Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
January 1936

The Personalities Left Out


Commending "Christ on David's Throne", a very excellent treatise on Premillennialism by John T. Hinds, G. C. Brewer says: "Brother Hinds is fair and logical, and has left personalities out of his discussion entirely". Well—that is more than Brother Brewer has done. Nearly every article he writes is in criticism of somebody or in reply to somebody's criticism of him. And he could not even commend Brother Hinds' good tract without taking a slap at others, past and present, who have braved the battle in defense of what Brother Brewer now admits is the truth on the question.

One would think by the way he talks that Brother Brewer never gets personal. But read his published articles to say nothing of some of his unpublished articles that some of us know about. Why, he cannot even answer his critics on the "budget" system without slinging sarcasm. He headed one of his articles on that subject replying to a good man's questions, "Another Objector Heard From" and his articles are punctuated with references to those who differ from him as "objectors" and other names not calculated to make a brother feel good toward him. Brother Brewer wrote a friend of mine that my attitude on the Boll question is due to "an abnormal state of mind"! Very kind and non-personal isn't it?

When Paul exposed certain erroneous theories concerning the resurrection, he named the men who had "made shipwreck concerning the faith" by teaching them. "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they be taught not to blaspheme". So in writing on such things it seems Paul "has not left personalities out entirely". If Brother Brewer is not careful he will find himself criticizing Paul.

But Brother Brewer says that he "agrees with Brother Hinds in every respect". Why is it then that he has stood on the sidelines criticizing our discussions instead of doing as Brother Hinds has done in consistently opposing these errors? Brother Brewer has not done one thing to strengthen the defense of the truth on these issues but has said and done many things both publicly and privately, to weaken it. Just recently in his meeting at Plant City, Florida, he criticized the brethren in Jacksonville, Florida, for their attitude toward Homer N. Rutherford, who after having left Jacksonville, returned and started a Boll congregation almost in the shadow of the Riverside Park church where he had formerly preached. Brother Brewer told a group of younger preachers in a private home that Homer Rutherford was a very "meek and humble man" and that R. H. Boll was a great Bible scholar! One of the young preachers left, the other one stayed to hear what else Brother Brewer would say. Being so much younger than Brother Brewer they held their counsel, but Brother Brewer's remarks made an impression on them about like his Abilene College speech made on some of the rest of us The foregoing was told to me recently in the presence of several witnesses by a young preacher who was present when Brother Brewer was doing this talking. This is just one of many such occurrences.

If Brother Brewer "agrees with Brother Hinds in every respect" it is hard to harmonize some things he has said. Brother Hinds believes the theories of premillennialism to be vital in their consequences and destructive of the gospel of Christ, and proves it in his tract. But Brother Brewer said in his own statement of explanation in the Firm Foundation of his Abilene address, referring to his criticism of our discussions: "I did not regard the proposition of sufficient importance to merit so much attention." But now he says the best way to circulate Brother Hinds' tract on the same proposition "is for the church to buy them and give them away just as it does the quarterlies". Explaining his attitude further on this same proposition in the Firm Foundation Brother Brewer said: "I could devoutly wish that it were never again mentioned among my brethren". Bur in his commendation of Brother Hinds' tract he says: "I am going to urge the elders of the congregations where I go to buy this tract in one hundred lots and to give them to the members". That's fair and logical, too, isn't it? I wonder if these and so many other conflicts in Brother Brewer's statements and attitudes are due by any chance to "an abnormal state of mind" or is that just his normal way of doing?

There is no place in defense lines of the truth for time-servers. We need men who know where they stand and who will not lend comfort to the enemy. We need men who will do some of the fighting themselves instead of occupying an observation post to observe who is and who is not fighting in just the manner that he likes. It is an easy matter to stand by and criticize those who are in the fight but it is quite another matter to gird up the loins and do some of the fighting.

On this point my good friend P. W. Stonestreet hits the point with a pungent punch in a personal letter:

"I call attention to a significant statement by G. C. Brewer in his commendation of Brother Hinds' tract in the Gospel Advocate of December 26, page 1242, as follows:

Brother Hinds is fair and logical, and left personalities out of his discussion entirely. ' Even so, personalities left out or put in are only incidental to the essential proof adduced in any discussion and should, therefore, not be exalted, even by suggestion, to the place of essentials. But Brother Brewer knows that inasmuch as 'Christ on David's throne is now reigning is a very prominent phase of the subject that you discussed with Neal, which he opposed; and in his effort to suggest a difference between what he opposed then and what he commends now, he even resorts to an incidental! Even if Brother Hinds purposely left out that incidental, that in no way vitiates the fact that it is incidental to the discussion.

Of course, circumstances and individual methods properly govern the use of personalities in discussion. Christ and his apostles used both methods. Sometimes the personnel is sufficiently understood as to be properly omitted, but it is inconceivable that anyone, without an ax to grind, would even suggest such an incidental in commending a tract, as if the merits or demerits of a discussion were governed by incidentals!"

Brother Brewer might reply to this, or make more explanations, but how can he do it and leave the personalities out?