Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
March 14, 1963
NUMBER 44, PAGE 2,10a

More Advocate Anti - Ism

A. C. Grider

Recently the Gospel Advocate carried an article from the pen of Batsell Barrett Baxter which lamented the fact that some preachers were too liberal. Baxter suggested they were ultra-liberal. He pleaded that they back up. He indicated that he thought we should be guided by the Bible in our religious activities. The article surprised many of us. It had been so long since an appeal to the Scriptures was made in the Advocate.

And now, in the January 3, 1983, issue of the Advocate, another appeal to come back to the scriptures is made. Brother J. W. Nicks is the author of this new appeal. It concerns "A New Type of Debate." It seems brother Otis Gatewood and Charles A. Matthews debated the subject of "Legalism and Liberalism." This was something new for Gatewood. First, he was defending the truth! Secondly, he was cast in the roll of an Anti! Thirdly, he defended the side of Legalism! Brother Nicks said the affair was "a new type of discussion that has possibilities." Indeed it does have possibilities. If Gatewood and the Advocate brethren keep up such discussions they will soon see that the Christian Church uses, in defense of their instrumental music, exactly and precisely the same arguments which are used in defense of the Missionary and Benevolent Societies of the Liberals in the church of Christ. In fact, this one debate alone so forcefully set forth the parallel between the Conservative Christian Church and the Liberal Church of Christ that, without half trying, one can see the similarity.

According to Brother Nicks' report of the debate, the Christian Church preacher was much closer to the truth on some points than was Brother Gatewood. For instance, Nicks said Mr. Matthews admitted we should follow both the spirit and the letter of the law. Of course bro. Gatewood would label as "Legalist" one who insisted on following the letter. And Nicks said Matthews said we should return to the word of God as a perfect pattern for worship. But of course brother Gatewood and the Advocate have long since abandoned the Bible as a pattern. In fact, according to them, "there is no pattern." So, I say, the Christian Church man is closer to the truth in many respects than Gatewood and the Advocate.

But note the Deadly Parallel between the arguments of the Christian Church in brother Nicks' report of the debate and the arguments of Gatewood, Nicks, the Advocate and others in defense of their societies. I will list the arguments of the Christian Church preacher, as given by Nicks, and then make the application to current arguments by Liberal brethren.

1. Nicks said Matthews admitted we should go by the Bible but then made the mistake of classifying the instrument of music with songbooks, plates for the bread and containers for the fruit of the vine on the Lord's table.

Our liberal brethren also admit we should go by the Bible but they then make the mistake of classifying the benevolent society with songbooks, plates, and containers. And they even classify the benevolent society with water coolers and termites! Why can't they see the parallel between themselves and the Christian Church?

2. Nicks said Matthews justified the instrument as an expedient, claiming such was not a liberal position, "although he recognized the fact that L L. Pinkerton introduced the instrument in 1838."

But our liberal brethren justify the benevolent society as an expedient, claiming such is not a liberal position, although they recognize the fact that the first one was introduced among churches of Christ in 1909. Why can't they see the parallel between themselves and the Christian Church?

3. Nicks said Matthews said the instrument was not anti-scriptural and intimated that those who opposed the instruments were often legalistic. And Nicks said Matthews paralleled opposition to the instrument with opposition to individual cups, literature, colleges, orphan homes, radio programs, etc.

But our liberal brethren say the benevolent society is not anti-scriptural. And they, more often than not, intimate that those who oppose the society are legalistic. And with tedious repetition they parallel opposition to the society with opposition to literature, cups, colleges, etc. Why can't they see the parallel?

4. Nicks said Matthews said he could fellowship and respect the church of Christ in their opposition to the instrument but that the church of Christ should allow him to use it if he wanted to.

Our liberal brethren say they can fellowship and respect us in opposing the society, seeing there are other ways of doing the work, but that we should allow them to use the society. Why can't they see the parallel?

5. Nicks concluded his report of the debate by saying it was clear that the instrument of music was an addition, not merely an aid, and that it opened the door to liberalism, even though all who now use it may not have arrived in the camp of the liberals.

But, brethren, if bro. Gatewood proved that the instrument is an addition and not an aid, he also proved that the society is an addition and not an aid. If he proved that the introduction of the instrument opened the door to liberalism, he also proved that the introduction of the benevolent society opened the door to liberalism. If he proved that those who use the instrument will land in the camp of the liberals even though they may not have arrived there yet, he also proved that those who use the society will land in the camp of the liberals even though they may not have arrived there yet.

Nicks' report of the debate indicated that Gatewood was hard pressed to defend his position. You see, brother Gatewood had to defend an "anti" position. He had to defend his legalism! He assured Matthews and the audience that "anti-ism is not typical of those of us who reject the use of the instrument " (This is a quote from Gatewood, as given by Nicks.) He seemed to be saying, "We're anti now, but we won't be anti long." He seemed to be saying, "Give us a little more time and we will embrace your instrument."

If we can just revive debating with the Christian Church. and we might do it, seeing our brethren are using their arguments, we will convert our brethren back to the truth yet. For instance, this one debate established, according to Nicks. that the instrument: (a) Is an addition, (b) Is not an aid, (c) Is not an expedient, (d) Was introduced in 1838, (e) Can't be classified with songbooks, plates, cups, etc., (f) anti-scriptural, (g) Those who oppose it are not legalists, and (h) Those who oppose it can't fellowship those who use it. But this debate not only proved all of these things relative to the instrument of music; but to all who are honest and sincere, this debate proved, because of the deadly parallel, that the benevolent society: (a) Is an addition, (b) Is not an aid, (c) Is not an expedient, (d) Was introduced in 1909, (e) Can't be classified with church buildings, songbooks, water fountains, and termites, (f) Is anti-scriptural, (g) Those who oppose it are not legalists, and (h) Those who oppose it cannot fellowship those who use it.

I wish to thank brother Gatewood and the Advocate for thus "advocating" the gospel. I wish to thank brother Nicks for so forcefully setting forth the Parallel between the arguments for the instrument and the society. I pray God to help our brethren to see the truth and to come back to it. Come back, brethren, before any more congregations are torn asunder. Come back, brethren, before any more brethren lose their souls!

— Meridian, Mississippi