Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 1
December 15, 1949
NUMBER 32, PAGE 1,3b

Can An Opponent Be Sincere?

R. L. Whiteside

It seems that some of the preachers east of the Mississippi river think no one can oppose them and be sincere. At least the writings of three or four of them have made that impression on me.

In a long article, nearly three and a half pages of the Gospel Advocate of October 13, 1949, Brother Brewer makes this statement: "Some of the schools, in order to appease these objectors, have made announcement that they will not receive a contribution made by a church." This charge that these schools are not sincere, but are yielding to pressure, is about equal to saying they are hypocritical What ground is there for such talk, except that these schools do not side with Brother Brewer? And in making such a charge Brother Brewer acknowledges that these schools find it more profitable to yield to those who oppose his stand than to side with those who agree with him! Now, who would have thought that Brother Brewer would make such a concession; yet his charge is a confession that some schools find it more profitable to oppose him than to side with him.

A man certainly should not make a serious charge against any one, unless he has definite proof. Does Brewer have proof that his charge is true? I am not seeking any controversy, nor do I wish to do him an injustice, but his charge seems to me to be very close to slander. If he has no word from the schools, that they adopted their present policy to appease objectors, then he is guilty of making a reckless, unfounded charge. If they are guilty as charged, then they deserve no support from anybody. If they are not guilty as charged, then Brewer should make amends for the harm he has done them. To make a hurtful charge reflects seriously on the person who makes it, unless he has proof. Of course every one will judge of such matters according to his own standard of justice and right.

In the same article Brewer makes another unfortunate statement, a statement that sounds like statements I have heard since early in the nineties. When our departing brethren began to take church houses away from those who built them, they referred to those who opposed them as a sect, a denomination with a creed, and spoke sneeringly of "the sound brethren," and railed about "the creed in the deed." Then R. H. Boll made similar charges against those who felt that they could not in any way encourage him in his speculations. Now comes Brother Brewer with that same old "scarecrow," but it does not scare. But here is a rather lengthy excerpt from his long article: "Therefore it must be clear that the schools, in making such an announcement, not only state their policy—which they have a right to do—but they state their creed and condemn everyone who does not agree in that tenet. The school, therefore, that refuses to accept a donation from elders of a church tells these elders that they are unscriptural in making such an offer and thereby announces that all churches who contribute to any school are unsound churches. Thus, the work of a congregation is not determined by its elders, but it is determined by the school, and the school is, therefore, dictating to the churches. And any other school that does not fall in line and back this dictatorial method is, therefore, an unsound school and does not belong to our denomination, the denomination that subscribes to our creed. That is all a denomination is."

And so Brother Brewer has drawn a line. Some time ago a good brother said this question would cause a split in the church, but I thought he was unduly alarmed. However I was wrong. G. C. Brewer has drawn the line, for surely he will not fellowship a "denomination that subscribes to a creed," nor support a school allied with such a denomination.

Of course Brother Brewer cannot, in good conscience, cross the line he has drawn and fellowship those he considers to be "a denomination that subscribes to a creed;" but I do not believe he will be able to muster many to follow his lead. Brother Brewer is old enough to cease making such radical statements, for they cannot do any good and may do harm. "Yielded to pressure," "dictator," "they state their creed." What next?

Finally, did Brother Brewer stop to think what a denomination is? Can there be a denomination without a name? What name has Brewer given to this "denomination" that he thinks he has discovered?