Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
June 5, 1958
NUMBER 6, PAGE 10

Why Not God's Plan?

Frank Reeder, Abilene ,Texas

In the December 24, 1957 issue of the Firm Foundation, Brother Glenn Wallace had an article entitled "By This Shall All Men Know." I don't know what he mean by the title unless he means that unless one takes the position that he takes that person is a Sommerite. It seem to me that he hit pretty hard where he was not looking. He wants the Advocate brethren to give up their position and plan and accept his plan, although he has been offered one hundred dollars for a passage of scripture that would justify his position. Why does he not give up his plan and accept the Advocate plan unless he doesn't want to associate with them? Of course he could offer them on hundred dollars for a passage of scripture that would justify their plan and they could call him a Sommerite.

They are disagreed, not only on the "how," but also on what the "how" is sometimes when they see it. Brother Wallace lists the Tipton Home as scriptural because it is under the local eldership; Brother Woods claims it is scriptural because it is not under the eldership. (as elders) (Gospel Advocate, April 11, 1957.) The Tipton Home, it seems, could have the solution. Tell the Firm Foundation that it is under the local elders. If the Advocate objects tell them it is not under the elders (as elders), and both groups will support it and never, it seems, know the difference!

Verily, they are not agreed on the "how," but that is not all; they are divided over who all are included as Sommerites. Brother Wallace has some of the present writers for the Gospel Advocate and some of the former ones who have gone on to their reward classified as Sommerites in the following statement: "Let us take the way that is not questioned by any one except a few modern Sommerites."

As to the "how," or "method," Brother F. B. Srygley well said:

"Whenever churches leave their one task of preaching the gospel and saving souls to build up other institutions, they are likely to get into controversy over how to own and operate such institutions as they may build." (Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1931, page 572.) (Quoted from Reprints And Excerpts From The Gospel Advocate, by Jere Frost.)

That was written before "47."

Let us look at a statement from Brother W. E. Brightwell:

"The local congregation will probably have to divide its time three ways — one third to planning its own work, one third to letting other churches do the same, and the last third to giving philanthropic meddlers and professional beggars to understand that they must let its business alone! If churches of Christ do not begin to assert their independence, they will soon have none to assert ... .

"But we who have fought within and without for the all-sufficiency of God's word and for congregational autonomy, are we entirely free from the same delusion? Do we fully trust God? If so, then what meaneth the 'bleating of the sheep' and the 'lowing of the oxen' of institutionalism within our own ranks, which some of us — yea many of us — can so distinctly hear?" (Ibid. Gospel Advocate, Nov. 29, 1934, page 1161.) That was written before 1947.

Have you heard that the founder of Abilene Christian College was a Sommerite? Well, read the following from Brother A. B. Barret:

"There were no 'brotherhood colleges; 'church papers,' church orphanages; 'old folks' homes,' and the like, among apostolic congregations . . . . Individual Christians, any number, may scripturally engage in any worthy work, such as running colleges, papers, and orphanages, and other individual Christians may properly assist them in every proper way; but no local congregation should be called upon as such, to contribute a thing to any such enterprises. Such a call would be out of harmony with the word of the living God. And if any congregation so contributes, it transcends its Scriptural prerogative." (Ibid. Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1930, page 247.)

Again I say, that was before 1947.

Some of our younger preachers will be shocked to know that though some brethren did not know better, some of their brethren whom they trusted willfully misrepresented the facts when they said that the above mentioned brethren and other Advocate writers did not teach what the writers in the Guardian now teach on the issues now before us. Let Brother Wallace, or any one else, name one thing that the Guardian writers now teach that Advocate writers did not teach twenty-five years ago.

Brother Wallace forgot that he "loved everybody" when he wrote the two following statements in the same article:

"They have called for an all-out war against any kind of cooperation between two or more congregations, and have declared themselves the enemy of any home for orphans or aged."

"They are opposed to pooling their money with one congregation. This is the cooperation that they oppose." (Firm Foundation, April 16, 1957.

How does he believe both statements?

Brother Wallace quoted from his Brother G. K. and Brother Woods. Doesn't Brother Wallace know that both of them have left that position and that some claim that brethren do not believe what they say when they say it? I believe Brother Woods said they do not believe it. Strange bedfellows those Advocate writers! Brother Woods would be a strange combination of bedfellows sleeping by himself.

Why not accept "a way that is right and cannot be wrong?" These brethren need more faith in God's plan and less faith in their own plan. It is the same old story. It is not what is in the Bible that we are divided over; it is what is not in the Bible that we are divided over. Why should a church be divided over what another church is doing? Why should a church in Alabama be divided over what a church in California wants it to do, or over what some institution is doing?