Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 1
February 23, 1950
NUMBER 41, PAGE 3

The Best Place To Stop

Cled E. Wallace

In reply to some critics, who charge me with being in league with the Pope, and think I am offering aid and comfort to Rome, at the expense of brethren in distress, I hereby avow some sentiments, I took it for granted that everybody knew I had. I have followed with hearty endorsement the castigations of Rome, in the Firm Foundation, the Gospel Advocate, the Baptist Standard and other periodicals, not to mention various books and tracts. Abhorrence of that monstrous system of intolerance and iniquity is of long standing with me, and is not based on the emotional upheavals of an incident. I endorse prayers, protests and the use of civil authority, if need be, to protect our "civil rights." I hardly think it probable that I will be canonized by the Pope for services rendered to Rome.

I am not opposed to the gospel being preached in Italy, Japan, or anywhere else in all the world. On the other hand, I'm for it. I'm even in favor of preaching it in America. I may be a bit more liberal along that line than some of the brethren are. I'm not in favor of the Baptist church, nor the United Christian Missionary Society, but if they preach some truth, in spite of the organized chances against it, I'm in favor of that. I do not oppose the truth, regardless of who preaches it. Any country would be infinitely better off to be Baptist, Anglican or Adventist, than to be Roman Catholic. It would be much better of course, if they would just all be Christians and let it go at that. I'm for "civil rights" for all of us, including Catholics and Jews and minority groups, if we can get it. Had I been in some of these mass meetings the brethren had, I would probably have been signing protests and telegrams, and whooping it up with the rest of them.

That is not the point I had in mind, when I horned into this thing from a different angle, and some of the hotheads sailed into me and tried to browbeat me out of my right of free speech. Some of the brethren are so anxious to convert the world all of a sudden, that I saw, or thought I saw, some indications that in their zeal they might overlook the fact that there were some New Testament principles involved. One wild scribe has said, over and over again, that no person has a right to hear the gospel twice until everybody has heard it once. That is absurd because it is fantastic and impossible. If the apostles had entertained that idea, Paul and Barnabas would not have stayed in Antioch a whole year, and revisited the churches they established in Asia Minor, before crossing into Europe. It may be that I should not have butted in right at the time the brethren were having such a good time lambasting the Pope and waking up the State Department. But the harm has already been done and my worthy cousin in the flesh, and brother in the Lord, thinks it "cannot be repaired." I hope it isn't that bad. Outside of a few ruffled tempers and arousing a little party spirit, I think the damage is slight.

Under The Caption Of "Law And Expediency," Brother Srygley Said In The Gospel Advocate, April 2, 1931:

"If a church has a program that takes up all its contributions, had not that church better stop at that, rather than to reach out to get charge of the means of other congregations and then build something for "the brotherhood" that neither God nor the "brotherhood" has authorized? Is every church in this country permitted to start anything it wants to start and call upon the "brotherhood" to support it? At least, should not this same "brotherhood" have some voice in what is to be built? Being a humble, faithful child of God and serving God in a small congregation is too little for some men.

They become discouraged and want to do like the denominations around them. My idea is that we had better call a halt and get back to first principles. Is there not some stopping place this side of denominationalism? The best place to stop is before we start."

Brother Srygley had an idea that brethren were using "brotherhood" in a denominational sense. Hence, the quotation marks. "If the 'brotherhood' is determined to have everything the denominations have, will they not be forced to have the paraphernalia of the denominations? In fact, will they not be a denomination? Is taxation without representation right?" Of course proper representation where churches are tied together would call for some sort of a central board and that would imply a convention. We are not ready for that—yet. Are we on our way? Are we becoming "brotherhood" conscious?

H. Leo Boles said in the Gospel Advocate 1931:

"There is no need for any one to go about among the churches attempting to unify their interests and their work. The New Testament clearly shows each congregation its work. If each church is instructed to fill its commission in its community, we have all the cooperation the New Testament teaches... It is not the divine plan for any one to go from church to church and try to get the churches to change their program or to support a particular work... Such efforts lead to organization which is not found in the New Testament. They have a tendency to tie churches together in such a way as to rob the churches of their autonomy."

Such "experiments" have always turned out this way. Will it be an exception when we try them? An innocent looking expedient like a "mass-meeting" of churches to handle an emergency can whip up a party spirit that may in time get out of hand. We may be mad at the Pope this time. The next time we may be madder about something else, and decide that organization may help us do something about it. "The best place to stop is before we start."