"No Room For Concern?'
We call attention to the article by brother Eldred Stevens on the front page of this issue. Originally published last month in the Firm Foundation we have seen the article reproduced in perhaps a dozen church bulletins since then. Significantly enough, every bulletin in which we have seen it was edited by some "conservative" brother; none was published by (to use a Stevens description) "those who are bursting with pride over recent 'progressive' trends that enable us to do just about everything that the denominations are doing." We commend the article as worthy of a most careful reading. The lessons from history are not to be lightly shrugged aside. The arguments made to promote the digression of a century ago are being made today---not so ably, perhaps, but certainly as insistently. And to suggest that the average Christian of our day is better taught, more spiritually minded, and has deeper convictions of truth than the generation of Lard and McGarvey is simply laughable.
If the vast majority of Christians of that generation were swept into apostasy by these arguments, by what process of reasoning does one suppose that Christians of this generation, generally less learned in the Scriptures, more secular minded, and more ambitious to "get a name for the Church of Christ" will be immune? If the scholarly McGarvey could finally close his life on a note of frustration and failure because of his efforts to stay "in the middle of the road" when that digression swept through the land, where is the gospel preacher of our day who thinks he can succeed where McGarvey failed? Who can straddle the fence when issues of eternal life or death are before the church? Who can safely occupy a position in this new digression which McGarvey so ingloriously failed to justify in that former departure from the faith?
Let no one mistake what is happening. A great company of aggressive and enthusiastic brethren are waging a determined warfare to "swing" the church of Christ into a more liberal and tolerant atmosphere. Twenty years ago an abortive effort was made in this direction in an ill-timed effort to "get the colleges in the church budgets." When vigorous opposition stopped this movement before it could gather momentum, the battle-ground was shifted to the orphan-home issue. Here was something with a great emotional appeal, and a kind of activity which most preachers and most churches had tacitly, if not openly, endorsed and supported for nearly a generation — twenty years or more. If a bitter battle could be waged on this front, and all the "antis" (anti-institutional orphan home, that is) could be driven from the church, then the way would be paved for a renewal of the "college in the church budgets" drive.
But one thing leads to another. And now that many liberal brethren are convinced they have completed the first phase of the campaign, and have succeeded in silencing or driving out the voices that lead in opposition, there are unmistakable signs that lines are being prepared for the next phase — a mighty drive to get the colleges in the church budgets. And from here on the pace grows ever faster — church supported hospitals, clinics, marriage counseling and psychiatric institutes, youth camps, re-habilitation centers, vocational schools, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Brother Stevens' article is timely and well written; but in our judgment will do little to stay the tide. If we may speak kindly to such men as Eldred Stevens and Roy Lanier, we would plead with them to recognize the truth of the old adage that "actions speak louder than words." If such men as these two and scores of others who might be named (e.g. Leroy Brownlow, Foy L. Smith, and even Reuel Lemmons) would be willing to accept the consequences of a forthright battle for truth, a considerable number of congregations might be saved from the maelstrom of apostasy.
Recognizing a danger, and stating it publicly, is not the same as battling against that danger. The acknowledgment of a debt does not discharge the debt; the recognition of a danger does not overcome the threat. Let honest brethren who claim to see a danger in present "trends" frankly and sincerely face up to their responsibilities. If they truly and candidly can not see any violation of Scripture in the formation of benevolent societies, but are completely opposed to church contributions to Christian colleges, then let them be as vigorous in their opposition to the latter as they are in their advocacy of the former. And let them realize that the vast majority of brethren who are promoting the former are doing it with the full expectation eventually of using this as a lever to advance the latter. That is, most brethren who defend and promote church contributions to the orphan homes are fully committed to the idea of church contributions to the Christian colleges, and are only awaiting the propitious time to go "on the march" for such.
We commend and rejoice in brother Stevens' excellent article of warning. We pray that it may help both him and others to realize that "it could happen here." Indeed, in the judgment of many thousands of sincere and thoughtful men, it has already happened! But such articles as brother Stevens has submitted, if followed up with vigorous and unceasing warfare against the trends he decries, will surely have a salutary effect in slowing down the precipitate rush into the abyss; and the slower pace will give opportunity for a great host of humble and God-fearing disciples to take stock of things and disassociate themselves from the head-long plunge to destruction.
— F. Y. T.