Going Off Half-Cocked
The use of the word "half-cocked" in the vocabulary of the old time huntsman was common parlance. It simply meant that the hammer on his old musket had not been fully cocked and his gun therefore "went off" before he had time to take accurate aim and deliberately pull the trigger with a steady finger.
When a gun goes off "half-cocked," one of three things is evident: First, the gun is in the hands of an amateur, inexperienced in handling guns; or second, the gun is being handled by a person careless with guns; or third, the gun is held by a reckless person, who has the habit of shooting half-cocked.
In any case, applying the definition to the brethren, whether it seems from ignorance and indifference, or is bred of recklessness that borders on disregard for scriptural principles, it is dangerous for guns to go off half-cocked, and far more so for preachers and elders to do so on issues of such prime importance as the missionary-institutional discussion poses.
All the examples needed to make the application practical are at hand. First, the violent repercussions and vehement recalcitrations, from some quarters, over brother Cled's use of that word in reference to some premature angles connected with the Italian situation. That really confirms what he said. These excited and agitated brethren are going off "half-cocked," their guns loaded with acrimonious reproaches against brother Cled. Such passion is not generated at once. Such virulence is not instant. It is pent-up and can be flushed only when indignation turns to anger. Some of these brethren have written worse things, in a worse language, to and about brother Cled than the Catholics have said or written about our good young brethren in Italy. These brethren are shooting off their guns "half-cocked." Can it be that this is but the occasion for some of them to pour out vials of wrath, long fermented and stored up against a day of wrath, over the real issues that are latent in this upsurge? For instance, the "board" issue—the benevolent boards, missionary boards, and the "board of elders" centralized in one church, taking over the missionary money and work of a score, a hundred, or all of the other churches?
If all of this boiling wrath against brother Cled is a scare effort, it won't work. He is not that easily scared. I have known him fifty years and never saw him scared; and we are too accustomed to this sort of thing to be intimidated. On the contrary, this may be a providential opportunity to open the eyes of some honest brethren, whose eyes can see, to the real issues involved in this whole thing.
What Happened In Italy
Our brethren have spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars in Italy, a considerable portion of it going to establish an institution as a means of promoting the church. They went into Italy on temporary visas (which is all they have ever had, and all they have now), into the very shadow of the Vatican, and began to preach and teach that which they knew, or should have known, would bring down upon them all the concentrated fury and opposition of which the Roman Catholic Church is capable. They boldly challenged the mightiest and most ruthless enemy the church has, "bearding the pope in his own liar." We have no word of condemnation at all for the zeal and the courage of the noble young preachers who undertook this task. Whatever mistakes in strategy or tactics may have been made are chargeable to the elders and others in this country who formulated the plans rather than to the young brethren over there who, under their direction, were carrying out those plans. We approve and endorse any and every scriptural effort to establish the church anywhere on the globe. But can any rational man question that the effort to establish a permanent work in Italy on temporary visas, facing the certainty of violent and bitter opposition from the Catholic Church and the Catholic dominated government is an example of "half-cocked" behavior? The truth on Catholicism, preached by these young brethren, no doubt should have been preached; and no apology or compromise should be made, either in Italy or here. But to undertake such a battle on such an inadequate assurance and insecure foundation is the thing that is "halfcocked." That was the shaft of brother Cled's as it seems to me any unbiased reader should know. Jesus said, "Which of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count the cost, whether we have wherewith to complete it? Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish." (Luke 14:28-30)
Another Question Involved
Apart from the matter of the judgment, or lack of it, displayed in seeking to establish a "beach-head" in Italy on such a shaky foundation, there is a question of scripturalness of establishing an institution in Italy and putting human organization there under the "eldership" of a church in the U. S. A. If such a procedure is unscriptural, then that is worse than half-cocked. On the same principle, the eldership of a church in Italy, or Germany, if and when they have such, could establish and "oversee" some such institution in Lubbock, or Nashville, or Los Angeles.
Furthermore, this idea of promoting the church, a divine institution, through human institutions and organizations is cocky, whether half or not. Where is the New Testament precept or example for this procedure?
As the thing is now practiced, a "board of elders" has an institutional "board" under its oversight—boards overseeing boards, in and out of the churches—and the church being smothered under boards. Is it scriptural for the church to do its work through boards—missionary, or benevolent? Can the eldership of one church become a "board" through which all the other churches may work?
Acts 11:29, 30 is no precept or example for this. The disciples in Antioch sent money, or relief, to the elders of the church where the work was being done. The elders of one church in Judea did not in turn take the money of all the other churches and begin using it in some distant places where they were not elders. For one church to help another church by relieving an emergency there, where the elders elder, is one thing; but making the elders of one church a "board of elders" through which all the other churches can operate in doing their missionary and benevolent work is another thing—a cocky thing at that. This idea of a "centralized eldership" is more than "half-cocked", it is a misfire. Any church able to build a half-million dollar cathedral does not need the kind of help mentioned in Acts 11:29, 30. This scripture does not apply.
The "Mass-Meetings"
The "mass meetings," called and convoked by preachers in various sections of the country are another example of going off half-cocked. What right have preachers to call such "mass meetings?" What scriptural right have elders to convene such gatherings? Appointing committees to draw up resolutions to represent the "Church of Christ" —just where is the authority for such procedure? Here is the delegate convention, not in embryo, but the real thing itself. So with "boards" for the work of the church, and conventions and delegates to draw up resolutions, and pianos in a music recreational department of the building (for weddings and young people's affairs), we will be "half-cocked" to "go off" to digression and shoot our generation right into the folds of the Christian Church and its modernisms.
"Enforcing" A Treaty
In a front page article in the Gospel Advocate of February 2, under title of "Why We Are Being Persecuted In Italy," the writer says:
"Protestants in Italy have met and asked the President to enforce the treaty we have with Italy guaranteeing freedom of religion. Thousands of members of the churches of Christ in this country have written or wired their congressmen to see that this right is given."
Now that looks "half-cocked" to me. They want a "treaty" which they say "we" have with Italy "enforced." We who? Many of these brethren who are making the most noise over this matter teach that the government belongs to the devil—but they talk about "our" and "we" on this "treaty" with Italy, and want it "enforced." In "mass meetings" they appoint "committees" to deluge congress with telegrams and letters from "us" and "we" and "our." Are "we" cocked or halfcocked" in this demand for "enforcing" a treaty?
Making a demand is not enforcing anything. The military is the law enforcing function, whether with municipal, state, or national affairs, from Chief of Police in every town to Chief of Staff in Washington D. C. And our anti-force brethren want a treaty enforced!
But we are told that this only means to enforce the Marshall Plan agreement, or else have it withdrawn. Would that not be retaliation? Our non-resistance brethren, some of which these are whom, say the Sermon on the Mount will not allow retaliation; yet here are mass meetings appointing committees to draft resolutions, and calling on all the brethren to bombard Washington D. C. for immediate action to enforce a treaty with a threat of retaliation against their hungry population.
Here is the idea it seems: Because the Catholics get "our orphanage" closed, and turn two or three dozen out on the streets, we will get the Marshall Plan aid withdrawn and starve hundreds of thousands of them in reprisal! That is retaliation with a vengeance! And that is what some of our non-resistance brethren would have us do. It sounds to me like something that "halfcocked" means.
Keeping The Issue Straight
When we oppose missionary societies, it does not mean that we oppose what is called "missionary work." When we oppose tying the colleges into the churches, it does not mean that we are opposed to colleges in their rightful realm. And when we oppose the deviations from the New Testament pattern in the work of the church, it does not mean we oppose the work. All this effort to foment feeling and plant prejudice will not prevail in the end. It may for the moment excite about as much of the mob spirit in brethren over here as the Catholics did in Italy, accompanied by throwing of stones in the form of words. (Which are in fact the "carnal weapons" Paul made reference to in 1 Corinthians; he was talking of the methods used by his enemies). But when the smoke of the skirmish has cleared, and the atmosphere with it, the solid brethren among us, who do little talking but a lot of thinking, will stand on solid ground—and there will be enough of them in every place to "enforce" the teaching of the New Testament in the churches—we hope.
The old digressive cry "if you don't like our plan, show us your plan," is just as empty now as it was when the digressives howled it. And for some preacher to write, "I like the way they are doing it better than the way you are not doing it," is just as hollow. The New Testament reveals the plan, the organization, and the work—and it was not for the elders of one church to elder for all the churches.
Doubtless some critic will now be ready to charge us with wanting to see the Italian work abandoned and every gospel preacher withdrawn from that country. We desire no such thing. On the contrary, we would like to see whatever good that has been accomplished there salvaged rather than sacrificed, and the church established in Italy on the New Testament basis.
But while efforts are being made to build a scriptural church over there, a denomination should not be made of the church over here. That was the warning of Brother Cled's article; which is the danger many of us fear.