Instructing Others But Not Ourselves (No. II.)
In a previous article we suggested that the words of Paul to the Jew in Romans 2:1-.3 and 19-23 were very applicable to some brethren today. As a specific instance of this we referred to an article written by Brother Waymon Miller of Fort Worth which appeared in the Firm Foundation, issues of January 13th. In this article Brother Miller takes to task those of us who occasionally refer to some of our brethren as being "liberal." He says that to do this is "incredibly unfair and unChristian." He also declares anyone who does so is guilty of "abandoning troth and honesty." He says "Christians should not be so utterly reckless in the charges they hurl at each other." Brother Miller affirms that the term "liberal", when used in a religious sense, always involves those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, the verbal inspiration of the scriptures, and such fundamental tenets of Christianity. So, according to this Fort Worth scribe, it is "unfair", "unChristian", "dishonest", "untrue", and "unjust" to refer to a brother as being "liberal or "liberalistic" in his attitude unless we mean he has abandoned the faith and unless he denies all the basic doctrines just listed, as well as others of like nature. In our previous article we gave attention to the question as to whether the definition of "liberal" is as narrow and restricted as Miller would have us believe or more general. But in the remaining part of this paper we want to quote a portion of a very fine article, entitled "Pieces of Brass," written by Waymon Miller in 1953, which was published in a number of religious journals. And we would like for Brother Miller to tell us if the brethren, to whom he referred in his article as "Liberal" or "The Liberal Wing", actually denied the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, inspiration of the scriptures, heaven, hell, etc.? If they did not, then they were not "liberal" (according to Brother Miller) and he was guilty of doing the very thing he reproves others for doing today.
We believe, just as Miller did in 1953, that there are "liberal" brethren in the church today — a "liberal wing" taking the church into apostasy. But we believe, just as Miller evidently believed then, that such "liberalism" can exist and at the same time such brethren not deny the virgin birth and such basic doctrines. But here is part of his article (Emphasis mine):
"Unless a Liberalistic element is vigorously opposed, 'pieces of brass' will definitely emerge from the organization of the church. This is not merely conjecture or supposition, but prediction based upon existing conditions. The inspired arrangement is for an autonomous order — each church controlling and managing its own affairs. But this divine law is being abused and violated, and sinfully so, by 'centralized control.' . . . If we are not concerned with maintaining the Church pure and faithful to God in every detail, then why not turn our foreign evangelization over to the United Christian Missionary Society of the Christian Church ? What difference is there between this Society and the 'Centralized control' arrangement now operative in places among us, and insistently defended by the 'Liberal Wing' of our brethren? It would be supremely interesting to see some of its advocates outline the difference between 'Centralized Control' and the U.C.M.S..... If we condone secular organizations and institutions, our colleges to tower above the church, our preachers to become 'sectarian pastors,' our mission fields to be controlled by one church in a foreign country (to the field), then we are no longer in danger of digressing, we have!"