Observations Through The Years (II.)
In article one of this series this writer paid tribute to the work of gospel preachers from just before the dawn of this century down to a few years ago. In it mention was made of a number of fundamental principles of the Christian system upon which practically all preachers and churches were in complete agreement. And I recall that when all were thus unified, they could and did present a solid front against the errors of sectarians of every hue, because then, steering clear of speculation, their arguments on any question stood the test of both reason and revelation. And in that state of unity and uncompromising allegiance to God's word great progress was made in the growth and influence of churches, and in the establishment of new congregations throughout our nation and in foreign fields. Well, that same desirable status prevailed as long as both preachers and churches were heralding from pulpit and press the same fundamental truths for which they could give a "thus saith the Lord." Incidentally, through those years great numbers of adults from the "world" and the denominations were being baptized, in contrast to mostly children of members in too many instances in more recent years. In those eventful times all were agreed that in Bible study we must respect its silence as well as its speech.
But some have changed (both preachers and churches). Some have reversed their thinking; some have well nigh abandoned a part, if not most, of the aforenamed principles. I have noted, with regret, that some able preachers now affirm things that were denied by all in former years; and in some instances, things that themselves stoutly denied only a few years back. Why this change? Some who now espouse the cause of "sponsoring churches" and various human organizations by which they propose to implement the activities of the churches in their evangelistic and benevolent work, once spoke and wrote vigorously against all such. I know; I have heard them in sermons and debates, and read their writings, much of which are matters of record. What made them switch positions? This is not to imply that one should never change his belief on any subject, of course; conversely, if reliable testimony shows one to be wrong about a thing, then he should change to the right, the scriptural position. But why some men, who for years stood as firmly against spurious doctrines and questionable practices as any other, are now promoting these same departures from New Testament teaching and practice, is difficult for me to understand. Certainly it was not the Bible that caused them to change, because the Word still speaks as it did when they stood for what is written. It were rude to even intimate that popularity or financial security — their jobs — have influenced them. Surely not that! Then what did cause them to begin defending things they once opposed? I wonder.
Among those who are on record with arguments, first against these man-made institutions — church appendages, lean-tos — then later in favor of them are several well known and influential preachers, editors and Bible school literature writers, viz.: Harper, Wallace (G.K), Dr. Young, Lyles, Lemons, Woods, Lanier, Hardcastle, Warren, R...Porter?), and others of some note (including some whom providence has lately released from mortal environment). But it is generally conceded that evidence from a witness whose testimony is self-contradictory cannot be taken seriously — not till he shows that his subsequent testimony is supported by accepted authority. Parenthetically, for those who have opposed, crossed themselves in their speech, I suggest an appropriate theme song: "In the CROSS be my glory ever."
It would be amusing, were it not too tragic, to see once "sound" gospel preachers laboring to support a questionable theory or service with an argument that is nothing short of a brazen subterfuge, such as they have met from opponents in past years, and completely exploded! And that is exactly what opponents of "institutionalism" have been doing to their purported arguments all along. And why they themselves are unable to see their utter failure to make a sound argument based on reason (they have not scripture) or logic, is beyond me. Their arguments, negative to "-a scriptural procedure, and favoring admitted humanly devised "methods" and "expedients" wouldn't stand up, even if set in concrete and "guy" wired. A few who speak the loudest and write the longest in favor of these unwarranted organizations called "methods" belong in the Parvenu category — designated by Brother Brewer as "Johnnies come lately." Do any of them offer one verse of scripture to support their hobbies? Not one? Very few have even tried to do it. They even admit that "we do many things for which we have no scriptural authority." Imagine that from men who once challenged the world on unauthorized things!
What Christian preacher, down to six or eight years back, would resort to sectarian sophistry by asserting our right to do a certain thing just because the Bible does not specifically forbid it? None! What preacher; until recent years, would label an organization other than the churches to do gospel mission work as "method"? Only digressives or other sectarians. What gospel preacher, before the rise of institutionalism, would say that they who oppose innovations are splitting the churches? Not one. Who, until the last few years, would affirm that the introducers of untaught questions and practices are guilty of dividing the churches? EVERY ONE! Who stands today upon the same footing occupied by digressives and other denominations regarding the departures in question? All those, of course, who originated and are building and supporting them. To me the spectacle is tragic when preachers and elders reach a point where scripture statements and examples no longer appeal to them as having any restraining or limiting effect upon what churches in our day may do. Without a reflecting and a change, that point may be near.