Editoral
Two or three years ago Brother W. Curtis Porter was scheduled to debate the instrumental music question with a preacher of the conservative Christian Church in an eastern Kentucky community. The forthcoming discussion was a general topic of conversation, and happened to be mentioned by some members of the faculty of the College of The Bible (ultra liberal school of the most advanced modernistic wing of the Christian Church) who were having a brief visit with Brother Robert H. Farish, who was then working with the church of Christ in Lexington.
"Brother Porter will completely defeat this man by an appeal to the Bible as authority," said one of the faculty members. "As a matter of fact, the Christian Church has NEVER won a debate with the Church of Christ on instrumental music, or the missionary society question, when there has been an appeal to the Bible as the ultimate and final authority. The Bible does not AUTHORIZE either the instrument or the society — (and neither, incidentally, does it authorize such a cooperative arrangement as the Herald of Truth.) If our Christian Church brother in his discussion with Brother Porter tries to argue on the grounds of Bible authority, he is whipped before he starts. Porter will overwhelm him.
"The real difference between the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ is that we who are Disciples simply do not believe the Bible is that kind of book!"
About nine or ten years ago, while he was preaching for the church in Alexandria, Virginia, Brother Hugo McCord took some work in an Episcopalian seminary in the area. He had several differences, of course, with certain of the liberal and modernistic faculty members. At last one of the instructors told him somewhat in exasperation, "Brother McCord, you keep appealing to the Bible for your authority, and you respond to every question or problem by referring back to the Bible. You act as if you think the Bible is some sort of blue-print for the church for all ages to come. The Bible is not that kind of book."
"Doctor," responded McCord with that simple faith and courage so characteristic of him in those years, "you have happened to use the identical comparison used by the Lord himself. Jesus said. 'Everyone therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock'. The builder of a house is a man who follows the blue-print, and builds exactly according to the pattern. Jesus gave the blue-print, and for all ages to come those who would serve him must follow it exactly."
About a dozen years ago Brother Homer Hailey wrote a book entitled, "Attitudes And Consequences." In this work he demonstrated clearly that the real split between the Church of Christ and the Christian Church came about not over questions of instrumental music, church organization, missionary societies, and such like — but over differing attitudes toward the Bible itself! These "attitudes" were the root from which sprang certain "consequences." The missionary societies, instrumental music, one man pastors in charge of congregations, women preachers, money-raising schemes, union meetings with denominational bodies were all nothing more than the fruit, or "consequences" of certain fundamental attitudes taken toward the Bible by the leaders (and eventually the rank and file) of the Disciples of Christ brotherhood.
Whereas loyal and faithful members of the Church of Christ were unswervingly dedicated to the conviction that the Bible is indeed a "blueprint" and an "authority" in all matters religious, the Disciples' brotherhood were convinced that the Bible is "not that kind of book."
In April, 1958, the Bellflower (California) congregation where Brother Otis Moyer preaches conducted a widely advertised "one day" service, and Brother Moyer by the use of carefully detailed charts and diagrams set forth clearly and precisely what the Bible teaches on the matter of "The Mission of the Church — Her Benevolence and Her Evangelism." The meeting was attended by a great number of California brethren, who came from a wide geographical area. Among those in attendance were several preaching brethren who believe in, and promote, such centralized arrangements as "Herald of Truth" and the institutional, "brotherhood" orphan homes.
Some days after this meeting, one of these brethren was asked what he thought of the lesson, and whether or not he was convinced that Brother Moyer had set forth accurately the Bible teaching on the subject. He responded by saying in effect, "Before I could ever debate Brother Moyer or anybody else on these things, we would have to go back and have an understanding as to the kind of book the Bible is. He is trying to define and describe the work of the church in the exact pattern of the apostolic age, and I simply refuse to regard the Bible as that kind of Book!"
The next several years will undoubtedly see a further development of present controversies along this line. This is the real root of the matter. IS the Bible a "blue-print," or is it not? Does it set forth "binding examples," or does it not? Must we have "Bible authority" for all our worship, organization, and work, or do we have "freedom in Christ" to improvise plans of our own for the church's work? This is the battleground; here the issue will be decided.
— F. Y. T.