Brother Brewer And The Missionary Society
The week of February 15-19, David Lipscomb College invited Brother G. C. Brewer, an able and outstanding preacher, to come to the college for five lectures on various issues before the church today. Brother Brewer was hand-picked for the job as he would say what the College wanted said on these issues. Brother Brewer's "sentiments" on these issues have been well-known for years, and because these "sentiments" are NOW the "sentiments" of the College, he was the man for the task. The students who attend Lipscomb are indoctrinated with ONLY those matters which have administration-approval. Both "sides" or the "other side" of any issue is never heard at Lipscomb. The policy of carefully screening the men who appear on any Lipscomb program is easily recognized. At least, those men who would speak contrary to the "creed" of Lipscomb are assigned subjects that preclude any possibility of such. The Administration of Lipscomb will not entertain the idea of allowing "both sides" of any issue to be heard on her campus. Such is a far departure from the policy followed by the founder of the College — David Lipscomb. Brother Brewer referred in his speeches to the fact that Brother Lipscomb was always anxious that any honorable brother who disagreed be heard, and that often he invited those of opposing views to freely set forth their views. Brother Lipscomb wanted to be honorable and fair with all. Brother Brewer cited the time that Brother Lipscomb gave Brother G. G. Taylor the liberty to fully set forth his ideas about civil government, which were vitally opposed to his own ideas. Such is the way that brethren should be. But such days as this are gone from Lipscomb College. Brother A. C. Pullias and Brother Willard Collins now have a big thing going their way and they intend to keep an air-tight hold on it. No way to know what would be the results for good to the Cause of Christ if one of Brother Lipscomb's caliber could again head that school. Far different indeed would be the policy of the school along this line.
Be it said to Brother Brewer's credit that he does not favor such one-sided discussions of matters. If so, his speeches indicated otherwise. He seemingly is not ashamed or afraid of what he teaches, and can usually be counted on to defend it. I think that if he were the "head" of Lipscomb College that he would be fair enough to allow "both sides" of any issue to be heard.
If the Administration of Lipscomb College is willing to allow the other "side" of the issues discussed by Brother Brewer to be presented under the same conditions in their auditorium, then the West End Church here in Franklin will be happy to support a capable man for the task at no cost to the school. In all fairness to the students and all concerned the College should do this. Will they do so? We stand ready to furnish the man to speak on the same subjects as did Brother Brewer. All the college need do is to furnish the place and allow us the time. After hearing Brother Brewer's speeches it is my judgment that someone very definitely needs to set forth the truth on the subjects of the first four nights. Brother Brewer skipped and ignored all the real issues involved in each lesson, and made a complete failure in dealing with such.
What Is Wrong???
The first night Brother Brewer's subject was: WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY? While this was his subject he failed to get to it. He talked about the Missionary Society, its beginning, its development and some of its abuses and extremes for nearly an hour, but he never did get around to telling what was WRONG with it. I listened anxiously to his speech and even recorded it for further study. As the foremost defender and apologist for every institution that has arisen in our ranks, many of us wondered just what Brother Brewer could say was wrong with it. If he found ought wrong with it as far as the scriptures are concerned, he failed to tell us. I thought that perhaps it might be my inability to grasp his points, but after hearing several ABLE preachers say the same thing, I know that I am not alone in thinking that he failed miserably to show what is wrong with it. One very able preacher said to me: "I just wonder what Brother Brewer does think is wrong with the Missionary Society?" Everyone is wondering likewise.
About the nearest thing to finding fault with it that I could gather from his speech was this: "The Missionary Society is an institution that builds and controls other institutions." He used a chart with this heading and to illustrate this point. This seemed to be his one and only objection. Is this the only objection that Brother Brewer has to it, and is this objection worth anything? Is an institution wrong simply because it builds and controls other institutions? If so, some of the churches are wrong because they build and control other institutions — orphan homes, old folk homes, and THE HERALD OF TRUTH! Is the M.S. not unscriptural in the basic principles upon which it was founded? If it should cease building and controlling other institutions would it become a scriptural organization? Would Brother Brewer accept it then? From his lesson I would judge that he would. Is the M.S. only wrong in its abuses and because of the extremes to which it has gone? Such a feeble exposure (?) of the M.S. is a disgrace, especially coming from one like Brother Brewer. I doubt not that some of the young preachers in Lipscomb could have done a better job of showing why the M.S. is unscriptural.
No man can consistently show the basic errors of the M.S. and at the same time defend as scriptural all the institutions among "us." This is where Brother Brewer's trouble really lies. To accept the principles upon which these institutions are founded forces one to actually accept the M.S. in principle. Brother Brewer and all those like him can only oppose the abuses and extremes of the M.S. (and they do this with poor grace) while upholding all the modern institutions that have been founded to do the work of the church or THROUGH which the churches may work to accomplish their divine mission. Cut loose from its abuses they would be forced to accept the M.S. with open arms.
Brother Brewer made a statement in his speech that shows he recognizes what I have just said. He said in substance that there are those today who think that if they can prove the orphan homes, colleges, etc., are parallel to the M.S. that they thereby prove such institutions to be wrong. He went on to say that he was on the reverse side of the matter; that is, if it could be shown that the orphan homes, colleges, and so forth, are parallel to the M.S., that this would not prove these institutions to be wrong, BUT RATHER WOULD PROVE THE M.S. TO BE RIGHT AND SCRIPTURAL! In such case, said he, we should apologize to the digressives for the fight made against the M.S. He then denied that they are parallel. In this sentiment Brother Brewer more or less says that even if it could be shown that these modern institutions are parallel in their basic concepts with the M.S., he will not admit them to be wrong or unscriptural, and in such case had rather accept the M.S. as scriptural and apologize to the Christian Church. He is determined to hold on to "our" institutions even if it means taking in the M.S.! Of course, it would be rather hard to show one who has so closed his mind to any and all proof. Can this really be Brother Brewer's attitude? He recognized the fact that if the parallel in principle between the institutions of our day and the M.S. is established, that it will either prove these institutions wrong or else prove the M.S. to be right. Brother Brewer says that as far as he is concerned it will only prove the latter — that the M.S. is right and scriptural! This is a shocking admission to come from one who takes such pride in supposedly being on the "firing line" for forty years. Such positions make us wonder just what "firing line" he has been on and in what direction he has been "firing." Also, we wonder just what kind of ammunition he has been using!
For sometime some of us have been trying to get across the idea that IF the orphan homes, THE HERALD OF TRUTH, and such like are parallel to the M.S. in the principles upon which they are founded, this must mean that either (1) these institutions are unscriptural; or else (2) it proves that the M.S. is scriptural. If this last be the case then our brethren in days gone by have been wrong in their fight against the M.S., have been unmerciful in their treatment of the digressives (who really would not be digressives in this respect at least), and have been guilty of causing division in the church over such. Truly this would make of David Lipscomb, Ben Franklin and a great host of others, some of whom are still living, a group of "hobbyists" and ignorant men. It should not be necessary today to spend time proving that the MM. is wrong in its organization and maintenance, but it seems that it is for we have failed to learn from history about the errors of such and the harm that can come there from. Today as in the days when the M.S. was gaining such a foothold, we need to be taught the truth about the organization of the church, its all-sufficiency to do whatever God expects it to do and to do it within the divinely-given framework. To know, appreciate and respect these fundamentals is essential in a study of the M.S. and the counterparts found among us today.