A Review Of Gus Nichols' Lectures
On the nights of Dec. 10-13, I, along with other brethren from the Louisville area, attended what was erroneously advertized as a "Gospel meeting" put on by the Clarkson, Ky., church, and featuring Gus Nichols, champion of religious liberalism of Jasper, Ala., as the speaker. From the beginning it was evidently a determined effort promoted by brother Titus Black, the local preacher, to brainwash what is left of the Clarkson church, and seek to offset the effective work of James Cooper. I call it a "classic" because it is typical of other such efforts across the country.
I. The Question Period And Its Rules
They advertized a thirty minute question period following each lesson. We were amused by the manner in which this part of the service was conducted. Titus Black was in charge of it. A set of rules had been formulated (supposedly by the elders) which were arbitrary, restrictive of the presentation of the truth, and completely unfair. They ran about like this:
(1) Only one question per person per night. (One or two exceptions were allowed to this..)
(2) The question must be brief. (Brief by Nichols' and Black's standard.) If they didn't like the wording of the question, they would forthrightly tell the asker to "sit down," but Nichols could take all of the thirty-minute period to answer the first question if he desired; in fact, most of the question periods were consumed by Nichols. (Once when I was on the floor, I made a comment about this and was told by Black, "You are out of order; sit down; you have lost your turn.")
(3) No time allotted for rebuttal to Nichols' "answers" (Anyone who knows anything about debating knows that the man who answers a speaker from the floor without any rebuttal time, is asking for a whipping.) Gus Nichols is an able debater (when he has the truth) and knows that such question periods can be used to the advantage of his error. It is an unscrupulous tactic, unworthy of a gospel preacher.
Black tried to make propaganda of the fact that we had violated the rules that since we were in their building, we were obligated to obey their rules. I might agree with this if the rules were just designed to keep things "decent and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40), or were simply matters of expediency, but far from it! The rules were designed to suppress the expression of truth and to give Nichols a marked advantage over those who would question him.
Brother Black tried to make it appear that we were violating the "autonomy" of the Clarkson church by violating their "rules." If Titus Black thinks we violated the autonomy of the Clarkson church, he doesn't know what autonomy is. Autonomy means self-rule, and means that each local church has the right to decide the most expedient means for carrying out the will of God — it does not mean they have the right to formulate rules designed to keep the will of God from being carried out! This is what the Clarkson rules were designed to do. I and the brethren who went to Clarkson with me will gladly obey any rules the Clarkson elders have a right to make in their building, but neither we nor anyone else has any obligation to submit to anything that is designed to bind the word of God. (2 Tim. 2:9)
I suppose, according to Black, Peter and John violated the "autonomy" of the Jewish supreme court in Jerusalem when they refused to obey their rule that they should not preach anymore in the name of Christ. (Acts 4:17) And if the police of Clarkson should tell Black not to preach anymore in the Clarkson building, he would obey — he wouldn't want to violate the "autonomy" of the Clarkson police! If he says the Clarkson police would have no right to make such a rule and he would be obligated to obey God rather than men, then I say he has the point I am making.
(4) No time to state the basis or reason for the question. (When one would begin giving such, Nichols would say, "Ask your question, or sit down.")
As I was leaving the building the first night, I introduced myself to Black. Upon learning my name, he made this chiding remark, "Oh yes, I know you. I have read enough of your propaganda to float a battleship" I replied, "You can call it propaganda, but you can't meet it, nor will you even attempt it — that makes you a spiritual coward."
The question period appears to have had the following designs: (1) To deceive the simple (Rom. 16:18) into believing that the Clarkson elders and Gus Nichols wanted to be fair, and (2) to give Gus Nichols a chance to slap the conservative brethren in the face with both hands tied behind them. I ask you, is this your concept of fairness?
II. The Material Covered By Nichols:
(1) Nichols' definitions: Brother Nichols had a great deal to say about Liberalism, Anti-ism and Legalism. He defined these as follows: (a) Liberalism: Those in and out of the church who go beyond the word of God. But in four speeches of approximately 1 hours duration, he never told us who the Liberals are in the church!!! (b) Antis: Those who stop short of all that is allowed. When he was asked by Grover Stevens if he were Anti-missionary society, he wouldn't answer. Now notice this If those who are anti, stop short of all that is allowed, then if brother Nichols is anti-missionary society, and anti-instrumental music, he stops short of all that is allowed, hence the missionary society and instrumental music are allowed! (c) Legalism: Demanding scripture for every little thing we do. From the way bro. Nichols, Joe Hyde, and Titus Black reacted to our questions, these must be repulsive characters! Now, taking brother Nichols' own definition of legalism, notice what it does for him. He is anti-legalism, but antis stop short of all that is allowed, hence legalism is allowed!! He applied his definition of legalism to those of us who oppose separate organizations to do the work of the church, (and grossly misrepresented us.) We do not demand a scripture that says in so many words what we can and cannot do. We do not demand a scripture that says, "in the contribution thou shalt pass a collection plate," or "in preaching thou shalt use the radio, printed page," etc. This is Nichols' description of us, and it is a blatant falsehood. We do, however, demand scriptural authority for these and all other matters. (Col. 3:17) We don't demand a verse that says, "in benevolence you shall use a separate society" but we do demand that they produce scriptural authority for their practice either by direct command, apostolic example, or necessary inference. Nichols did not and cannot give either, hence his practice is unscriptural.
(2) Approved Apostolic Examples: Brother Nichols' method of determining what is approved apostolic example is so confusing and vague that for all practical purposes, this way of determining the will of God is eliminated completely. He says that in order to decide whether an example is binding on us, we must first ascertain if the "background command is general or specific." If general, the examples are not binding, if specific, they are binding. According to him most of the "background commands" are general and the examples are not binding on us today. Hence, we are at liberty to cooperate in such arrangements as the Herald of Truth, orphan homes, etc., because the "background commands" for these works fall in the realm of "generic authority," hence the example of how these commands were carried out in the early church show us some ways to do them, but they are not binding on us today.
All we need to refute this piece of liberalism is Acts 20:7. It says the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread. Brother Nichols thinks it is wrong to do it on any other day, but where, oh where, is the "background command" that tells us to commune on the first day of the week? It doesn't exist! We commune on the first day of the week because Acts 20:7 is an example of when to partake of the Lord's supper to be approved of God. There is no "background command" for it — the approved apostolic examples are the only command we have. To deny this is to give approval to the sectarian practice of communing whenever we get ready. This is the fruit of Gus Nichols' liberalism. No wonder he refuses to try to defend it where his opposition's hands are untied!
He accused us of changing the examples we claim to follow. For instance, he said the examples of N. T. churches cooperating show that the help was always sent by men, now we employ the Post Office department, and Banks, "two great big institutions." Liberals have often used such "argument" to offset the authority of examples which get in their way. There is something drastically wrong with a man's thinking who can't see a difference between the manner of conveying money from a church to the object of its help, and how that money is collected and who constitutes the objects. It is obvious that N. T. churches couldn't have used a bank or post office department because such didn't exist, but it is just as obvious that churches did exist, and they could have cooperated in such arrangements as the Herald of Truth and the orphan home societies, but did not, and the fact that they DID NOT is sufficient grounds for Bible loving people to abstain from such arrangements today. Such quibbles as the above filled most of brother Nichols' time.
(3) Misrepresentations: One of the most reprehensible things I know of in a man who claims to be a gospel preacher is the all too common practice of misrepresenting (it is hardly anything but willful) his opposition when he KNOWS they will have no chance to correct him. Gus Nichols did this repeatedly. Let us notice a few:
(a) "They (the "antis") object to the Herald of Truth because it reaches too many people."
(b) "They (the "antis") are against radio programs." Just to show how gross this misrepresentation is, notice this: One of the most detestable "antis" in brother Nichols' acquaintance was in his audience at Clarkson, Thomas O'Neal. He lives in the same city with Gus Nichols, and conducts a radio program there on which he exposes Nichols' liberalism. Nichols made reference to this radio program in the course of his lectures, yet he charged that we are "against radio programs."
(c) "They demand a scripture for every little thing we do." I have adequately dealt with this misrepresentation above.
(d) He spoke of "those of you who are against cooperative work." This, too, is a misrepresentation. He knows that we are not against cooperative work, but are against such cooperative work as is practiced in such programs as the Herald of Truth, where one eldership receives the oversight of resources of other congregations.
(4) Faith destroying statements: Nichols made many statements during the course of his lectures that will destroy faith in the Word of God in those who are "unskillful in the word of righteousness." (Heb. 5:13) I do not say he does it intentionally, but he does it nevertheless. I have particular reference to his teaching concerning the proper use of approved apostolic examples and the sectarian practice of injecting more into a verse than it says and his rejection of the law of exclusion. Notice some of these statements:
(a) "All approved examples are not binding." He applied this to such incidentals as the fact that men, not the Post Office Dept., were used to convey money from place to place in N. T. times. This quibble has been answered above.
(b) 'We don't have to do everything in the book (Bible) to be safe." Illustrated with the same quibble as above.
(c) "We must follow only the examples that have background commands stipulating that they be done a certain way." It is obvious then, that examples have little, if any, bearing in determining God's will. If we have the background command stipulating how a thing must be done, what good is the example? What need is there for it? Again, I ask, where is the background command for taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week?
(d) "Verses that say the early church helped saints don't mean they helped saints only." He tried to compare those of us who contend for saints only benevolence from the church treasury with Baptists who find a verse that teaches salvation by faith and conclude that it means "faith only." But brother Nichols is like the Baptists, he wants to isolate passages of scripture in order to try to prove his false doctrine. The Baptist doctrine of salvation by faith only is false because of other passages which stipulate other conditions of salvation than faith. We shall be happy to admit others than saints to church benevolence once Nichols or others who agree with him find ONE passage that authorizes such to receive it. Until then, they, not we, are like the Baptists.
Nichol's "explanation" seeking to justify the above statements were so vague and confusing that those who went to Clarkson knowing little about the Bible, know less now and probably have less faith in it as a religious guide. The far-reaching influence of such statements will become apparent as the years come and go. Even the liberals will likely wonder what caused so much infidelity among them.
(5) No Debate: Titus Black made it very clear at the conclusion of the last lecture that "we are not going to engage in a debate." This shows how much he and the Clarkson elders think of Gus Nichols and his position. They, like Nichols, don't think it is strong enough to stand investigation. They will agree to present it only where the opposition can't reply!
Though I have little hope for response, I here challenge Titus Black or Gus Nichols or both to publicly debate the positions taken in the Clarkson fiasco. I also challenge the other liberal preachers who attended and thanked God for Nichols' ability to "present the truth!' They were Kenneth Joines, Allen Phy, Earnest Nash, and others. We shall see just how thankful they are! We have several liberals in this area, but it seems that none of them thinks enough of his liberalism to test it in open discussion. I have personally challenged Harold Hazelip, George Fuller and the men mentioned above, but all to no avail so far. Let us hope their courage will increase with time.
An interesting sidelight to the Clarkson classic was the invitation of the Valley Station and Park Blvd. congregations' invitation to Gus Nichols to deliver his lectures in their buildings. They offered to furnish his expenses and keep him while with them. Nichols' reply was that "I will be glad to come anywhere my brethren invite me," but he refused to accept these invitations. This is his attitude toward his opposition — he has no brethren at Valley Station or Park Blvd!!
I predict that the Clarkson church and Titus Black have had enough. They will not soon forget this affair, and are not likely to be having another one soon. Since Nichols turned down two other invitations to deliver his lectures, it appears that he too has had enough! Can anyone imagine a gospel preacher's refusing to go anywhere at anytime to present the truth? — 3004 Radiance Road, Louisville, Ky.