As Timmerman Sees It
(Editor's Note: The following letter from Brother Timmerman shows that Smith and Watson are not alone in their questioning of some of the things developing in the foreign field. Let all of us read this letter with an open mind; and let us pray that these matters may be soon settled, and that the New Testament church may be built up, and not weakened, by our discussions and studies.)
47, Rue Pierre Fluche Verviers, Belgium June 3, 1953 Mr. Yater Tant 717 E. N. 13th St, Abilene, Texas, U.S.A.
Dear Brother Tant:
Although I do not know you personally, I want to commend you for the fair hearing you have been giving to the controversy that has arisen concerning the work in Karlsruhe, Germany, in recent issues of the Gospel Guardian. I have followed with very keen interest the developments there and feel that the matter deserves more serious attention than many brethren will be inclined to give it. If your treatment of these difficulties, giving all sides equal opportunity to present whatever materials they wish, serves no other purpose than to give pause to those who have been plunging down the popular road toward liberalism, the effort will have been well worthwhile.
I know both Richard Smith and Max Watson personally, and though I would not necessarily defend all of their opinions and actions, I know them to be sincere, conscientious men. They are neither hobbyists nor fanatics who would stick their necks out for the sheer pleasure of having their heads — or their support — chopped off. What they have done was not easy, as you may well suppose, but came after long months of deliberation and prayer. Perhaps others in Germany, had they been possessed of the same courage would have done likewise.
The fact is that these brethren have become a sort of test case, whether voluntarily or not, to prove the legitimacy of their doubts about the way some things are being done in Germany — doubts which observation and experience have more and more crystallized into definite convictions. Events of the past few weeks have helped to demonstrate that their doubts were not unfounded.
Whether brethren Smith and Watson are personally vindicated in this controversy is, to my mind, of secondary importance. The principles involved, however, are all-important. They include such matters as the right of a brother to question the ambitious methods being followed by certain other brethren without being treated as a heretic; the right of a congregation, however weak and small, to conduct its own affairs without outside interference; the right of an evangelist to preach the gospel wherever he may deem best, and of a church either to provide or withhold support.
I do not mean to imply by this that I question the right of elders to rule over the flock among which they have been made overseers. But I do believe their authority ends there. Neither do I feel that an evangelist should be so independent that he would neither consult nor take advice from those who have so kindly agreed to support him. And for such an arrangement to be satisfactory, he should supply those who uphold his hands with adequate information concerning the progress and the problems of his work. But if the time should come that they are dissatisfied with his work, I believe they have no further control over him, and certainly not over the congregations he has established, than to withdraw their support.
I earnestly hope brethren will think about these issues without prejudice, and that they will not be influenced in their conclusions by half-truths, innuendo and slurring epithets. It is easy to hurl such terms as "Sommerites," hobbyists and fanatics, but they prove nothing. Indeed, from their own writings one must conclude that the most ardent foes of what was called "Sommerism" forty years ago would have opposed with equal vigor many of the things being practiced with wide approval throughout the brotherhood today. Did that make of them "Sommerites"? On the other hand, were the uncomplimentary things said about them by the digressive liberals of that era justified? No, the strength of their cause lay in their stand on the scriptures alone, and the issues confronting the church today must be decided on the same basis.
Some may wonder why those who find themselves in such a position as brethren Smith and Watson come to the Guardian. It is true that your paper has been considered by many as a scandal sheet or a journal of mere negation. I cannot say that I have always been in sympathy with everything you have published. However, yours is about the only paper to my knowledge which has the policy of letting all sides be heard, which is commendable. If other "more respectable" papers will give space only to the powerful and popular side in these controversies, then the brethren who are "little and unknown" have recourse only to the Guardian.
If you care to use this letter in any way, you are free to do so. May the Lord use you to His glory, and may righteousness and truth prevail in the church and be upheld by the church before the world.
Sincerely yours in Christ, S. F. Timmerman, Jr.