere at the U.S. Center for World Mission was completely different from the church I had attended in college. There an older man had once told me, “We are all from different denominational backgrounds: Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian . . . But we don’t ever talk about our denominational distinctives. We don’t want to get into fights over such things . . .”

But here we were at the U.S. Center for World Mission. We all knew each other’s denominational affiliations, and we talked about them, and we didn’t fight! Indeed, we tended to glory in each other’s distinctive beliefs and practices. Why? Because we knew that each one of us added certain strengths that the rest of us lacked. We felt we were truly “body” together, each fulfilling that special role which God had given us.

Were there theological differences among us? Of course! But there was also a huge commonality.

Despite whatever our background or supporting denominations' statements of faith or practices might be, we agreed on a certain core set of doctrines. It was enough to hold us together. It was also enough to hold out others who might have wanted to join us (for some reason I cannot fathom) but who would have obviously sought to turn us aside from the real purpose for which we had come together.

So I see the value of overlooking differences and seeking to cooperate wherever possible.

Moreover, I've run into problems with "'discernment' ministries" such as those of The Watchman Wakes (publisher of the "The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree" article) or Cloud's Fundamental Baptist Information Service.

• After showing the errors of a man's or institution's way (take this article by Cloud, for example, about Robert Schuller), they then want to tar and feather anyone who happens to associate with such people on any level. So the fact that someone attended a meeting at which someone whom these "'discernment' ministries" disapprove also attended: all the other attendees are condemned by association with the one with whom the "'discernment' ministries" find fault.
  
  Here are a few paragraphs that provide good examples of this kind of behavior by Cloud and his Fundamental Baptist Information Service with respect to people who happened to attend some meetings at which Schuller was also present:
  

  In October 1986 Schuller was on the council to host the Fourth Triennial Convention of the Asia Missions Association. Other men involved in this were evangelical leaders Donald McGavran, Ralph Winter, David Howard, Dale Kietzman of the World Literature Crusade, Edward Dayton of World Vision, Peter Deyneka of the Slavic Gospel Mission, Jack Frizen of the IFMA, and Wade Coggins of the EFMA. . . .
  
  A wide range of evangelical leaders joined hands with Robert Schuller and other heretics at the Congress '88, August 4-7, 1988, in Chicago. Allegedly a congress on evangelism, it was actually a congress on ecumenical compromise and end-times apostasy. Catholic priest Alvin Illig was one of the leaders and the opening address was brought by the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Bernardin. At the piano for the opening night services was Larry Shakley, minister of music at Willow Creek Community Church and band director for Moody Bible Institute's Friday Night Sing. Speakers included Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, Jay Kessler, and Southern Baptist Robert Hamblin. Representatives from the Navigators, Jews for Jesus, Pioneer Clubs, Moody Monthly magazine, and General Baptists delivered workshops. . . .
  
  In December 1994, Schuller joined hands with a wide range of popular evangelical leaders at Campus Crusade for Christ head Bill Bright's Fast for Revival conference. Among those attending were Charles Colson, E.V. Hill, Jack Hayford, James Dobson, W.A. Criswell, Charles Stanley, Paul Crouch, Luis Palau, Bill Gothard, Pat Robertson, Jay Arthur, and Larry Burkett.

  You can see how this kind of "tar and feather by association" is done.
  
  What people like Cloud, here, demand is not only first-degree "separation" (or holiness), but second-degree separation (about which more in a moment). And if you fail to live up to this second-degree separation, know that you will be judged.
   
• Sadly, also, too often, these same "'discernment' ministries" will overstate their case, jump to false conclusions, and/or "simply" make thoroughly false accusations. Thus, for example, in the The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree article we read:
  

  In “The Voice of Calvary Legacy,” John Macarthur paid tribute to his father, Dr. John “Jack” Macarthur. “He served on the Extension Staff of Moody Bible Institute and later became the director of Charles E. Fuller Evangelistic Foundation.” . . .
  
  The Fuller Evangelistic Foundation . . . started Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947. [And] Fuller Seminary has played a strategic role in the global ecumenical movement and has launched numerous apostate organizations and movements such as the Vineyard (John Wimber), Renovare (Richard Foster), AD2000 United Prayer Track (C Peter Wagner), Coalition on Revival (Jay Grimstead), the US Center for World Mission (Ralph Winter) and others. The article Filling the Blanks with Fuller describes Fuller Seminary as “an ecumenical ‘think tank’ seminary” which “has fostered, nurtured, and promoted the apostasy globally . . .”

  The "The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree" article then quotes the "Filling the Blanks" article to suggest not only that "The global ecumenical movement is 'a political movement . . . and must not be confused with anything even remotely resembling Christianity'" [italics mine--JAH], but that the U.S. Center for World Mission is at the very center of this (political) movement "to take over the world and implement biblical theocracy."
  
  Since I worked at the U.S. Center for World Mission for seven years--from 1984 to 1991, I was quite sure that most of these statements--especially in the paragraph immediately preceding this one--were a bunch of poppycock. But I thought I should follow the thread to determine upon what evidence the authors of either of these two articles based their disturbing charges.
  
  I soon realized that the "The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree" article was fully dependent on the "Filling the Blanks" article. So I decided to read "Filling the Blanks." And as I read it, I was struck by what an unbelievable mash of horse manure it all is!
  

  Ralph Winter . . . changed the new covenant in Christ's precious blood back to the Abrahamic covenant...He states that there is really only one covenant in the bible, the Abrahamic covenant, which was 'to be a blessing' to ALL nations.....He calls it, the "secret mission" of the church. In his way of thinking the church is to take the biblical law and standard to all nations. The Jews according to him failed in their "mission", as did Jesus! He claims that Jesus came to re-iterate the Abrahamic covenant. The church has now been assigned the task according to his thinking. . . .
  
  The US Center for World Missions now effectively oversees the outreach ministry of the entire global evangelical church. . . . The US Center is an 'umbrella' organization for nearly every major missions organization in the world. This is not an exaggeration! Under their umbrella fall the Mission Aviation Fellowship, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Intervarsity Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Christian Educators Association....and 4000 other organizations and groups working in Christianity.......we were unable to find one organization or denomination that is not participating in their agenda to "subdue the nations"...... . . . ALL you see or hear globally is all working under one leadership. . . .
  
  They have effectively data-based the entire globe in the door to door canvassing that has been going on for the past fifteen years under the guise of reaching the "unreached" and "hidden people groups" of the world. A thinly veiled desire to take over the world and implement biblical theocracy is pervading the entire AD2000 agenda, and they are ready to implement their next stage which is to "cleanse the land" and unseat heavenly principalities and powers in high places that resist their efforts to take over. This is a political movement of the highest order and must not be confused with anything even remotely resembling Christianity. . . . By "spiritually mapping" every square inch of the globe in huge databases, they use a cell "grid" to mark every pocket or person of "resistance" to the move of the 'Holy Spirit'. This is where the database is effectively targeting each and every believer who resists the takeover. The spiritual mapping database was developed at, you guessed it, the US Center for World Mission!
  

  [All bolded text is bolded in the original; multiple periods in succession without spaces
  are original; ellipses with spaces between the dots are mine--JAH]

On the one hand, the article begins truthfully enough. I have no doubt that John MacArthur Sr., "served on the Extension Staff of Moody Bible Institute and later became the director of Charles E. Fuller Evangelistic Foundation." It is indubitably true, too, that "the Fuller Evangelistic Foundation . . . started Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947. [And] Fuller Seminary has played [some kind of] role in [or surrounding]" the foundation or launch of numerous organizations.

But here things become far more tangled and unclear in my mind than they seem to be to the author of this article. What, really, was Fuller Seminary's role in the founding of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship movement, Renovare, the AD2000 United Prayer Track, the Coalition on Revival, or the U.S. Center for World Mission? That men who either served there as professors or who studied there as students happened to found them? Supposing that is true, to what degree should Fuller be implicated or credited with these things--either for good or ill?

I know, from having been involved in the U.S. Center for World Mission, that Fuller Seminary had very little to do with either the founding or ongoing operations of the Center. In fact, in many ways, it may have been something of a hindrance. Moreover, whatever Fuller's beliefs and practices might be or may have been back in the mid-70s, the Center never looked there for guidance!

Dr. Winter had been a professor at the seminary's School of World Mission. And it was while he was at the school--and, really, because he was at the school (but not because of any policy, practice or belief owned or promoted by the school; rather, it was because of the context--that he was dealing with devout Christian students from around the world) that he experienced the paradigm shift and underwent the kind of "conversion" experience that put him on the path to emphasizing the Unreached Peoples. (He realized that, no matter how many students he taught and no matter from how many countries they came, they were coming--and would only come--from about 20% of the world's ethnic groups or, in biblical language ethné (Matthew 28:19--"make disciples of all ethné"). Unless or until someone--what Christians have traditionally called a missionary--deliberately crossed the cultural barriers to engage the members of an ethnic group, no one from that group was likely to come to know Jesus.)

So, in the sense that Fuller provided the opportunity for Winter to gain the insight, it is fair to say "Fuller Seminary played a role" in launching the Center. But from a strategic perspective, if anything, Fuller provided for Dr. Winter somewhat of a roadblock, a distraction, or what someone might want to call a potential "temptation away" from his primary calling. After all, the Seminary was "safe." Winter had a salary and a tenured teaching position. The Center offered the possibility that Winter would fulfill God's call in his life, but, from a human perspective, nothing but lots and lots of work . . . and potential financial disaster.

And as for perspective--i.e., viewpoint, philosophy, or theology--from what I could see, we at the Center ignored Fuller Seminary and the Fuller Seminary School of World Missions. It wasn't that we sought to put up walls. Nor that we refused to accept what input or help we might find from--or give to--those who happened to be at the Seminary or School of World Missions. But Fuller, the institution and the people, provided very little (if any) input into the U.S. Center for World Mission.

So, based on my (admittedly limited) experience and perception, I seriously question the author's claim that Fuller Seminary had anything to do with launching the Center, much less that it "played a strategic role in" the Center's founding.

This is so far beyond the truth. It makes me feel almost sick to my stomach.

YES, Dr. Winter speaks of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3). YES, he notes that God told Abraham that in him "all the families [or nations] of the earth" were to be blessed. YES, he notes how this calling or expectation of carrying the Gospel--the good news of the God who wanted to re-establish relationship with sinful man-- . . . this expectation that is clearly incumbent upon the people of God today (see such famous passages as Matthew 28:18-20 and Matthew 24:14) was actually incumbent upon God's people even as far back as Abraham, the original "man of faith" in Scripture.

YES, Dr. Winter speaks, if you will, in a "marketing voice" about the so-called "secret mission" of the church--a mission that ought to have been so obvious to Christians down through the centuries that we couldn't miss it, but a mission, sadly, that has often been lost, a mission that has often been forgotten, i.e., a "secret" mission--that should have never been secret.

Did Winter ever suggest that the mission of the church is to "take the biblical law and standard to all nations"? Not that I'm aware!

I worked closely with Dr. Winter for seven years and I never heard him emphasize the law any more than any other typical evangelical pastor might who preaches the good news of Jesus Christ as the solution to the problem of sin--sin which is made manifest through the law (Romans 3:20; 7:4-6; etc.).

But from there, the article's claims become totally bizarre.

"The U.S. Center for World Missions now effectively oversees the outreach ministry of the entire global evangelical church"? What a laugh! The management team at the U.S. Center for World Mission could hardly oversee its own staff. And the Center has never had--and never claimed and certainly never tried to hide!--some kind of oversight or control over other agencies within the evangelical world.

Mission Aviation Fellowship, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Intervarsity Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Christian Educators Association, etc.--none of them has ever pledged any kind of allegiance to the U.S. Center for World Mission.

"[W]e were unable to find one organization or denomination that is not participating in [the Center's] agenda to 'subdue the nations.'" --Excuse me?!? I'm not sure where the author of this article picked up that particular phrase ("subdue the nations"). But I have no doubt there is any upstanding evangelical organization in the world that would want not to fulfill Jesus' stated agenda to "make disciples" of all the nations (ethné; Matthew 28:19). And this is and was, clearly, not a "political" agenda--either on the part of Jesus or on the part of the evangelical mission agencies!

"They have effectively data-based the entire globe . . ." --Yes and no. Evangelical mission agencies have cooperated over the last 20 years or so to share what they know about the "state of the world" from a spiritual perspective: Where is the gospel being preached? Are there any indigenous Christians within this culture (ethné)? Are there any Christians from other cultures within this culture (ethné)? Are the Christians evangelical and interested in evangelizing or even willing to evangelize members of this culture?

In essence, Dr. Winter had asked, "If we as the church of Jesus Christ worldwide are determined to fulfill His Great Commission and make disciples of all the ethné, shouldn't we find out who and what the ethné are and where they live . . . so we can seek, diligently, to send ambassadors of Christ (Ephesians 6:20) to them?" And, it seems, the church of Jesus Christ worldwide has, by and large, responded to his questions with a resounding yes! "Yes, we should do that!"

And so the various agencies have shared what they know and have determined to cooperate one with another to the best of their ability so as to do what Jesus commanded.

". . . databa-based the entire globe in the door to door canvassing that has been going on for the past fifteen years." --My goodness! If only there were so many Christians actually interested in saving people's souls! You can be sure there has been no door-to-door canvassing. Mission agencies are working with what resources they have. And the resources they have, I can assure you, permit no such data-gathering as suggested in this article! At best, large chunks of data are the result of educated guesses.

"A thinly veiled desire to take over the world and implement biblical theocracy is pervading the entire AD2000 agenda . . . " --I guess, if you define obedience from the heart to the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ (but wouldn't that be the fulfillment of Matthew 28:18-20?) as "biblical theocracy," then the mission agencies are, indeed, "guilty as charged." But then what? To what is the author of this article really objecting?

". . . and they are ready to implement their next stage which is to 'cleanse the land' and unseat heavenly principalities and powers in high places that resist their efforts to take over." --Again, I'm not sure to what the author is objecting. Some evangelicals are more ready than others to use the language of Scripture to speak of spiritual conflict. And some are more ready than others to use the King James English to speak of conflict. But is that to be held against them? Take a look at what the Apostle Paul said in passages like Romans 8:38-39 ("For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"), Ephesians 6:12 ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]"), and 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 ("For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ").

Hey. That's not my normal language--either the 400-year-old style or the specific imagery. I don't tend to talk that way. But I think I understand quite well those who do! And they are definitely not--at least none of those I have met-- . . . they are not talking politics, much less politics "of the highest order"!

"By 'spiritually mapping' every square inch of the globe in huge databases, they . . . mark every pocket or person of 'resistance' to the move of the 'Holy Spirit.'" --Ignoring the hyperbole about "every square inch," not to mention the idea of "mark[ing] every . . . person": I have already explained the purpose, goals and function of the Global Mapping Project.

"This is where the database is effectively targeting each and every believer who resists the takeover." --Once more, there is no way GMI (Global Mapping International; the sponsoring organization or, if it were commercial [which it isn't], what we would call the "holding company" over the Global Mapping Project) . . . --There is no way GMI is "targeting" any individual persons, much less individual believers. No. It is/they are seeking to identify accurately where the church is not so that people who are committed to honoring Christ can send ambassadors of Christ to "preach good news."

For me, probably the most painful statement in the entire article is the claim that "Fuller Seminary . . . has launched numerous apostate organizations and movements" (emphasis mine) among which, it claims, is "the US Center for World Mission."

Talk about a stab in the back! People who have given up much for the sake of seeing the name of Jesus Christ known and honored among all the ethné are, because of their work and commitment (or because they are willing to cooperate with others in this work?), somehow apostate, unfaithful, disloyal?!? We were/I was/I am apostate (apparently!) because the statement of faith we signed wasn't quite as thorough as the statement of faith that the authors of these articles agree to sign?

I have no idea why we would have been called apostate. If or when "4000 [evangelical] organizations and groups" are all working together, one might have reason to question why and how they are all apostate and you, lonely you, are not. . . .

Are these people kidding? "Apostate"? But that's what they say.

*******
Up above, I said I would return to the matter of separation and degrees of separation.

Among fundamentalists, personal holiness is not enough. We must maintain at least second-degree "separation" from "the world."

If only "second-degree separation" really had the kind of positive benefit these people seem to think it has!

[EXCURSUS: For those among my readers who don't know what "first-" or "second-degree" separation refer to, there was an old rhyme. First line: "I don't dance, drink, smoke or chew"--that's first-degree separation: not participating in "things forbidden." And the second line: ". . . or ever go out with girls that do." --And that's second-degree separation: refusal to associate with those who refuse to stop participating in "things forbidden."

Of course, there is also "third-degree separation." That involves refusal to associate with those who refuse to stop associating with those who participate in "things forbidden." . . .

Yeah. And then it goes on from there.

Not sure where it stops.

But it does make evangelism and world missions a bit difficult.]

*******
So why have I followed this thread as far as I have, here?

First, because if you are sensitive to maintain integrity--as I am--you want to make sure you are not, somehow, insensitively or foolishly ignoring legitimate criticisms of your own work or the work of someone else whose work you have thought was perfectly fine. Sometimes your opponents have legitimate grounds for opposition!

And so I want to be aware of those criticisms so that, if I need to repent, I can repent, and if I need to speak up and raise an alarm among those I consider friends, I can speak up and raise an alarm and say, "We are doing wrong."

It may also be helpful to listen so that I can and/or my compatriots can reply to false or erroneous charges--as I have attempted to do here.

But there comes a point where you begin to realize certain critics are pretty close to over-the-top loony. And what then? You can hardly move forward with the work you believe God has given you if you take all your time trying to answer critics.

And what, too, do you do when you find someone is making all kinds of charges against people or institutions or movements of which you are aware but with whom you are not terribly familiar . . . and you know that the same person has made horrendous charges against you or against people or institutions or movements with which you are familiar? --That's the situation I face with Ken Ham. I know the charges he leveled against me 10 and 11 years ago, charges that were outrageously false. But no matter how often I pleaded with him to stop talking about me and to stop speaking falsely about what, he said, I was teaching, he continued--for two years--to make the accusations.

Having been through that experience, and having suffered the consequences of such an experience, you can imagine I am hard-pressed to immediately take his word as "gospel truth."

And so I find myself feeling and inclining toward the fundamentalists and evangelicals when it comes to their call to personal holiness and commitment to the truth. I want so badly to be found on the side of true Truth (yes, with a capital "T"!). But I have begun to doubt they know as much as they think they know or have as much reason as they seem to think they have for believing everything they claim is absolute Truth.

Somehow, I'm sure, my spiritual forebears were probably more lax than perhaps they should have been. They cooperated in matters where, perhaps, they might have been wiser to refuse the "aid" of those who joined with them.

On the other hand--as I have admitted elsewhere (on my personal blog; see also this post, this one, and, perhaps most of all, this one):

By personality and preference, I tend to gravitate more toward Jesus' statement to His disciples that "he who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40; see also Luke 9:50) than I do to His other statement (Matthew 12:30; see also Luke 11:23) that, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

Clearly, there is truth in both perspectives. Jesus Himself obviously taught both. I am simply saying my predilection is to seek, hope, and believe the best, and to pursue the former, rather than the latter . . . with respect to friends and ostensible foes.

I seek, hope for, and try to pursue the former unless and until it becomes impossible.

FWIW.