Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
December 19, 1957
NUMBER 33, PAGE 5,15b

"Meetings Extra Scriptural"

C. E. W. Dorris

The following article, under the above caption, is from the pen of David Lipscomb. It was appropriate when it was written and published, and it's no less appropriate now, and for that reason, we here give it in full, as follows:

The article below was written twenty years ago and laid aside without publication. It has recently turned up, and we think it worthy of publication now.

There is no more conclusive evidence of the necessity of discussing these meetings, with their merits and tendencies, than the opposition brethren show to the discussion of these meetings and associations. We do not fully know the feelings that prompt good brethren to say they do not wish a discussion of these questions; but we strongly suspect it is a feeling that discussion among brethren will hurt our party. This is the same feeling that prompts Democrats and Republicans to insist on hushing up differences in the party, that they may triumph over the other party. The spirit that leads to this course is essentially a party spirit — a party feeling that, and its result, is to build up a party regardless of truth or right, and such a course insures the party will cherish error and wrong.

We have no sympathy with such ends or results, and no regard for the feeling that prompts such desire. We have as much respect and fellowship for error and wrong in the Methodist or Presbyterian Church as we have for it in the church of God. Indeed, we much prefer to see error triumph in these churches than we do to see it triumph in the church of God. We are much more anxious to see the church of God kept pure than we are to see any other body on earth kept pure. We are more anxious to see those with whom we stand connected kept pure than we are to see others so kept, just as we are to see our own family kept pure and clean than we are to see other families so kept. To the extent that we are more anxious to keep our own family pure and clean in heart and life, we are more ready to warn them of threatening dangers and to expose and deliver them from evils that are effecting them. We have no sympathy with and not much respect for those willing to sacrifice truth for party success and growth. If any feel interested in building up a strong party based even on some truth, while ignoring other truths of the Bible, evil, and not good, must come of such effort. With that purpose we could have no sympathy and for it we cannot labor. No truth can live in harmony with error, no truth is ever helped by error; no truth is ever injured by any other truth in the universe. These are axioms that admit of no discussion. They are self-evident to every mind not sadly perverted by error and disqualified for correct reasoning. Whoever then, ignores error, winks at error for fear of injuring some truth, is unconsciously to himself, it may be, an enemy of the truth he is aiming to uphold. In opposing one truth he opposes indirectly and unconsciously, but effetely, all truth; and in winking at or palliating or excusing one error he is palliating and preparing the way for the success of all error.

We wish to maintain truth. We have no love for any party. Truth never dwells with party. It is in spirit essentially different from all parties. Whoever becomes a partisan forsakes truth. Truth knows no party. Truth is universal, and will conjoin those who practice it in one body. Whoever sets out to maintain or defend any party ceases to be a devotee of truth. The Christian's whole effort should be to maintain truth, in disregard of and to the overthrow of all parties.

The fearfulness of discussion is the result of love for party, never of a love for truth. Persons frequently persuade themselves that the defense and maintenance of some party that adopts a truth is the maintenance of the truth. Under this idea they vehemently maintain party, thinking they maintain truth. But they are mistaken. Every party has more or less error, and in defending party, we defend the error instead of the truth which that party may hold, but which is not of the party. Error is dependent on party for its support; truth never is.

The spirit that deprecates free, full discussion of our own positions and principles, and that objects to the exposure of the errors of our friends or ourselves, is the spirit of error and a spirit that will betray truth sooner or later — all truth. Brethren think they are promoting unity by opposing these discussions, exposures of error, and divisions. In the first place unity in error is not desirable. It is of all things most to be deprecated. We are to contend earnestly for the truth. We are required to oppose all who subvert the truth. We are first to be pure, then peaceable. We are to be made one by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. In the next place, unity in error, if desirable, is impossible. There is no standard in error to make its devotees one. Unity is impossible without a standard to make persons who accept it one. Error is of the essence of division and party. Then God himself would not tolerate unity in error. He demands we shall be one in Christ — shall be one by the sanctifying power of his word, which is truth. Those who act independently of his word cannot be sanctified by it. They cannot be one. Only by continuing within his word can we be free and be one in Christ. We are all to walk by the same rule; to be of one accord, of one mind; to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. We are to be thus by following the inspired men, as they followed Christ. Then God will not tolerate union, save in the truth.

Again, when differences exist, the discussion of these differences is the only hope of union. The suppression of discussion is the direct and open road to division. Whoever opposes the free discussion of differences among brethren, in that favors speedy division. Differences existing will manifest themselves. If they are discussed freely, there is hope of reconciliation and harmony. Suppress the discussion, and, unless the strong hand of arbitrary and despotic power holds by the terror of physical force, disruption and division must come. We appeal to every man's own experience in this. When persons having a community of interest differ, so long as those who differ show a kindly interest in the others, listen to their remonstrances, treat with considerate kindness their feelings, wishes, and reasonings, they remain one.

The moment the one party says; "We wish to hear no more your reasonings; we intend no longer to regard your feelings or wishes; we intend to go our own way, regardless of your course or purposes," those people become two distinct people. Division or an unmanly and unchristian submission to what we believe to be wrong is the only alternative.

We freely confess this is the effect upon us. We felt it in the differences concerning these meetings and societies among the disciples. No matter how wide the difference of judgment, so long as free and kindly discussion was tolerated, so long as our objections were treated with respect, our reasons were kindly heard and considered, we felt we were still one people, one family, one brotherhood. A few years since this whole course was changed. We were told they would no longer hear us; they intended to go their own way, regardless of those who opposed. They refused to let us be heard with our reasons and our voices in their periodicals and in their meetings. From that day we have felt that we were two peoples. They had purposes, interests, and organisms in which we had neither interest, part nor lot. Our wishes, preferences, faith, had become those of aliens to them. We are two people. What has caused it? The introduction of works, meetings, societies not sanctioned in the word of God, but based upon the opinions and preferences of men. Since these things have been introduced, the march forward to division has been as steadily onward as the scriptural independence of the churches still lingering would admit.

A true, scriptural position and condition of the churches render wide-extended division impossible. Unscriptural positions must be assumed to render division possible. General organizations must first exist before general division can take place. With the steps toward division the general organization which renders division possible have kept pace. A division of heresy extending over a large extent of territory or a division between churches is impossible until the scriptural condition and organism of these churches have been changed. The change has been and is going forward with a steady step. D. L. (Gospel Advocate 1906, page 552.)

If Brother Lipscomb was living today, I am of the opinion, that it would be difficult for him to describe the condition of the churches and some religious journals of today, better than he did, when he wrote the above article, years ago. His article, and the present condition of things show that "history is repeating itself." Is it not significant that the "Old Reliable," under the management of as good a man as Brother Goodpasture, has suppressed free and full discussion of differences between brethren, and thus changed the policy of the Old Reliable at this point? If Brother Lipscomb could speak from the grave, wonder if he would not ask Brother Good-pasture to come back home and bring the "Old Reliable" with him, and both stand where he stood, relative to parties and free discussion of differences between brethren, when God called him home?

I, too, "strongly suspect," that the reason editors today suppress free discussion among brethren, "is a feeling that discussion among brethren will hurt our party."

I feel that Brother Lipscomb was correct in his statements; "When differences exist, the discussion of these differences is the only hope of union. The suppression of discussion is the direct and open road to division. Whoever opposes the free discussion of differences among brethren," (coupled with a "quarantine" setup, C.E.W.D.) "in that favors speedy division." We have no sympathy with such a spirit, no difference where it is found, nor who is behind it.