Sommerite, Premillennialist, Or What?
In April, 1949, Sterl Watson was just as strongly opposed to "church-supported schools" as any writer of the Guardian has ever been, maybe more so. But, in debate at Indianapolis, October, 1954, Sterl Watson was just as far on the other side of that question as a person can get, supporting W. L. Totty one hundred percent as he strove to prove that "our colleges" could and should be supported by the churches of Christ.
Please read the following letter, which is practically self-explanatory, and then we shall make some observations:
August 25, 1949
Bob Craig, Evang.
Lufkin, Texas
Dear Bob:
It is good to have this letter from you, and to know that the Guardian is being published again.
My stand with reference to softness in Harding has not been modified. In the article that you read I was trying to encourage young people to attend a Christian school. I had had to go to bat to stop the teaching of evolution here in our public schools.
Where one is soft another is accused of moral laxness, or things equally as serious. You speak of institutionalism connected with the church. I have never known any man to try harder, in a more subtle manner, to get that job done than the president of the one at Henderson, Tennessee. I would as soon have premillennialism as church supported schools. I do know that Harding has one teacher that openly speaks out against premillennialism. Pepperdine is out so far as I am concerned. So far as the others are concerned I wouldn't turn on my heel for the difference. I have preached near every last one of them and the people beg for "soft" preaching the closer one gets to any of them. Let them go unchecked and they will soon turn out "modern Pastors" wholesale. I have always been a friend to Christian education. I have never been in favor of destroying a school because of its weaknesses. My idea is to correct the evil. However, when that starts a clean sweep should be made. If they do digress to where I believe they will, I'll be a bitter opponent to all of them. I have also read some correspondence that passed between Foy Wallace and the president of one of them. Within a few years, I will have some children ready for college. If I can locate in a town where there is a good church, and a state school where infidelity is not taught, that's where they will go. However, I can safeguard my child. Many of the young people's parents are unable to counteract atheism. One of the leading men of Abilene tried to slip the colleges into the church budget. I would as soon slip the premillennial theory into the church as to slip the college into the church, or the church into the college. I am opposed to slipping either direction. I don't know what you know about Harding, but I know that the effort to put the college into the church budget has given all of us access to some information that should put us on guard. I haven't met the biggest, but suspect I have met as many premillennialists in debate as any man in the brotherhood. I stand ready to do it again, any time an opponent can be found with proper endorsement. If men in the lead did not fight Harding to the finish, why did the fight cease? Why not keep up the battle? I am ready to oppose any evil in it, and rest assured that I don't owe them or any man a penny. My hands are not tied from any angle. My attitude is the same toward all the other colleges when it comes to their weaknesses.
I wish you success in every undertaking for good.
Brotherly, Sterl
Sterl A. Watson
P.S.: Bob, your letter is the second one I have had relative to the article. Please publish all of my letter, if any is published. S.A.W.
Now you may be thinking, "What's wrong with a man changing a position?" And I hasten to reply, "Nothing — not a thing in the world." But, what we are deeply concerned with is the WHY of this change and in view of this letter, an explanation of Brother Watson's conduct in the recent debate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making an honest change, therefore those who heard Brother Watson in the Indianapolis debate, and are now reading this letter, certainly will wonder why he spent so much time and used such vituperative language in condemning Charles Holt and any other Guardian writer who has ever been guilty of making a change. He tried to make the audience believe that he had never been guilty of changing, and that all Guardian writers had made changes in their positions, therefore a person could have absolutely no confidence in any person who had any dealings with the Guardian; that they are on one position today and another tomorrow; that you just can't tell where they are.
Brother Watson, most of the Guardian writers that I know, occupy the same position today that they did in 1949, especially as pertains to "the college question." But YOU have changed. Tell us why, Brother Watson. What verse or verses of scripture did you read that enlightened you on this subject? Where, in all of God's word, did you find something that told you the church of our Lord has obligation to support these schools? One verse will do — . Of course, neither he nor Brother Totty could find such a verse during the debate, and that evidently was the reason they tried to discredit their opponent and all connected with him. Brother Watson, we may all be "puny souls" and "still wet behind the ears" as you asserted, but we do recognize an argument when we see or hear one. You just present one and see if we don't. WHY did you change, Brother Watson? I have changed on some .things and so have other Guardian writers, but I believe that every one of us can give you scripture for our change, or else show where there is no scripture for former practices. Now, where is the verse for your change, Brother Watson.
Then, Brother Watson, you gave your sanction, unequivocally, when Brother Totty called all of us "half-baked, Johnny-come-lately Sommerites," when he couldn't give a verse of scripture to sustain his position. Brother Watson, is that what you were in 1949? Were you a disciple of Daniel Sommer, as you accuse us of being, or did you conscientiously believe your position to be scriptural? I stood with E. R. Harper and with you on that question in 1949 and even before that. I still stand in the same place and now you say we are Sommerites. What were you in 1949? Conscientious, or just a "Sommerite"?, There are many things we can see in this letter on which Brother Watson has changed. In 1949 we had started publishing the Guardian. Brother Watson said he was glad. But in 1954 he thinks it should be destroyed and did his best, in Indianapolis, to accomplish that task. In 1949, he says he had rather have "premillennialism" than "church-supported schools." Has he changed from that or has he now accepted premillennialism? Remember, he put "church-supported schools" lower down than premillennialism. Has he now accepted premillennialism and then gone on down to "church-supported schools"? In 1949 he chose state schools, free of infidelity, in lieu of schools conducted by our brethren, for his children. (Notice that he wanted the brethren to send theirs to Christian schools.) Have you changed on that too, Brother Watson? If the state schools are best, perhaps we ought to put them in the budget of the church.
Personalities is not the answer to the problems confronting the church today. The only reason for this type article is to try to let everyone see that Sterl Watson is just like anyone else. He changes. But most people have a reason for changing. Brethren Watson, Totty, Brewer, and all the rest of the Gospel Advocate writers have miserably failed to present one legitimate verse of scripture to prove that it is right for the churches, as such, to contribute from their treasuries, to the support of "our colleges."
Now, in conclusion, you may be wondering: "This fellow has criticized all these others for not giving scripture for their contention and he hasn't presented any either." Friends, the "college in the budget" is something new that has been added in later years, just like the instrument. The burden of proof lies with them. They introduced it. Let them prove it. We'll be waiting, impatiently.