My "New" Classification
In forty-three years of preaching I have received various classifications. Some of these classifications have been hurled by the denominations, and some have been hurled by my too liberal brethren. It might make interesting reading to write about them — and then, finally, the "NEW classification.
My first real opposition came from the so-called Christian Church. This apostate body gave me several different classifications I shall mention some of them.
1. Because I opposed the human missionary society for preaching the gospel, they said I was a "non-missionary minded person." Of course this was not so then, and it is not so now. I was not opposing preaching the gospel "by" or "through" the "church," as the Scriptures teach it should be done. (Eph. 3:10) I was just opposing the human missionary society used by these people to do this work. Yet they classified me as a "non-missionary minded person." It was easier to call me this than to answer my arguments. And it was much easier to so classify me than it was to give Scripture to justify the missionary society. And with their people, those who refused to investigate properly, it was more powerful to them than Scripture.
2. And I opposed the mechanical instrumental music of this so-called Christian Church in worship. Did they hasten to give me chapter and verse for such music in church worship? Oh, no! Did they give me any apostolic example for such? Any necessary inference? Oh, no, not at all. Instead of doing this, which would have fully settled the matter with me, they classified me as one "who does not believe in music in the church." Of course this isn't so. I do believe in music in church worship. But I believe that God should select the kind of music he wants in church worship. God did select the kind of music he wanted in church worship. (Heb. 2:12; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:10) He authorizes "singing."
3. And because I objected to this so-called Christian Church resorting to suppers, gales, and shows to raise money to support the church they classified me as "one who does not believe in supporting the church." This is easier than giving Scripture, and more effective. It keeps their members in ignorance, and feeds their prejudice. Unjust, unjust, most of my brethren say or used to say.
Next in line came the so-called Pentecostal Church. They classified me as "one who does not believe in the Holy Ghost." Is this so? No! It never was so. Well, why did they thus classify me? Just because I taught that the Holy Ghost never fell upon any one to save that one from his or her sins. I put it like this: "The Holy Ghost never fell upon anyone, at any time, or in any place, to save one from his or her sins " They had no promise, command from God, apostolic example, or necessary inference to set my statement aside. So, it was easier to say, and quite effective among these people, he doesn't believe in the Holy Ghost. How unjust this classification!
But here is another classification. This time It comes from the Advents. The Advent preachers, because they could not answer the Scriptural arguments made concerning the abolition of the Sabbath day, said of me: "He encourages lying and stealing because he repudiates the ten commandments." What a classification! It is easier for these preachers to tell this "lie" than to answer the arguments. Certainly the ten commandments are abolished. (Col. 2:14-16; 2 Cor. 3:7-16) Certainly we are under the law of Christ, a better covenant. (John 12:48; Heb. 8:6)
In more recent years I have been branded as one "who hates orphans and as "one who advocates that we neglect helpless, fatherless, motherless children." Such a classification comes from my too liberal brethren. Is it so? No, not a word of it. Why am I thus classified? Simply because I believe the church (not human organization, nor through a human organization) should take care of qualified widows, or qualified men, or children, among us. It is as simple as this:
1. The relatives who are able to do so should look after the needy of their own. (1 Tim. 5:4, 8, 16)
2. Where the responsibility belongs to the church to look after the needy, old or young, the church of the first century could do it, and did do it as the church. (Acts 6:14; 1 Tim. 5:16) No human organization was organized by the brethren to do it then. IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY NOW.
3. If, during an emergency, one congregation was not able to look after all its needy, other congregations could and did send direct to the congregation in such circumstances, until such emergency was passed. (2 Cor. 8:1314; Acts 11:29-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-2) Brethren in apostolic days never organized a "home" or an "orphanage" through which the Church could do this work. Such human organization in the work of the church are wanting for a command from God, are wanting for an example from the apostles, and are wanting for a necessary inference in the word of God.
In view of all of this my humanly, institutionally-minded brethren classify me as an "orphan hater." A careful reading of Revelation 21:8 should sober them up on such lying accusations. Because I do not believe in "infant baptism" doesn't mean I should be classified as one who believes in infant damnation. And just because I do not believe in human organizations to do the work of the church does not mean I am an orphan hater, and do not believe in caring for them. All this human machinery could break down and be relegated to the dump heap where it belongs, and still the Lord's church could keep on caring for the poor like the early church did. And do it scripturally, and better.
And while I am at it, I might as well say it, though I am sometime classified as "anti-college," it isn't so. I am no more anti-college than I am an "orphan hater." I do oppose taking money from the church treasury to support a Bible (?) college. I do oppose taking a collection on the regular Wednesday evening worship service, to pass the basket for a donation for the college. (Or for the church either, for that matter.) No human organization should dip into the church treasury. I do not believe that God's word teaches that a man is not qualified to preach unless he has a college education. And I do not believe that an elder has to have a college education before he can become an elder, or do the work of an elder. God has never named such qualifications. (2 Tim. 2:2: Titus 1, and 1.-Tim. 3) But I can easily see how, if the colleges take over the preachers and elders, it will work to the advantage of the colleges. I do not believe as some in high places have said concerning themselves, they have received more satisfaction from their investment in the colleges, than from their investments in any thing else. How about the investment in the church? Is this less satisfaction? Is the college the big thing? Bigger than the heaven born, blood-bought church of our Lord? I sent my son to college. l have no fight against the college if it remains a college, and if the college lets the church remain the church, and do her own work.
A recent deserter from the Lord's house (Heb. 3:6) classified me in the following way: "Bless your sweet little swiveled up soul." "It is a swiveled up affair." This is nice from a preacher, isn't it? And how do you like this from the same preacher: "Anti's have more ideas concerning the Bible, than a dog has fleas." Very dignified language for one claiming to be so tender hearted.
That "New" Classification
My new classification is "death." I'm dead and don't know it. A west coast brother, writing east to congregations, trying to gather up information, and perhaps "subs," sent a list of dead preachers. I was told my name was listed among the dead. Of course, this could be an honest mistake, and perhaps was. But it won't be too long before it will be true with us all.
I Am Leaving
Yes, no later than July, 1963, Lord willing, I'll be leaving this good church in Paden City, W. Va., after four years of pleasant and profitable labor. No positive, definite arrangements have been made as of this time. May God lead me in all my ways.
— 217 South 1st Ave., Paden City, West Va.