The Right To Oppose
A book worth reading but once possesses little value, whereas the really worthwhile ones merit repeated consideration of their contents. Often do I take recourse to books which I have had for many years, and which I have read more than once before. One such book has been the debate between Bro. N. B. Hardeman and Ira. M. Boswell which was conducted thirty-seven years ago in the Ryman Auditorium, Nashville, Tenn. Among the things which attracted my attention, with renewed appreciation of the significance attaching thereto, is the following statement by Brother Hardeman. pages 140-141:
"Why, he says, Hardeman is not on scriptural grounds, and the reason that he is not on scriptural grounds is that he opposed instrumental music. Well, Brother Boswell, you said that we could render correct service to God without it. Suppose I did oppose it; am I not scriptural when you say that I can do it successfully and correctly without it? But he wants to know, and it is a fair suggestion, and I want to deal fairly with him. He says: 'Brother Hardeman' — now mark — 'do you have a right to oppose what I have a right to do?' I am going to say to you: No, if you have the right to do it, Brother Boswell, I have no right to oppose it; but your right to do it is the thing that is in question. You have no right to do that. Why? Because not one single word have you read from the Bible as direct authority, apostolic example, or necessary inference. Upon what, ladies and gentlemen, is that right based which proposes to be the right to introduce instruments of music? If he would furnish the proof of it other than say-so declarations, then my right to oppose it would cease; but in the absence of the proof I have the right to oppose it.
"Now, let me present to Brother Boswell the negative of that, or rather the other side of the question. Brother Boswell, do you have a right to do that which I have a right to oppose? I claim that he does not. Now, the question: Do I have the right to object to instrumental music? If so, you have no right to do it. Upon what is my objection founded? It is founded up on this: that a thing to be scriptural must come under one of three heads — either direct commandment, and you know that there is not one in all the Bible; by apostolic precedent, which you dare not give; or necessary inference. But you say: "I am going to tell Hardeman about the temple at the last, so I will not be tormented very long in the reply'. Why, ladies and gentlemen, I oppose the instrument, or the music made by man's hands, on the ground it does not conform to the Scriptures in any way. It is not in God's direct command, it is not in God's book taught by apostolic example, it is not in God's book necessarily by inference, and, therefore, is weighed in the balance and found wanting. It comes outside God's book, and hence I have a right to object thereto; and that being true no man has a right to impose upon me a thing for which there is not the shadow of a shade of a reason beneath the twinkling stars."
This rather lengthy quotation from the language of Brother Hardeman as found in the record of this discussion is justified because of the view stated and the position voiced by him in it. It has great meaning, not only as touching the subject therein discussed, but also those issues of the present within the body of Christ. The same principles advanced by him in that debate with a brother holding a contrary position are of force and application among us today. Many, very many, among us today view with outright ill-feelings any disposition to oppose what they are doing in the church, even as Boswell challenged the right of Hardeman to oppose what he was doing, and likely with much more intense displeasure than did he. This brings into focus the whole question of the right to oppose what others believe and do in religion, and the nature of such opposition.
The very idea of opposition implies a position as first existing, and in relation thereto a position of against is taken. Before there can be any opposing there is first the proposing; before opposition, these is proposition. The latter provokes and thus occasions the former, and without the latter we would not have the former. But this doesn't reason in justification therefore within itself. A position which is right cannot rightly be opposed, and one which is wrong cannot rightly be either embraced or ignored — it must be opposed. Why so? The essential harmony of truth and righteousness requires this conception, and therefore demands a courageous opposition to that which is false or wrong.
Brother Hardeman recognized this in this discussion, and he occupied the position of opposition to the practice in question. He was wholly an "anti" in relation thereto, and brethren all over the land sang his praises for the valiant and victorious fight he made for the truth by means of his fighting against error. On what basis did he launch his attack, and thus register his opposition? He candidly acknowledged he had no right to oppose that which Boswell had a right to do, and so if Boswell had been able to establish his right to use the instrument in the worship, then any further opposition to its use would have been wrong as engaged in and pursued by Brother Hardeman. The burden of proof, and the demands of defense, rested heavily and inescapably on Boswell in that grave hour of conflict. Did he and those of his persuasion sense their helplessness? Apparently they did, for this was but one of a series of such discussions they proposed be conducted throughout the country until all were privileged to hear and sift the merits of the issue, and yet no others were engaged in. The only construction brethren put on this failure to carry through this arrangement was a felt sense of weakness on the part of those who had set themselves to the defense of the practice opposed by Hardeman. I believe now just what Brother Hardeman then believed as thus expressed. His right to oppose rested on the fact that the thing opposed had no right to exist as he opposed it — that is, its use in worship. He did not oppose the instrument in the home, but in the worship because it had a right to be heard in the home but no right to be heard in the church. And the reason he gave was the failure of Boswell to find either a (1) direct command, an (2) apostolic example, or (3) a necessary inference; and failing to do so, he charged, and pressed the charge, that no authority to so do existed, and therefore his right to oppose was established. And now some brethren are saying: "we do many things for which we have no authority, nor do we need it" All who so say or think, and have heretofore agreed with the contention of Brother Hardeman as expressed in this debate, are obligated to acknowledge they have been wrong and apologize to the Digressives for their ill-founded opposition to the instrument of music in the worship. I rather suspect that Brother Hardeman is among the number thus obligated, and that he should go to those whom he formerly chided for not having authority for what they do in religion and offer his apologies.
The obligation to defend and promote the truth is accompanied by an equal and inseparable obligation to oppose and seek the extermination of that which is error. There is no peaceful co-existence between the dominions of truth and error — they are irreconcilable. And just as a contending for the faith is required so is a contending against that which is not of "the faith" equally obligatory on all who have "purified their souls in obeying the truth", to the end that the truth of the gospel may continue with us. The attitude generally entertained toward the contention by Brother Hardeman on the part of those who were practicing that which he opposed was, and is, that he was making a great ado about little; that the thing they were doing was permissible under the broad principle of liberty that allows any thing except as expressly forbidden. Hence, "where does the scripture say we cannot use the instrument?" We could and did see the fallacy and danger of such an attitude and concept then as expressed by them, but many of us fail to see the same when expressed now by some of us. If it was an improper appeal and defense then, it is now, by them or us, and therefore inexcusable on the part of anyone.
Repeatedly throughout that debate Brother Hardeman eloquently appealed to those of the contrary part to lay aside that which was dividing the people of God, and thus stand together on the common ground of that which is clearly taught in the scriptures, being content with a "thus saith the Lord" in all matters Today he, along with many others who then agreed with his plea, is refusing to take the medicine then prescribed for others — that is, lay aside that which in all good conscience they can dispense with, and take their stand on indisputable ground as touching the proper work of the church. To lay aside human institutions as adjuncts to the church and let them exist and function in the realm of private enterprise, and cease the centralized operations through sponsoring church programs, being content with each church doing its own work independent of any connection with, or operating through another, will effectively resolve the distressing conditions prevailing. This will not violate any man's conscience and will remove the occasions of stumbling that have been created by these things in dispute. In so doing brethren will be demonstrating both their faith in the principles set forth in the Restoration appeal for unity, and the practical utility of this appeal. They will display for all to behold their faith in that which they have heretofore preached and plead with others to do when holding to that which is unessential and yet creates dissension among believers. Let us, then, go back, even to Nashville in 1923, and breathe anew the spirit that characterized the fervent and faithful pleading of Brother Hardeman, rather than imbibe the spirit that pervades that city today.