They Have Their Problems, Too
One part of being an editor is the constant scanning of a great number of denominational (and secular) publications to keep abreast of what is going on in the religious works, as well as the work generally. It is actually uncanny at times to see the close parallel between the battles being fought in denominational circles and the struggles going on within the body of Christ. One of the denominational editors for whom we have great respect, and one from whom we have quoted a number of times is Noel Smith, editor of the Baptist Bible Tribune which is published out of Springfield, Missouri, by the "Baptist Bible Fellowship International" Frankly, we aren't quite clear as to exactly what that "fellowship" is, but would presume it to be a sort of "co-operative arrangement" through which the autonomous congregations which make up the "fellowship" function. Perhaps like "Herald of Truth" among the churches of Christ.
Editor Smith is one who "tells it like it is." lie and his brethren are engaged in a struggle to the death with the forces of liberalism within the Baptist Churches. The big churches and big preachers, generally, have accepted the liberalistic view of things, and while many thousands of individual members would tell you hotly that they do not "go along" with what their churches are doing by way of supporting the far-out social gospel projects, they nevertheless continue to attend those congregations, give their monies into their treasuries, and refuse to terminate their association with them. Sound familiar to you?
A recent issue of the Baptist Bible Tribune (January 9, 1970) carried an editorial concerning W. A. Criswell and Billy Graham. Both of these men have declared themselves to be "conservative," and have warned against the encroachments of liberalism. But, Editor Smith points out that the entire Southern Baptist Convention is increasingly under the control and dominance of the liberal wing. Now, what are Criswell and Graham going to do about it? Will they have the courage to stand by what they have said, and "oppose" the Convention; or will they discreetly shut their mouths on the controversial issues. Editor Smith wants to know.
Churches Of Christ
We merely mention this matter to emphasize that other churches and other preachers have their problems — like we have. We can sometimes learn from their mistakes; often we do not. The Churches of Christ are heading into a battle royal, a no-holds-barred, "for keeps" conflict which will result in a permanent division as between the "conservatives" and the "liberals." The latter (it may take a whole generation to accomplish it, but probably not) will finally wind up in the Christian Church. And if history of the past is any way to judge of the future, we may well anticipate that by far the majority of the churches which are now among us will go that way. Why should they not? They have already accepted the principle of "centralized cooperatives" in such projects as Herald of Truth and institutional benevolent societies; church support of secular colleges will surely be pushed and will gain favor with them? all sorts of social gospel projects and promotions are already well under way — recreation camps, hospitals, rehabilitation centers for delinquent boys, etc.
Let no one think for a moment that we oppose such works. We oppose them no more than we would oppose the Red Cross, the United Nations, or Planned Parenthood Clinics. We simply say such things are not the work God has given to the church. To support and promote such as "church projects" is a perversion of the church's high and holy mission on the earth.
Meanwhile, let every dedicated child of God recognize his own personal responsibility to "preach the word" as God gives him strength and opportunity. This is at once the way to our own personal salvation, and the last, best hope for the saving of the churches front liberalism.
F. Y. T.