Brother Sewell's Literature Teaches Falsehood
We have just finished reading two books of the new, highly advertised Gospel Treasure Graded Bible Lessons, edited by brother Jesse P. Sewell, published by brother Eugene Smith, and distributed by the Christian Chronicle. (We believe there are several other distributors, but the books we examined were sent out by the Chronicle). We had only the Seniors' book Year 1, Books 1 and 2.
We counted no less than twenty glaring errors in these two books alone — some of them trivial and unimportant, but some of them striking at the very roots of Christianity. And the error is taught so subtly, and in such seemingly innocent ways, that only a careful and well informed student will detect it. These errors are in keeping with a general tendency among the churches to softness, sectarianism, and sin. This new Sunday School literature, now being so vigorously advertised and promoted among the churches, is calculated to wreak untold harm to the cause of Christ. We plead with the elders in every church where it is being used to get rid of this literature as fast as you possibly can. It is false; it is dangerous; it will undermine the very foundation of the Christian faith. As men who have the oversight of God's churches, you have a heavy responsibility to protect the members from false teachings.
Serious charges We realize these are serious charges. We do not make them lightly or carelessly. We know whereof we speak, and are prepared to back up what we say to the very hilt. We have had opportunity, as we mention above, to examine so far only two of the books. But one doesn't have to eat the whole egg to find out it is rotten. The same man, brother Jesse P. Sewell, has edited all of the books. If he prints error and false doctrine in one or two of them, we have no reason to believe he would publish the opposite of that in the rest of the series. On the contrary, he will be expected to teach the same things, to take the same position on controverted points, in all the books. He is responsible for every bit of teaching that goes into every book.
Some may argue that brother Sewell does not himself believe the false positions that are advocated in the book we have examined. As we see the matter only three things can be said:
(1). Brother Sewell did not know these things were in the books; or
(2). He knew they were there, and believes them himself; or
(3). He knew they were there, and does not believe them; but did not care for them being put out to the churches.
Alternatives
If the first statement is the truth, and brother Sewell actually put out before the churches a series of Sunday School lessons without knowing what they taught, then he is guilty of a gross imposition on a long-suffering brotherhood. Because of his long years before the public, as president of Abilene Christian College, and as a teacher and preacher in churches all over the land, the brethren had confidence in him. They felt that he could be trusted to publish literature that was dependable and doctrinally sound. Because of their confidence in him, they bought the literature—most of them without even examining it carefully. Why should they suspect him of teaching error? He had enjoyed a good reputation among the churches.
Now if it develops that he didn't even know what was in the books, then he has betrayed the confidence of these brethren. He has revealed himself as a man utterly untrustworthy, not deserving of the confidence hitherto reposed in him.
If the second alternative is true, and brother Sewell did know the things set forth in the books, and believes them, he is a modernist. For, make no mistake about it, the books teach modernism. They are shot through and through with modernistic philosophy. It creeps forth in a dozen subtle ways. A generation of young people brought up with this kind of teaching will undoubtedly be ripe for a complete and total acceptance of the evolutionary theory, and for that higher criticism which regards the Bible as merely the product of human genius.
If the third alternative be true, then that is even worse. It means that brother Sewell knew what was in the books, does not believe it to be true, yet is willing to foist falsehood upon the church for the sake of a few paltry dollars! That shows a moral depravity and a cynical contempt for the people of God and for the things of God. It declares a willingness to betray innocent young minds into the hands of skeptics and atheists for the sake of monetary gain. Many brethren have long felt that the dollar was immensely important to brother Eugene Smith; but it has not been generally believed that Jesse P. Sewell was cut from that kind of cloth.
The Proof
If you have read this far, you are probably ready to demand the proof to back up our charges. And we are ready to give it! We avow that if the two books available to us are a sample, then this Gospel Treasure Graded Bible Lessons is as rotten a collection of false doctrine as ever disgraced any congregation's Bible school.
First, a couple of trivialities. These are not important; they are only funny. But they reveal the loose, careless way of handling truth. They are not to be compared, of course, with the more serious and far more dangerous doctrinal falsehoods which we will produce later. But look at this statement:
"At the beginning of the Christian era a little company of people started from an upper room in Jerusalem, overthrew the paganism of the Roman Empire in about 280 years. They went out everywhere with a Bible in their hands." (Book 1, page 12 - Senior Students)
Now, as we say, that isn't important; it is only humorous. Was that Bible a King James, or an American Standard? And what must be the knowledge of a person who would make a statement like that in Bible school literature?
Or consider this one:
" 'Matthew' was written by Matthew, a law giver, Jewish Christian of insight and devotions." (Book 1, page 28 - Senior Students)
Just what "laws" did Matthew give to the Jews? He was a tax-collector, not a law-giver! A trifling inaccuracy, to be sure; but indicative of a woeful ignorance on the part of the writer — and a woeful something or other on the part of an editor who could let it go by.
The Nebular Hypothesis
But now to the more serious side. Our boys and girls in high schools are being taught that the Genesis account of creation is not true, but that it is only folklore. In very subtle and devious ways they are presented an alternative idea as to how the world came into existence. This other doctrine, this false teaching, is what is known as the "nebular hypothesis." It is given to the students as a possible explanation for the existence of our world. The nebular hypothesis is a well recognized teaching among certain atheistic scientific groups. Its main contention is that our planet came into existence, not by any special creative act of God, but by being flung off into space from the surface of the sun at some dim and distant age in the past.
Now consider this from brother Sewell's literature:
"The geologists say that Mount Moriah is one of the two oldest parts of the world, the other being Mount Sinai, upon which Moses received the Ten Commandments. They prove this by the rocks, saying that when the world was thrown off by the sun and floated about in its nebulous state through the air the parts which first solidified were the summit of Sinai and the rock which now stands inside the mosque on the top of Moriah." (Book 1, page 45 - Senior Students)
How do you like that? The geologists do not "assert" their false idea, mind you; brother Sewell's writer says they prove it. Are our boys and girls going to be taught in Bible school the same atheistic ideas they are taught in the public schools?
Modernism
Not only does this series subtly teach the atheistic theory as to the origin of the world, it teaches the modernists' ideas concerning the writing of the New Testament. All competent Bible scholars are agreed that the last of the apostles to die was John, and that John died about the close of the first century — sometime between 96 A. D. and 100 A. D. Modernists have contended for years that the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle whose name it bears, but was composed sometime in the second century, long after the death of that apostle.
Well, take a look at this from brother Sewell's literature:
"John wrote for the Greek's mind to strengthen their faith and love for Jesus. His writings were very personal and touching. It was written in the second century and was not at first accepted on a par with the other gospels." (Book 1, page 29 - Senior Students)
That is modernism pure and simple. If the gospel of John was written in the second century, then John did not write it! Such has been the contention of the modernists all along. What battles have been fought on this point by valiant defenders of the faith in years gone by!
Men like McGarvey and Lipscomb would turn over in their graves to see that statement in Bible school literature being used by the churches of the Lord.
And brother Jesse P. Sewell is the man who fired Dr. Webb Freeman from Abilene Christian College for teaching modernism! The years have vindicated Dr. Freeman. He is not a modernist, and never was; he is now a faithful elder in the church at Commerce, Texas. And brother Sewell is the man who is teaching modernism to the brotherhood!
The Gospel Guardian
We are now prepared for a barrage of abuse and protests and brick-bats. We have grown to expect such when we attempt to point out some of the dangers that threaten the church. Who will be the first to charge the Guardian with being "anti-literature?" We are already charged with being "anti-Christian education" and "anti-foreign evangelism;" so the other accusation is now in order.
But we warn you in advance that such accusations will not stop us. The church of our Lord is being threatened by false teaching; the very foundations of her existence are being undermined. We shall not sit silently by and see this destructive work go on apace without doing everything within our power to stop it!
This is not going to be a popular editorial. Brother Sewell and brother Smith are well equipped with powerful financial backing. They will not easily surrender their literature when they have so much at stake. Hundreds of churches have already bought the literature. They have accepted it on the recommendation often of others. The Gospel Guardian is bucking the popular tide here, just as she did on the missionary-institutional question. So let it be. In that other fight both the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation jumped on the band-wagon with the popular side and joined in the general chorus of condemnation for the Guardian because of her attempts to warn the churches. Which way they will go on this issue remains to be seen. They have a commercial interest at stake here (both of them publish competitive series of literature), and it is quite possible that such will help to clarify their judgment in this field, and enable them to see the danger inherent in modernistic Sunday school literature when they were totally blind to the danger inherent in the development of embryo missionary societies. Time will tell.
When, and if brother Sewell withdraws these false teachings from the books in circulation, we are prepared to point out other errors — plenty of them! We are prepared to quote statements from these two books which support the Catholic doctrine that in Christianity the authority rests in the church, rather than in Christ. We will publish quotations to show that his literature advocates separate treasuries for the different Sunday school classes so that each class may undertake some mission project on its own initiative, or some other worthy work. We have no doubt that denominationalism is as subtly taught in these books as is atheism, modernism, and Catholicism!
A Challenge
If brother Sewell, brother Smith, and the others working with them in producing and distributing this series are inclined to defend the nebular hypothesis and the second century authorship of John, then the Guardian is ready to go to the mat with them in a battle to the death — the death either of the Guardian or of their advocacy of these falsehoods. For if their teaching gains ascendancy in the church, it spells the doom of the church in our day. Either the church will go down, and the Guardian with it, or this modernism shall be stopped!
On this battlefield of modernism we raise our Ebenezer; here we take our stand. This "drifting" about which so much has been heard has gone beyond limits this time. It must be stopped; it shall be stopped!