Boll Is Dead: Premillennialism Is Not
For many years R. H. Boll was the chief promoter of premillennialism among churches of Christ. He was the acknowledged leader of that group of brethren who had been confused by Pastor Russell, and who had accepted the materialistic concept of Christ's kingdom which Russell advocated. Instead of the spiritual kingdom which Christ died to establish these deluded ones were still anticipating the old political kingdom, with an earthly, Caesaristic sovereignty exercised from Jerusalem. They anticipated a return of the Jews to Palestine, a universal conversion of these fleshly descendants of Abraham, and a period of 1000 years (no more, no less) during which Jesus Christ would reign in person from Jerusalem.
While certain of the leaders of the restoration movement had held some vague theories as to such a millennium, they were content to hold these speculations as private opinions, and did not press for their acceptance by others. Consequently, there was no issue made of the matter, and no division took place over the speculative theories. But with the advent of R. H. Boll upon the scene of action a different atmosphere developed. Boll advanced these speculations as a matter of faith, not a matter of opinion; he contended that he was under a divine obligation to preach and promote his theories. And such he did. The result was inevitable. Faithful Bible students began to refute the false teachings; tensions developed; and a final break was made in the church which seems at this date to be irreparable. We do not anticipate that the breach will ever be healed between the premillennial brethren and their friends and brethren in Christ from whom they have departed.
When Boll was at the height of his influence, it was supposed by many that with his death the premillennial movement would collapse. He was the only man of any real stature or influence among them. His ability was great, and his personality was attractive. The others in the movement, Chambers, Janes, Jorgenson, Neal, Friend, Olmstead, were markedly inferior to Boll. None of them could be pictured as heading the factionist movement very effectively. With the passing of the years, however, Boll's stature diminished, and his leadership of the faction became less obvious. Other men began to take over the shaping of policy, and the breach between the premillennialists and faithful brethren became ever wider.
And now R. H. Boll is dead. Let no one be optimistic enough to suppose for a moment that the premillennial threat to the church has died with him. His physical death is of little consequence so far as the threat his movement poses to the peace of the church is concerned. It has long since passed the stage of being a one-man show. They have developed their own "Kentucky Bible College" a Winchester, Kentucky, and are openly and frankly seeking to promote premillennialism through the school, infiltrate loyal churches with their young preachers, and win many to their heresy as possible. They frankly acknowledge the tie-in between their churches and the school, and rather proudly announce how many churches are contributing regularly to the school.
It is an interesting side-light to notice that the President of the premillennial "Kentucky Bible College" is a graduate of Harding College. So also is the Registrar. And the head of the Music Department. Likewise the head of the History Department. The same idea is true of the head of the Home Economics Department. We wonder if these people were taught the truth on the premillennial heresy at Harding College as thoroughly as they should have been? How does it happen that so many of the leaders in this heresy came from one Christian college among us, and that no other school supported by the brethren furnished any of the leaders of Kentucky Bible College (except one, J. Edward Boyd, who lists himself as a graduate of the old Nashville Bible School)?
Fifty years ago, when the final division came with the digressives, many brethren thought the battle was over, and that henceforth there would be peace within the church. The bitter strife was to be forgotten; the digressives would go their way, and loyal brethren, sadly reduced and without buildings or facilities, could begin from the bottom again and try to build up the church. They made a mistake which has now brought an ominous and dangerously threatening condition to the present-day church: they ceased teaching against the Missionary Society!
We pray that that same mistake will not happen with premillennialism. The death of R. Boll does not spoil the end of the premillennial threat, any more than the separate listings of "Disciples of 'Christ" and "Church of Christ" in the 1906 federal census spelled the end of the digressive threat. We all need to learn that there is one, and only one, safe-guard against error: that is teaching of the truth. Any church that relaxes in its teaching against premillennialism is inviting disaster. Just as any church that relaxes in its teaching against institutionalism is heading for trouble. Only the blindly partisan can fail to recognize that our present problems over institutionalism are essentially the old, old fight over the Missionary Society, dressed up in modern garments. And only those who will not learn from history can suppose for a moment that the death of R. H. Boll removes the threat of premillennialism from the church in our generation. Boll's death no more solves the premillennial problem than the death of Isaac Errett solved the digressive problem.
Furthermore, let us not become so deeply engrossed in fighting the digression as seen in "institutionalism" that we blind our eyes to the ever present threat of the materialistic philosophy of the premillennialists. We must be constantly on guard. There is no time for relaxing our watchfulness. The one sure and certain safe-guard always is Bible teaching.