"Liberalism" And "Social Gospel"
In my recent book, "We Be Brethren" I set forth the principle that "eating in the church building" as an aid to fellowship is scriptural; and further, that the orphan homes that we have in the brotherhood, as well as the sponsoring-church method of co-operation, is also scriptural. In justifying such conclusions, I went to some lengths to show what the slogan "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent" really means, and pointed out clearly that we all accept "aids" to the doing of God's Will. I also showed clearly when an example teaches authoritatively today and pointed out examples that do teach that way; and I also gave some illustrations of examples that do not teach authoritatively now, but are only illustrations.
If my conclusions concerning these basic areas of tension in the brotherhood today are not sound, let us hope that someone will come forward and take up my arguments specifically, and use some good, clear reasoning as to why they are not justified. It will not be sufficient to simply say that I have reached bad conclusions or to use "loaded" words in order to prejudice readers against my conclusions. Recently there appeared in one of the brotherhood publications the charge that those who reach the above conclusions are "liberal", "modernistic" and believe in the "Social Gospel". The author of the article admitted that we who hold these conclusions, are not guilty of believing in the "philosophical-theological doctrines" that are normally understood as being the way to define "Liberalism" and "Modernism," but he insists that we have accepted "the practical aims and objectives of liberalism" and therefore, because we are simply "less conservative" with reference to the "simple faith and attitudes of the vast majority" of his readers that, therefore, he is justified in counting us as Liberals and Modernists.
It is good to know that he recognizes the different definitions for Liberalism and acknowledges that we are not guilty of the philosophical-theological kind and that we are indeed only "less conservative." However, the same thing could be said of the author himself by the non-Sunday school brethren, who look upon him as being "less conservative;" yet we all know that the concept "less conservative" does not warrant one of our brethren calling another a Liberal or a Modernist! Our author insists that to the average man in the street the philosophical-theological aspect of modernism is unclear, and that eating in the church building or believing in orphan homes is a legitimate use of the term Modernism. This, of course, I deny. He further charges those of us who believe in the scripturalness of sponsoring churches, the present day orphan homes, and eating in the church building as aids to fellowship and brotherly love, with preaching the social gospel and with not being interested in heaven, forgiveness of sin, and eternal salvation. This charge is of course untrue and rests on a "loaded" definition of "Social Gospel." In his own article, he pointed out that the Social Gospel is an interest only in the betterment of this life, and thus he accuses us of being interested only in things for this life and not in genuine spirituality. The average man of the street of course does not know the true definition of Social Gospel as it has always been used in religious circles, and about all he knows about it is that it is bad, so when this author charges some of his brethren with believing only a social gospel, his charge prejudices his readers unfairly toward those of us who are so accused. I think it is fair to state that I am as interested in sin, salvation, and heaven as much as the next person, and that such a charge can arise only out of a desire to prejudice. Those of us who believe in orphan homes and "love feasts" and the sponsoring-church method do so, not because we have lost any of our faith in the Bible or in the blood of Christ or have any less appreciation for spiritual values, but we accept them as aids and expedient methods for better obeying God's commandments. We all recognize the scripturalness of aids and expedients, and until this brother can show by conclusive arguments that our reasoning, by which we arrive at our conclusions is unsound, he actually becomes guilty of begging the question and assuming what he ought to prove. No man who disagrees with another ought to charge the other man with any doctrine that he does not believe. The use of "loaded" expressions may serve to arouse prejudice, but prejudice is not a wholesome thing to have in brotherhood discussions where we supposedly ought to be seeking only truth and light. When a man uses a "loaded" expression, and thereby charges his brother with holding conclusions that he actually does not hold, he is not only unfair to the brother and not only unfairly arouses prejudice, but this is of itself an admission that he does not have good argument with which to present his own case. When a man has good arguments, he does not have to "holler loud" at an oral debate, or charge his opponents unfairly or prejudiciously in written discussions. All that he has to do is to prove his point. Most all his readers will be fair enough to accept any real proof that he is able to offer.
A good deal has been said in condemnation of "promotion," and that wherever you find somebody promoting something, it must necessarily be bad; and that big, strong churches are evil simply because they had to use promotion to get where they are. Brethren who are opposed to promotion ought to go and look up the dictionary definition. When Jesus told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations, He was commanding us to be promoters; and we are praying that God will give us more promoters so that we can find ways and means of getting the gospel to a sin-sick world who want and need it; and so that we will be less interested in fighting among ourselves and can thereby increase our own hopes of being saved.