Bill Humble Changes Views
For some time it has been known that brother Bill Humble had changed views on the institutional question. Many, however, did not know to what extent he had changed, and were continuing to hope that he would come back and defend the truth he once stood for. Those who trusted in this remote possibility have now had their dreams shattered. A letter was recently mailed to the members of the Brush Creek Blvd. church in Kansas City, in which brother Humble personally affirmed his change. Although this letter was addressed to the Brush Creek church, it seems to have become public property in Kansas City. It was read at the Brush Creek services, and has been circulated quite freely among other members. At least three families, who are now members of the Vivion Road church, were closely associated with Humble while he was at Brush Creek, and he had a large part in teaching them the truth that he has now repudiated. For this reason, and that good, honest people might see that Humble has not changed from error unto truth, but from truth to error, it seems necessary that the letter be reviewed. Here is the letter in its entirety followed by my comment:
1400 DeForest Iowa City, Iowa February 12, 1982
Church of Christ
901 Brush Creek Blvd. Kansas City, Missouri
Dear Brethren:
Since you have heard that I have modified my views about some of the "issues," I think it only fair that you should hear it from me that I have changed my views and the extent of these changes.
You are aware of the fact that while I lived in Kansas City, I was sympathetic with some of the viewpoints now represented by the Guardian. During the years that I lived in Louisville, I saw firsthand the extremes to which these views were being pushed and the results in the life of the church. The result was that over a period of a couple of years or so, I became convinced that I could no longer defend some of the views that I had formerly held.
I now believe that churches may cooperate with one another in evangelism and in benevolence. I also believe that churches may care for orphans in orphans' homes, and I believe churches may cooperate in such work.
I am sure my basic viewpoint will always be conservative but I feel that the great need of the church today is for brethren to admit that truth lies in "the middle of the road" between the extremes of "liberalism" and "conservatism " and for brethren to allow one another more liberty in judgment than we have been allowing the last few years.
If this sounds a bit like Reuel Lemmons, I'll have to admit that brother Lemmons has had a lot of influence on my thinking the last few years. And though I do not like the idea of being "lined up" with any group, I am sure that the Finn Foundation would come closer to representing my viewpoint now than any other paper in the brotherhood. I think there is great merit in brother Lemmons' view of the orphan home. I have deep reservations about a home that is organized under a board of directors rather than the elders of a congregation. But I hasten to add that I would not make this a point of controversy or fellowship.
Sincerely, s/ Bill J. Humble
What Brother Humble Once Believed
In paragraph two of the above letter brother Humble makes this statement:
"You are aware of the fact that while I lived in Kansas City, I was sympathetic with some of the viewpoints now represented by the Guardian."
When brother Humble lived and preached in Kansas City, he believed and contended that his viewpoints were represented in and taught by the Bible. Several to whom I have talked have heard him fervently teach and preach that such was the case. He now would have people believe that when he preached on certain subjects, he took his text from the Guardian! Now, it is true that these "viewpoints" are represented in the Gospel Guardian; but so are they in scores of other publications, and by hundreds of sincere and faithful gospel preachers and elders throughout the land; but above all, they are "represented" in the Bible.
Do not become confused as to what Humble formerly preached, and I presume, believed. When he lived in Kansas City, he preached that the Bible teaches by command, example, and necessary inference, and that any time a church engages in that which is not authorized in one of these three ways, it goes beyond N. T. teaching. Humble believed that there was no universal organization for the church, and taught that every congregation was to do its work under its own oversight. He also taught that there was no authority for benevolent institutions, or missionary societies to be benevolent institutions, or missionary societies to be built and/or maintained by the church. He believed and taught that colleges, hospitals, old folk homes, orphan homes, recreational and eating establishments, and all other like institutions had a right to exist, and even be operated and maintained by members of the church, but he denied that the church had the right to build and support such institutions. When the new building was built on Brush Creek Boulevard, he made a consecrated effort to get the kitchen removed from the plans. Needless to say, it went in and Humble will now help use it! Will he give us the scripture passage upon which he bases his change, or was his change made on the silence of the scriptures? Humble may still believe that the church cannot scripturally build some institutions, such as colleges, but he is grossly inconsistent if he does, because the same scripture that authorizes the church to donate to one human organization will authorize it to donate to a dozen!
Why Humble Changed
Notice some more words from brother Humble's letter:
"During the years that I lived in Louisville; I saw firsthand the extremes to which these views were being pushed and the results in the life of the church. The result was that over a period of a couple of years or so, I became convinced that I could no longer defend some of the views that I had formerly held."
Does brother Humble not know that if a thing is right and true, pushing it to "extremes" will not make it untrue or undefendable? Poor judgment may be used, and damage may be done, but truth is truth regardless Of the extreme. One might preach, contend for, and preach again on the subject of baptism, to the exclusion of other vital subjects, and be extreme, but does this make baptism wrong and to be repudiated? According to Humble's reasoning, it does!
Incidentally, just who did the Pushing in Louisville? In the digression of a century ago, those who did the pushing were those contending for the instrumental music and missionary societies — they brought in these innovations, unauthorized by the N T and pushed and forced them on brethren to the extent that churches were split and division was permanent. From what I hear, those who did the pushing in Louisville were those pushing for benevolent societies; for sponsoring church arrangements; for the "Herald of Truth missionary society; and for going right along with other liberal churches who have advanced far and are advocating and promoting much. Brother A. C. Grider, who preaches in Louisville, in a letter to the Highland elders, makes the following statement about the same pushing of which Humble speaks:
"Until the Herald of Truth came to Louisville there was peace and harmony among preachers, among churches, among friends, among families, and among neighbors. We were happy and the church was growing. But since your Missionary Society started operating here we have turmoil and strife, we have malice and hatred, we have factions and divisions, we have bitterness. As a result of your efforts in Louisville, congregations have been divided; preachers have been estranged; families have been torn asunder; fellowship between congregations has been broken; threats have been made; prospects of a lawsuit threatened; and the situation worsens every minute."
The "Herald of Truth" organization was "hatched out" by some ill informed and overly zealous preachers, sold to the Highland elders as a baby, and has grown to the extent that it controls and uses the funds of hundreds of congregations throughout the nation and world, and has meddled in the affairs of, and caused division in hundreds of churches from coast to coast. Anyone that believes such a controlling, scripturally unauthorized project to be pleasing to God must surely have a mighty strong delusion, be ignorant of the scriptures, or be wholly blinded by false teachers to what is really going on. If this organization had stayed out of Louisville, there would have been no pushing and brother Humble could have continued believing and teaching the truth that he once accepted.
What He Now Believes
Brother Humble says: "I now believe churches may cooperate with one another in evangelism and benevolence." The statement infers that he once did not believe that churches could cooperate. But the truth of the matter is, he did believe churches could cooperate in both benevolence and evangelism. The difference in his position is this: He did believe churches could cooperate, but only in harmony with the New Testament pattern; he now believes they may cooperate by using man's pattern. Again he says:
"I am sure that my basic viewpoint will always be conservative, but I feel that the great need of the church today is for brethren to admit that the truth lies in "the middle of the road" between the extremes of "liberalism" and "conservatism" and for brethren to allow one another more liberty in judgment than we have been allowing the last few years."
He goes on to admit that "this sounds a bit like Reuel Lemmons," and then affirms that the "Firm Foundation would come closer to representing my viewpoint than any other paper in the brotherhood?' From what I have been able to read from the pen of Lemmons, he can write it either way. He can eloquently warn against the dangers of departures and innovations, and in the next issue defend those instigating the departures, and castigate all who would even hint that they are wrong and might be lost. Of all bedfellows there are to choose from, Humble picked a dandy! But then he may fill the part, notice this: "I have deep reservations about a home that is organized under a board ...." "I would not make this a point of controversy...." He has (?) "deep reservations," but will not lift so much as one little finger to support those "deep reservations"! One who will not contend for what he conscientiously believes to be right is unfit to be called a "gospel preacher," and it is hard to understand how such a one would expect to go to heaven. Humble's "basic viewpoint," compared to the N. T., Is already liberal, but if he continues his present course, the "middle of the road" will get wider and wider (especially on one side), until ultra-liberalism will be accepted without any "controversy."
In 1954, Humble debated Leroy Garrett for four nights in the Ivanhoe Temple, in Kansas City. To get the debate, Humble attended a church service where Garrett was speaking, stood up in the audience and before a multitude of people challenged Garrett to a public debate on their differences. Garrett accepted the challenge, and the debate became a reality. Now, will Humble be so noble and brave to defend his new position? If so, it will not be necessary for him to badger a man into debate: the Vivion Road church stands ready for such a debate, and is willing to meet any liberal church even more than half way that such a debate might be had. Will Brush Creek, or some other church that agrees with them, endorse Humble for a debate in Kansas City? Or, if Humble is unwilling to defend his views, will they put some other man forth that this discussion may be had? We shall see, but if past practice is any indication of future action, the "great defenders of the faith" (?) will be as silent as the tomb on this matter. "Debate thy cause with thy neighbor" are no longer words that flow from their mouths; they have gone soft, and it is doubtful that they would debate a Baptist on the subject of baptism! Are we wrong? We hope so, but we shall wait and see.