Was Lipscomb A "Factionist"?

One of the greatest Bible students of modern times (or any time) was David Lipscomb. Calm and considered in his judgments, methodical in his habits, careful and conservative in his statements of scripture teaching, he more than any man of his generation stood as a bulwark against the onrushing tide of digression. Probably nobody would agree with every position Lipscomb took; certainly we do not. But it is impossible for the thoughtful student to read his writings without a growing realization of the man's greatness. He was ridiculed and vilified by the digressive element in his day, lampooned as an old woman with a broom, trying to hold back the tides of the ocean, and in a hundred ways, some crude, some subtle, made the butt of the jibes and thrusts of those who were determined to promote the organ and missionary societies among the churches. But Lipscomb stood his ground. Kindly always, but bluntly and unceremoniously, he pointed out the violations of scripture and the inevitable consequences of the digressives' contentions.

In view of these things, it is of some interest to note that the Gospel Advocate in two current issues (July 2 and July 16) clearly implies that Lipscomb was a "factionist"!

In the July 2 issue, an article by Earl West, one of the staff-writers of the Advocate, tells of the controversy that arose over a plan in West Tennessee to promote a "sponsoring church" type of evangelism. The elders of the Henderson (Tennessee) congregation were to take the oversight of some preacher and his work, while other congregations were to send their contributions to the Henderson elders to support the man. This was, if we understand it, identical with what is being done now under the general description of "sponsoring church" evangelism. Lipscomb squarely opposed this, and pointed out its dangers. Said he:

"All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. God's power is in God's churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to Him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir up a faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them."

All who have to any appreciable degree kept abreast of the controversy that has been going on these last ten years over the "sponsoring church" plan for evangelism will recognize in the above quotation a clear and precise summary of what the Gospel Guardian has been pleading for and defending.

But Who Said Lipscomb Was A "Factionist"?

In the Gospel Advocate of July 16, Brother G. C. Brewer, veteran staff-writer of that journal, wrote a six-column article about the present controversy, and declared, "The fight is over a figment of a factionist's imagination." He then went on at great length to defend the "sponsoring church" plan as nothing more nor less than "cooperation." Well, that is the very term the digressives used in describing their missionary society; that is the word that brethren at Henderson used in describing their plan. And it was David Lipscomb himself who initiated the fight against the "sponsoring church" plan of the Henderson brethren!

The issue we have today is the same issue they had then; it is the problem (the identical problem, as we see it) that faced Lipscomb. This is the issue of which Brother Brewer says, "I tell you that this issue is a false issue and that it originated in the minds of men who were more interested in attacking somebody and leading a faction than they are in saving the souls in Japan or Germany, and this lacks a lot of being all the proof I have of this charge."

Thus, in Lipscomb's own paper, and by one of his own former students, the grand old man is by implication slandered and maligned. Brother Goodpasture has been quick to defend Lipscomb against the belittling and disparaging attacks of others; let us hope he will be no less diligent in straightening out his own staff-writer. That term "factionist" is a favorite one with Brother Brewer, and in his indiscriminate and careless use of it, it is not surprising that it may land, now and then, on someone for whom he did not intend it. We suspect such is the case here; he did not intend to smear Lipscomb; the smear was intended for others. But by an unfortunate coincidence Lipscomb happened to have been reading the same Book the "others" had been reading. And the wild smear landed squarely in Lipscomb's face. "Factionist," indeed!

— F. Y. T.