"Dangers Facing The Church As I See Them" -- A Review
Brother N. B. Hardeman was among the first gospel preachers I heard preach. As a country boy it was my privilege to hear among others, Brethren Hardeman, A. G. Freed, L. L. Brigance, W. II. Owen, J. P. Lowery, E. M. Borden, J. L. Holland, G. Dallas Smith, Ira and Boone Douthitt at Wildersville, Roans Creek, Stray Leaf and Bargaton, all in West Tennessee. I heard some of these and another one or two in religious debates in that same section of the country. Later I attended National Teachers Normal and Business College, conducted by Brethren Freed and Hardeman, at Henderson, Tennessee. I did my junior college work at Freed-Hardeman College, successor to NTN&BC, during the time Brother Hardeman was president of the school.
As a matter of course, I learned to admire and appreciate N. B. Hardeman. His speaking ability, his aptness in presenting a thing in a clear, forceful way, his wide, general knowledge of so many subjects, together with his genial disposition and a manifest interest in me led me to admire him all the more. His frankness and forthrightness in answering any questions asked him or any arguments made were marked characteristics of the man. He readily took a stand for what he thought to be the right on any subject. His ability to make an argument clearly and concisely, in such a manner as to convince the audience, was outstanding. He could with the same ease and clearness answer an opponent's argument.
It was my good fortune to attend his classes in Bible, Bible Geography, Hermeneutics, special subjects, as well as in Spelling, for five to seven years. It was from him that I learned there are three ways, and only three, that the word of God teaches or authorizes a doctrine or practice; that is, by direct statement or command, by an apostolic approved example, and a necessary inference. He impressed on my mind to a greater degree than any other that if a teaching or practice is not authorized in one of the above three ways, then it is sinful to teach or practice it; it cannot be done by faith.
In Brother Hardeman's printed sermons and in his published debates he always hewed to the line and there was never any doubt as to where he stood. His position was stated with clarity. There was never any doubt about what he meant even though one might not agree with what he said.
In the Gospel Advocate of April 3, 1958, Brother Hardeman has a featured front page article that had been announced in advance of that date in at least two issues of the paper. The subject on which he wrote is the one that is used in the title of this article, "Dangers Facing the Church as I See Them." I never did agree with all that Brother Hardeman taught, and I never hesitated to make such known to him and argue with him, even in his classes. He never became the least bit angry that others, including his students, disagreed with him. He would very patiently and good-naturedly state his arguments and answer any objections that were made to them by any one. However, I usually agreed with him. So it is with the teaching under consideration. I am in agreement with almost all of the first half of the article. The first part of the treatise sounds and reads like the N. B. Hardeman under whom I sat and studied. But the latter part of said writing does not sound like him at all. Some of his statements are at variance with other of his public utterances, some are incoherent, the meaning is doubtful and the reasoning is faulty. To what shall we attribute this?
Brother Hardeman engaged Ben M. Bogard in a debate in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1938. In this discussion he had somewhat to say about Bogard's age and memory, etc. For example he said, "Now I am going to excuse Dr. Bogard, if I can, on the ground of his years, as being short of memory. I know that forgetfulness is characteristic of senility, and that is the best apology that I can offer." (Hardeman-Bogard Debate, Page 281). Again, "I pray God that when I get to be seventy, and that won't be any too many years yet, my memory may not become so treacherous as is that of my friend." "The truth of the business is, if this is the best his memory can serve him, Dr. Bogard ought to quit debating; and any other man, when his 'forgettery' works better than his memory." "Now, to be charitable, I think Dr. Bogard's memory slipped a cog and he forgot things that had been said." (Ibid., Page 283). Do you suppose that this could be the explanation for Brother Hardeman's utterances under review?
In Brother Hardeman's younger years he would have stated in no uncertain terms just what he believed on the matters he was discussing in his recent printed statement. He would not have modified his stand on any issue in order to have his position appear in print in a paper published by brethren. He would not have bowed to pressure to bring out a statement in agreement with the policy of the Gospel Advocate, even if all of the institutions among "us" supported that policy. In years gone by he would have been clear in any article he might have written and there would not have been any doubt on any point as to his meaning. Let us look at some things said in the light of former utterances on the same matters.
In the latter part of the article, Brother Hardeman discusses "matters of faith and matters of expediency." He indicates that he thinks that the threatening division of congregations over the question of human organizations and centralized control could be resolved if we understood the difference between "matters of faith and matters of expediency." But he has in his discussion of these "matters" erased the difference in the "matters of faith and matters of expediency." He illustrates what he means by the great commission. It is commanded "to go, teach, baptize." "He left the method of going, the manner of teaching to the judgement of such as would obey his commands." I am surprised that he has not found out that the issue in this day is not over method, but it is one over organization, "boards and conclaves." As Brother Otey told Brother Briney in 1908 concerning the missionary society, the society must use methods the same as the church. So, the society is not just a method; it employs method. So it is of the human organizations in the work of benevolence today. They are not just methods, they are organizations which employ methods.
The Matter Of Expediency
Several things are written on expediency in the piece under review. Brother Hardeman says, "To give is a matter of faith. How much and how to assemble the money are matters of expediency." In observing the Lord's supper, he says whether "we have leavened or unleavened bread" is a matter of "expediency." He writes, "All of this comes under the law of expediency which is to use the best methods under the circumstances at the time." A preacher of the Christian Church in debate on instrumental music with Brother Coleman Overby, in which I served as Brother Overby's moderator, said a church used crackers and water to observe the Lord's supper. I suppose this would come under the "law of expediency which is to use the best methods under the circumstances at the time."
I beg leave to insert the following concise statement on the matter of expediency:
"The Rule Of Expediency.
Somewhat has been said of a New Testament law of expediency. Where is any such law found in the New Testament? Expediency is not a law. 'All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient,' is the way it reads in 1 Cor. 10:23. Of course, Paul was not making the blanket affirmation that everything is lawful. Obviously it means only the things that are lawful can be expedient; but some things that are lawful are not expedient. Therefore to prove that anything is expedient, it must first be proved to be lawful. The brethren are in reverse, attempting to prove that a thing is lawful by trying to prove that it is expedient, which is an inversion of the New Testament principle. Nothing is expedient that is not lawful. To assume that anything is expedient before proving it to be lawful is simply begging the question at issue. But now when authority is wanted for a practice for which no authority exists — presto! the `law of expediency' is invoked! If it can be called a law at all, it is a human law altogether, it is not divine. How can anything be permitted if it is not lawful? How can it be lawful if it is not authorized? Why plead expediency if it is authorized? Take some examples:
"Assembly is authorized, the meeting house is expedient.
"Teaching is authorized, arrangement in classes is expedient.
"Giving is authorized, collection baskets are expedient.
"Baptism is authorized, the baptistry is expedient.
"Singing is authorized, hymnbooks are expedient.
"But classes could not be expedient if there were no authority for teaching. Collection baskets could not be expedient if there were no law on giving. A baptistry could not be expedient if there were no command for baptism. Hymnbooks could not be expedient if there were no instructions for singing. On the same principle, the employment of mechanized music in the church not being authorized, instruments of music are not expedients; and cannot be paralleled with songbooks. Mechanical music is not authorized, therefore instruments for that kind of music cannot be classed with expedients. Any one who can see through a ladder, can see that, and make the application of these principles to the present issue."
Following Brother Wallace's suggestion, if human societies were authorized, then benevolent organizations would be expedient. But since human societies are not authorized, benevolent organizations are not expedients, but are additions.
Brother Wallace Continues:
"Before arguing the 'law of expediency' for putting the colleges in the budgets of the churches, let the authority be cited for the church to support human organizations and institutions, working through man-made boards, showing such to be lawful, and it will then be time enough to discuss whether it is expedient or not."
"The once famous Henry Ward Beecher said, 'Infant baptism is like an ox yoke, it works.' So it is now argued that a thing is expedient if it works. A missionary society works, therefore it is expedient, on that premise. Instrumental music works, Christian Endeavor Societies work, pie-suppers work, Methodism works (organically), therefore all of these unscriptural things are expedient! The whole institutional proposition has been predicated on a law that does not exist — the so-called, but non-existent 'New Testament law of expediency.'
'Another miss in the logic of those seeking sanction for unlawful practices is in the assumption that orphan homes furnish a premise without fault or criticism from which to draw the conclusion that any and all other institutions may be included in the budgets of the church. Some who have drafted propositions for debate did not distinguish, and apparently did not know, the kind of benevolent work a church can scripturally do, and the kind of a school a church can scripturally conduct. Most churches operate their local schools every Lord's day, and through the week, and carry on a consistent program of 'Christian education' under the direction of the elders of the congregation. But no distinctions are made between these proper activities of the church and the propositions demanding the support of the church for human institutions, ignoring altogether the vital points of organizations and boards through which the church would be compelled to work in order to do the things these brethren are determined to make the churches do. The 'stipulated conditions of the New Testaments' reveal nothing of that sort, nor is there any thing like it in the New Testament that is not stipulated, not even a hint at a 'law of expediency' (whatever that may be) that will authorize such things.
"The astute editor of the Firm Foundation is on record that even a home for orphans must he under the elders of the local church to be scripturally supported by the church. What then can be said for the schools, waiving other proper objections, claiming a place in the budget of the church? All of this stress on human institutions. after all, is a misplaced emphasis. Brethren need to learn the place of human organizations and keep them there: and they need to learn all over again what the church is, what the church is for, and what the church can do." — Foy E. Wallace, Jr., in Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pages 8-12.
All this is included because of the clear thinking evidenced in this article on the so-called "law of expediency." Even though many brethren have used the expression, that does not make it right.
Brother Hardeman mentions "meetinghouses with baptisteries, preachers' homes with all utilities," "Located preachers," and states that there is no mention of them in the New Testament. Incidentally, did the church at Troas own, rent or lease the house in which they met which had utilities, or at least, one utility, lights? Or did they just "steal" it and meet there? And as for a located preacher, was Paul located at Ephesus when he remained there for some three years? Was Timothy located there (1 Tim. 1:3) ? The writer states that, "Some say they are implied. If implied, the church of the first century did not do its duty . . ." So, he denies that these things are implied in the New Testament. Of course, he does not believe they are commanded; nor does he believe they are found by way of apostolic approved example. Therefore, he, in effect, denies that they are divinely authorized. Yet, he affirms that we may have them all! Upon what basis? Not on the basis of command, example or inference. He has ruled these out. He might reply, upon the ground of expediency. If so, I remind him that in order for a thing to be expedient, it must first be lawful. If the law does not authorize it, it cannot possibly be expedient.
Another thing said to be expedient is "how much" to give. But Brother Hardeman formerly taught that "how much" was a matter of faith. Here it is: "Is it scriptural to contribute on the first day of the week proportionate to our ability? Yes, sir. Is it scriptural, then, brethren, not to do it? Of course not." (Boswell-Hardeman Discussion, Page 148,) conducted in 1923. Then it was not expedient how much one gave. It was unscriptural if it were not proportionate. Has Brother Hardeman's memory "slipped a cog"? He told Bogard that he ought to quit debating if his memory had failed him. I wonder if he thinks he should keep writing if his memory has failed him?
He says that it is a matter of expediency whether we use "leavened of unleavened bread." But it is a fact that the bread Jesus used in the institution of the Lord's supper was unleavened. Would it be all right to use hot rolls in the Lord's supper? Then, crackers would be acceptable, if it "were the best that could be done under the circumstances at the time." But Brother Hardeman denied in times past that one could add anything to the bread. Hear him, "Now, the Lord said eat the bread and drink the wine at the Lord's supper; but I do not, from a physical point of view, fancy the taste of the dry bread that we have, and I seek to make it more pleasant to men. I take the Lord's supper, the bread, just like he said, and I spread some butter on it, or some jelly, and make it a little bit more palatable. I have not substituted, but I have added that which God does not declare. I want to aid it. I still observe the Lord's supper; but I have violated the command by the addition and by putting into the pores of the bread the butter and the jelly? Let Brother Boswell answer." Well, now, let Brother Hardeman answer. Is it any more an addition to add something to the "pores" of the bread after it is cooked than it is to add to the pores of the bread before it is cooked? Will it be any more pleasing to the Lord to add yeast to the dough to make it rise and be more "palatable" than it will to add butter or jelly after it is cooked to make "it a little bit more palatable"? Brother Hardeman as you approach your fourscore years and four, has your reason gone back on you, also?
But in this article under review, expediency is spoken of as a law in the same way that faith is a law. "Faith and expediency are the laws governing Christians in carrying out God's commands. The scripture that here applies is: 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' "So, expediency is a law governing Christians in the same way that faith is. But if expediency is a law in the same way that faith is, it ceases to be a matter of expediency and is made a law. Expediency involves a right of choice in those things within the scope of what the Scriptures authorize. But a thing in the law of faith must be done; man has no choice in the matter. But in matters of expediency man does have a choice. Let us permit Brother Hardeman to be our teacher on this point, as he taught in days before he was seventy, "If a thing is scriptural, it is not to be trifled with, and is a thing you do not want to leave undone. When we are commanded to be baptized, I want to ask Brother Boswell: Can you either do it or not do it and obey the Lord? Observing the Lord's supper is scriptural. May I ask: Can you either observe it or not observe it? To live a prayerful, upright life is scriptural. I want to ask: Can you either do it or not do it? To pray unto God is scriptural. Does that mean that I can do it if I want to, and if I don't want to I can let it alone? ...
"When a thing is scriptural, it must be done, and our liberty is to obey God, or reject his counsel. Such matters are not to be settled by majority vote." (Boswell-Hardeman Discussion, Page 210.) He could have truthfully added, nor are such matters to be settled by whether it is expedient or not. I wonder if Brother Hardeman's memory "slipped a cog" when he wrote that sentence about "faith and expediency being laws?"
Does "Let all things be done decently and in order," authorize matters in the realm of faith? I was not so taught. Here is what I was taught on that. After quoting 2 Cor. 5:7, and giving the meaning of the word "walk," we have this, "Now, what is the principle, Paul? 'We walk by faith, and not by sight.' Just one other thought: How does faith come? The answer (Rom. 10:17): 'So faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.' Therefore, unless God's word authorizes and plainly presents it, there can be no faith regarding it." (Hardeman's Tabernacle) Sermons, Vol. II, Page 275). Even though this was spoken with direct reference to the worship, in the next paragraph the same principle is applied to "service." After quoting 2 Tim. 3:16,17 and making some comments "thereon," our brother states this conclusion, "Therefore, if the Bible does not specifically mention instruments of music under the authority of Christ Jesus, it follows that it is not a good work." (Ibid., Page 276. Emphasis mine. TAR). This truth can with equal force he applied to the matter of human organizations through which the church is to do its benevolent work. With reference to the above scripture Brother Hardeman said. "There is no lack; there is no want; the object being, 'that the man of God by be perfect.' 'Perfect' how? With reference to his equipment, in that he is. 'thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' " (Ibid., Page 276). Therefore, according to Brother Hardeman. on the under side of seventy, if the Bible does not specifically mention human organizations under the authority of Jesus Christ, it follows that such is not a good work. Did some one say something about "forgetfulness being a characteristic of senility"!
Who has ever said that the church "cannot use the 'Lord's money' to help feed and clothe some poor orphan child?" Let him be named if there breathes such a person. No one objects to feeding and clothing "some poor orphan child," just as no one objects to the preaching o the gospel. It is the organization doing the work that is in question. Is it the God ordained organization — the local church — or is it some human organization set up by man through which the church is to do this work? Which organization does the Scripture "specifically mention?"
The paragraph in the article on "Marriage" is so in definite and incoherent that one cannot tell what the writer has in mind. "Some homes exist. They must be lawful Why object?" This is not the N. B. Hardeman that knew. In all his books I have never found an utterance with such obscurity of meaning. Does this mean that SOME homes exist that are lawful and some unlawful? Are only "Church of Christ Homes" (sectarian phraseology, but used by some brethren) lawful? What about Buckner Orphan Home, supported and managed by Baptists, for "poor orphan children?" "Why object?" I suppose, to the church supporting such?
Brother Hardeman's appeal to the meetings and debates he and Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., conducted, as proof that churches doing their benevolent work through human organizations is not "exceeding sinful" is "puerile,' and is an appeal to tradition, like the Catholics. What would he have said if Boswell had made the argument in favor of instrumental music in worship, that instrumental music was used in "five meetings" I conducted "with more than forty congregations cooperating" through the missionary society? And, further, what would he have said had Boswell continued, "When any one suggests that these meetings were contrary to the Bible and exceeding sinful we are made to wonder if he has not become a prejudiced factionist and that he is blinded to sound reasoning?" How would Brother Hardeman have answered in 1923? Here is what he did say in 1923: "Now, as a matter of fact, I have subscribed one hundred per cent to the last principle, which is this: Take God at his word, believe what he says, do just what he requires, live as he directs, and trust him for his promises. Let us bow at his feet and say: 'Lord not my will, but thine, be done.' 'Speak, and I will hear; command, and I will obey! Whatever you say do, that I will perform; and in the absence of heavenly and divine authority, let me refrain and not presume to walk other than in the light of revealed truth." .....God must ordain it or it will have no part in his service." (Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons, Op., Cit., Page 272), But just for the record, I wonder why, following the first meeting in Nashville in which Brother Hardeman preached, and in planning for the second, the brethren decided the arrangement for the first meeting was not just what it should have been? They discarded that set up and, rather than a committee made up of men from various congregations, the elders of one congregation had charge of the arrangements for the second and subsequent meetings? By any chance, do you suppose that the brethren decided that, not the meeting, certainly not the preaching, but the organization for the meeting was contrary to the Bible, and if "not exceeding sinful," at least, doubtful? Had they "become prejudiced factionists" and "blinded to sound reasoning? Which arrangements shall we follow for such meetings in the future in order not to be "contrary to the Bible," and "exceeding sinful"? those for the first, or subsequent meetings?
The above article is written solely in the interest of truth. I hold no ill will at all toward Brother Hardeman, but rather have only the kindliest feeling of good will for him, and I appreciate very much his published sermons and debates and rejoice in the great good he has done and the beneficent influence he has wielded for the Cause of Christ. It is my prayer and wish for him that he may live many more years and enjoy good health and continue to be useful in the Cause we all love. I could but pray that he might stand for a "Thus saith the Lord; demand a "direct statement, example, or a necessary inference" for everything that he teaches and practices; be an "Anti-federalist;" a "strict constructionist" as in days of yore. References made to Brother Hardeman's age and memory are meant as no reflection on him whatever. This is simply the most charitable explanation I can find for his change.
I do deeply deplore the comfort that the indefinite utterances in his article will afford those who are determined that the human organizations fostered by brethren shall be supported by the churches of the Lord. I regret that Brother Hardeman has given support to the sentiment that brethren who oppose human organizations be ostracized and "quarantined" even though the claim is made that these organizations are matters of "expediency." However, the Gospel Advocate would have published no other type article.
"I have subscribed one hundred per cent" to the following principle stated by Brother Hardeman: "There is but one safe ground in all this wide, wide world, That is the Bible, and the Bible alone; God's word, and that alone." "What the law has not said and the Lord has not declared is absolutely not binding; and it would be an act of presumption to insist upon the incorporation of the same into the 'rules, regulations, and practices of the church of which he is the head.' "