Dean Gardner Picking The Winner
Brother D. Claude Gardner has finally decided that he will pick the winner of the church-supported-human-institutions conflict. As dean of Freed-Hardeman College his selection should have great weight with the brotherhood. His selection is given publicity in the Gospel Advocate, February 27, 1958. Of course, you may know whom he has picked, finding his selection in that paper. It just could be that he is wrong; but right or wrong in his pick of the winner it will make no difference to those who are determined to follow the Bible instead of what "has been practiced for many decades." It was said of those brethren who operated schools /during the time when the premillennial fight was prominent that they hesitated to publicize their position until they could tell how the battle would end. Now it seems that this is the way some of the school men are doing over the issue of church support of human institutions. Brother Gardner has been silent, in print at least, about his position on this issue, though he has been fairly regular in writing on other themes. Following, the premillennial battle some of the school men began making so much noise that one would think they waged the battle and won the victory; when, in fact, they had been sitting back in mortal fear that the conflict would kill their schools. Is that the way it is going to be with Brother Gardner? He first thought those opposed to such institutionalism would be only a "splinter group," then he became "alarmed." He has now decided the battle is over and thinks he has found the winner so he can come out of the bomb shelter and speak his piece.
Following The Majority
What made him decide he could announce the bold position he takes? Here it is in his own words:
"By far the largest number of congregations and gospel preachers are committed to the same manner of caring for the orphans and church cooperation as has been practiced for many decades. These practices, of course, are founded on scriptural teaching. They are not innovations as some imagine they harmonize with the Bible. It is assumed that a few brethren will eventually draw the line of fellowship which they at first were reluctant to do. They will be committed to a pattern of negativism and they will remain dwarfed even as the numerous other `anti groups.' "
Notice that he says that it has been "practiced for many decades," not even centuries, much less for two thousand years. Yet, he lets this matter of "decades" be enough for him to decide the issue and assume that it is scriptural. He has started proving things by "Church of Christ" tradition, and does not have the centuries behind him that the Catholics have. Between the two, the Catholics have the better claim.
It is just possible that he could be as wrong in his exultation over the winning side as he thought he was in his alarm over that side's losing. What kind of measure does he use in determining the number of churches and preachers who "ride their hobby" as compared with the number whom he has decided to follow? But even granting that he is correct in sizing up the relative numbers; his most serious blunder is in the decision to follow the multitude rather than do what is right. If he is not following the crowd, why did he not engage in the battle while he was "pessimistic" and "alarmed" about the outcome? What good can come from a school that will not teach its convictions unless and until it decides it is on the side of the majority? That trend is one of the most serious dangers involved in schools operated by brethren.
He "assumes" that some of us "negativism" brethren will "draw the line of fellowship." Brother Gardner should know — he would know if he had been on the front lines — that those brethren with whom he has now aligned himself have already been calling for and drawing the line of fellowship. We "iconoclasts" are "eventually" recognizing the line which they have already drawn. Brother Gardner should know that his brethren in the school business are drawing the line. If not, let him enumerate the teachers who are opposed to this institutionalism which he and his school have selected in the past few years.
"Calf Rope," or Fear of Discussion His optimism has a hollow ring. His article is merely that of the "boy whistling in the dark." His real fear is expressed in these words; "Now that a number of debates have been held, it occurs to me that others are pointless." Nehemiah and his men were very few, they needed to build their protecting wall; they did not have enough men to fight the Samaritans without the help of God. Brother Gardner does an injustice to the scriptural example by comparing those whom he says are so mighty and already victorious to Nehemiah. Why does he call for his men to get back to the wall building? He has already observed the losing battle his warriors have made in the polemic arena.
Brother Gardner may rue the day he wrote that prejudicial, inflammatory and schismatic article; he will regret it for his own sake and for the sake of the school he represents.