Some Of The "Pioneers" And The Teaching Of Examples
The fact that example is one of the ways, by which the scriptures teach, was accepted and acted upon by outstanding pioneers in the restoration movement. Thomas Campbell's great watchwords, "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent," was amplified by his complementary declaration that we must have a "thus saith the Lord either in express terms or by approved precedent, for every article of faith and item of religious practice." These two declarations taken together show that Campbell regarded the scriptures as "speaking" (teaching) that which the Lord saith "by express terms or by approved precedent." When Alexander Campbell read the proof sheets, of the "Declaration", as they came from the press, he observed to his father, "Then, sir, you must abandon and give up infant baptism, and some other practices for which it seems to me you cannot produce an express precept or an example in any book of Christian scriptures!" Thus Thomas Campbell used the word "precedent", while his son Alexander used the equivalent, "example." Approved example as a way whereby the scriptures teach was accepted, at least in theory, by the Campbells, both father and son.
Some quotations from the "Address" of Thomas Campbell are certainly of great current significance. These quotations are given for the benefit of some readers who may not have access to the "Address"; not that I attribute any authority to Campbell's pronouncements, other than that authority which goes with the words of one who "speaks where the scriptures speak." This is my reason for including the following quotations from the "Address."
"Who would not willingly conform to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament, for this happy purpose." (Unity) "But this we do sincerely declare, that there is nothing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the Word of God, either in express terms or approved precedent, that we would not heartily relinquish . . . ." Prop. 3. "That in order to do this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament church, either in express terms or by approved precedent."
Proposition 12 of the address contains this language, "Lastly, that in all their administration they keep close, by the observance of all Divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive church, exhibited in the New Testament; without any additions whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men."
Cumulative evidence to the fact that Campbell accepted example as a way by which the scriptures teach is found in the "Appendix" to the "Address." In the "Appendix" he writes: "We dare, therefore, neither do nor receive anything as of divine obligation for which there cannot be expressly produced a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or by approved precedent."
One paragraph in the "Appendix" is of such current significance as to demand a place here. The italics are mine. (R.H.F.) "On the other hand, is it not equally as evident that not one of all the erroneous tenets and corrupt practices which have so defamed and corrupted the public confession and practice of Christianity, could ever have appeared in the world had men kept close by the express letter of the Divine law, had thy thus held fast that form of sound words contained in the Holy Scriptures, and considered it their duty so to do, unless they blame those errors and corruptions upon the very form and expression of the scriptures, and say that, taken in their letter and connection, they immediately, and at first sight, as it were, exhibit the picture they have drawn. Should any be so bold as to assert this, let them produce their performance, the original is at hand; and let them show us line for line, expression for expression, precept and precedent for practice, without the torture of criticism, inference or conjecture, and then we shall honestly blame the whole upon the Bible and thank those that will give us an expurged edition . . . that will not be liable to lead the simple, unlettered world into those gross mistakes." Campbell's "simple, unlettered world" is Christ's "babes" to whom God revealed his will. (Matt. 11:25)
What would have been the result if Alexander Campbell, Pendleton and others had followed this course "kept close by the express letter") forty years later with reference to their ideas of congregational cooperation. From "the precepts and approved precedents" of scripture, could they have gotten the idea of an evangelistic or benevolent society for the church? Other quotations to the same end from these documents could be given but these suffice to show that Thomas Campbell believed that the will of God is taught by approved example as well as by express precept.
J. W. McGarvey's conviction with reference to the teaching of example and his practice of going along with the missionary society has presented an enigma not only to those who opposed the missionary society, but to those who favored it as well. A quotation from the book, "Brother McGarvey" by Morro, will present the puzzle as it appeared to those favoring the society — Morro favored both the society and instrumental music in the worship. "His opposition to the use in the worship of the church of musical instruments might lead one to expect opposition to missionary organizations also. A negative attitude in respect to one is usually followed by a similar attitude in respect to the other. This was not true of McGarvey. In his mind there was no connecting link between the two. His attitude on each question was attained on independent grounds and represented in each case his honest convictions. In his attitude toward missionary organization he carried his associates with him and how fortunate for the church that he did. Otherwise Lexington would have anticipated Nashville in becoming the center of opposition to the organization of the church for missionary service. Under his leadership the Broadway Church became a great missionary church and had fellowship in all of the cooperative enterprises of the brotherhood."
Just as no precept or approved example can be found for a mechanical instrument of music in the worship, neither can precept or example be found for a missionary society. In an article in the Gospel Advocate of November 3, 1932, H. Leo Boles wrote, "J. W. McGarvey, who was an able exponent of society works or churches working through missionary societies, was called upon to give an example of churches cooperating in having the gospel preached. He replied, "I do not find in the New Testament a single example of two or more churches that cooperated in mission work." Thus McGarvey admitted that the examples of the New Testament did not furnish authority for the society. Why then did he lend his encouragement to the society? Was it because he did not attach importance to the teaching of example? Did McGarvey reject approved example as a way whereby the scriptures teach? The answer to these questions is "NO"! McGarvey very clearly reveals his attitude toward approved examples in his reply to Pendleton which appeared in the Apostolic Times, (Aug. 12, 1875). Pendleton had written in the Christian Standard that "a blind adhesion to models, apostolic or apostate, is mere slavish stupidity, unworthy of the Lord's freemen." In reply McGarvey wrote, "By the use of the epithet "blind' before 'adhesion' we suppose that he means to stigmatize close adhesion to these models as blindness; and we take the entire proposition to mean that such adhesion is blindness and slavish stupidity." He further comments, "If Brother Pendleton had asserted, as on proper occasion he would, that the church of today is to be guided by the models furnished us in the apostolic churches, he would find no difficulty at all in disposing of the facts, just enumerated." McGarvey then disposes in his clear, logical style of the objections raised by Pendleton. (See Gospel Guardian Mar. 15, 1956). In these quotations McGarvey makes it clear that his conviction was "that the church of today is to be guided by the models furnished us in the apostolic churches." Hence, we cannot conclude that the inconsistency between McGarvey's conviction and practice is imaginary and not real. If McGarvey had not accepted the teaching of example as binding then perhaps a stronger case could be made in attempts to establish that his conduct with reference to the society was consistent with his conviction of what the scriptures taught. But such is not the case for we have seen from the above quotation that (1) he wrote that there was no example in the scriptures of "two or more churches that cooperated in mission work." (2) He believed that the scriptures teach by example. Hence, the only conclusion possible is that there is no authority for such cooperation in the scriptures. Only in the silence of the scriptures can any comfort be found for the "church general" concept. The scriptures do not expressly forbid burning of incense, instrumental music, counting of beads, sprinkling babies, etc. The silence of the scriptures are taken as authority for these things by those who want them. Even so today we have those who call boldly for some one to show us how the church may have benevolent societies, national radio broadcasts, hospitals, seminaries, and other things which they want.
Here are some facts and dates in the life of McGarvey which may shed some light on the inconsistency already noted. In 1849 the "American Christian Missionary Society" was organized. W. K. Pendleton was present in place of Campbell who was ill. Campbell was elected as first president of the society. This was McGarvey's third year in Bethany; he was twenty years old. It was also the year in which he was baptized by Pendleton. Thus during the highly impressionable years of his college career, he was closely associated with the leading promoters of the church universal concept. He held Campbell and Pendleton in the very highest esteem and was very receptive to anything they favored. Respecting these school ties, McGarvey wrote later, "at no college known to me has it been usual for students to become so fondly attached to one another and to their professors as at Bethany." Of Pendleton, McGarvey wrote, "He was more argumentative than the others, and was always convincing. He was so thoroughly versed in logic that no one ever suspected him of a fallacious argument. . . ." This causes us to wonder if McGarvey, after having become impressed with the logical powers of Pendleton wasn't extremely liable to accept some things solely on the authority of Pendleton. Remember that he was only about eighteen years old when he entered Bethany. It was several years later before the "organ controversy" arose, by which time McGarvey had matured and was testing everything proposed in religion by the scriptures. There is a marked contrast between his writings on the two issues. He was positive, clear and forceful in his fight against the instrument; whereas, in his writings in behalf of the society he was hesitant, indecisive, and somewhat apologetic. Note the title of his main effort along this line, "Mission Work: A Word for Peace". But in spite of his interest in and attachment to the society, McGarvey held steadfast to his conviction, "That the church of today is to be guided by the models furnished us in the apostolic churches". When called upon for scripture example authorizing the society concept, his honesty and scholarship compelled him to say, "I do not find in the New Testament a single example of two or more churches that cooperated in mission work." If we find it difficult to explain to our satisfaction the inconsistencies between these expressions of convictions and his actions, we can just think of some of our day whose actions are inexplicable, save on the ground that they are human beings and as such are liable to rationalize matters when those they admire and love are involved, or when some pet doctrine or scheme of theirs must be repudiated if they stand by their convictions.