Teaching Versus Practice
It has long been an accepted principle of Bible study that the teachings of the apostles were inspired; but their conduct was not inspired. Their teachings were perfect and infallible; their practices were neither perfect nor infallible. If any conflict ever seems apparent between the teaching of an inspired man and his practice, it is a safe rule always to follow his teaching rather than his example. When Peter made his bold and positive declaration that Jesus was the Son of God, he spoke by inspiration ("flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven"); when a few hours later he denied with an oath that he even knew the Savior, his conduct was not inspired. This same Peter boldly stated the truth on Pentecost when he declared that the promise was "to all them that are afar off" (the Gentiles) yet a few years later at Antioch his conduct was in sharp contrast to his teaching. The teaching was right; the conduct was wrong.
Paul's teaching concerning the relationship between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ is clear and unmistakable. But his behavior in shaving his head and keeping a vow according to the terms of the law (many years after the law had been abrogated) has always been a puzzling and difficult thing for Bible scholars to explain. We know his teaching was right, for it was inspired; we cannot always have the same confidence concerning his behavior.
We believe there may be some similarity (not a complete parallel, but a similarity) between the above examples and certain things that have happened in the history of the church these past one hundred years. Many of the great Restoration preachers and writers set forth principles of truth that are clear and explicit. But it seems likely that they may not have understood the full implications of the principles they enunciated; hence, their practices may not always have been in full harmony with their teachings. Are we charging that these great men deliberately violated their own teachings? Certainly not. Their violations of them (if such there were) grew out of a failure to understand fully the implications and scope of the principles. The principles were crystal clear; their full application to specific cases and actions was not always so evident.
For example, who will deny that Campbell's advocacy of the Missionary Society was in contradiction to some (not all) of his writings concerning the autonomy and independence of the churches? Campbell obviously did not clearly grasp the full import of some of the principles he set forth concerning the nature of the church. Indeed, we believe it would not be too difficult to demonstrate that some of his writings on this theme are openly and palpably contradictory of each other. Coming out of the dark morass of denominational error, it is not surprising that his statements would be at times confused and uncertain. Grasping dimly and cautiously at a principle which in the light of our fuller understanding is as clear as the noon-day sun, Campbell was groping toward the light. That his steps were sometimes faulty is but natural and sometimes inevitable.
A later generation than Campbell experienced the same problem. When the instrumental music controversy split the brotherhood, many gospel preachers were clear, firm, and positive in their teaching on the matter of the proper worship of God; yet some of these same men would worship where the organ was used. J. W. McGarvey is a classic example. His teaching was true and accurate on this subject; yet his example was in appalling contrast to his teaching. Digressives all over the nation pointed in gleeful exultation to McGarvey's example, and thus destroyed the effectiveness of his teaching on the subject of instrumental music.
We are not at all certain that Brother David Lipscomb saw all the implications of his teaching concerning the institutional problem. His solicitation of churches for contributions to support his school suggests that he may not have followed to its full implication and import the teaching he gave concerning the nature of the church and its divine mission on the earth. Likewise, his serving on the board of a benevolent institution to do the benevolent work of the church may appear to many as a rather flagrant violation of some of the things he taught.
In more recent years (right now), we see the weird sight of some modern brethren attempting to change the teaching we have all accepted so as to bring it into harmony with the practices which have been more or less accepted also. The appeal is being made to the practices of the pioneers to justify some of the modern procedures and arrangements. We have particularly in mind the support of colleges out of the church treasuries and the support of boards of benevolence (orphan homes) to care for the church's needy. Instead of an appeal to the teachings of the Restoration leaders, appeal is being made to their practices.
To illustrate: For many years the Gospel Advocate has contended for the independence, equality, and autonomy of New Testament congregations. But some "sponsoring" churches among us are clearly, openly, and brazenly flaunting those principles. So Brother G. C. Brewer comes forth with an article defending the modern practice, and seeking to change the teaching the Advocate has formerly set forth so as to bring teaching into harmony with practice. He contends that Philippi was a "sponsoring" church in the modern understanding of that term; and also points to the practices of some brethren in the past as justification for the "sponsoring" church.
The Gospel Guardian, meanwhile, is earnestly pleading that all faithful Christians everywhere re-examine both teaching and practice and bring everything into harmony with New Testament teaching That is the only safe course. Any other is both foolish and fatal.
— F.Y.T.