Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Though it is not possible to measure or quantify precisely the impact of premillennialism on the Lord’s church, the influence of this doctrine might appear, at first glance, to be slight.(1) Many people assume that because the doctrine is not actively taught among most churches of Christ it is therefore not worthy of much attention. After all, some reason, most of those actively teaching this doctrine were identified and exposed in the 1930s, weren’t they? Consequently, one does not often hear the doctrine preached about at all, pro or con, in many pulpits today.

One of the points we wish to emphasize in this article is that this sort of mentality helped create the climate in which the premillennial conflicts in the Lord’s church earlier this century were fought. Because the doctrine involves some subtle (and some not-so-subtle, to be sure) points of doctrinal discussion, some may be slow to see the significance of a thorough-going system of premillennial thought. Several generations of Christians, unschooled in the teaching and implications of this doctrine, now compose probably a majority of the membership of many congregations of the Lord’s people. Additionally, many have been converted from denominations which are steeped in one form or another of premillennial thought. It is needful for us not only to recall past battles over this doctrine, but to arm ourselves and do some preventative teaching on this subject before the climate becomes too inviting for history to repeat itself. A look at that history may prove to be profitable.

Much of pre-Civil War millennial hope took the form of a glorious post-millennialism, which anticipated the reform of society through religious conversion on a scale so grand that the return of Christ would inevitably follow.(2) Like other Americans of their time, many of the early “Restorationists” (Alexander Campbell and his Millennial Harbinger in particular)(3) shared the enthusiastic postmillennial optimism of their contemporaries; like their counterparts they saw their dream of an American millennium dashed by the war which sundered the nation. The aftermath of that conflict lead many who had anticipated the “marriage supper of the Lamb” instead to what has been called “the Great Barbecue.”

Post-Civil War Americans witnessed an ever-increasing series of “prophecy conferences” which became an identifying feature of much of conservative Protestantism, later styled “Fundamentalism.”(4) According to one church historian, “dispensationalism became standard for large numbers of Fundamentalists,”(5) and still another recent work identified The Roots of Fundamentalism as “British and American Millennarianism.”(6)

Meanwhile, the remnants of whatever socio-religious optimism had survived the nineteenth century normally found expression in “the social gospel.” By the First World War some of these religious liberals found in the Fundamentalists enough of a threat to their own modernism to launch an attack (or counterattack, depending upon one’s viewpoint). It was a frontal assault across the board, not only against the conservatives’ view of miracles and verbal inspiration, rejection of higher criticism and comparative religions, but on the Fundamentalists’ millennial views as well. Shailer Matthews’ journal The Biblical World carried articles on “The Premillennial Menace,” and the Christian Century carried at least 21 anti-premillennial articles during World War I.(7)

Naturally, the Fundamentalist response was to return fire, resulting in the full-scale warfare now known as the “Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy” of the 1920s.(8) Though evidently retreating in disarray following the death of William Jennings Bryan immediately after the Scopes Trial, this conservative-premillennial impulse was only shallowly submerged. It remained close enough to the surface of American religion to be seen by anyone who cared to look (which few did – particularly those in the political, social, and religious “mainstream”). Though perhaps finding limited expression in the early Billy Graham campaigns, this undercurrent of extreme premillennial (“dispensational”)(9) religious conservatism found even Graham too “ecumenical” for their taste.(10)

As is often the case, conditions in the denominational world had an effect upon some within churches of Christ. In 1908, several gospel preachers helped to arrange a public discussion between Charles T. Russell, leader of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and champion of their brand of millennial theology, and L. S. White, gospel preacher.(11) Among who, according to one source, became enamored of Russell’s style during the debate, and afterward concocted his own brand of premillennial theology.(12)

When Boll became the front-page editor of the Gospel Advocate in 1909, he began to use his column as a forum for the introduction and exposition of premillennial concepts. This led to friction with the management and editorial staff of the paper, and Boll was eventually dropped from the staff after a period of editorial skirmishes.(13)

A fuller account of these episodes has been related in some detail elsewhere,(14) and the format of this article will not permit us to explore them here. Suffice it to say that through debates and other exchanges occurring over the next twenty years, premillennialists became isolated from other brethren, at least in many places.(15)

In truth, since premillennial congregations, preachers, and Christians were a distinct minority among churches of Christ, premillennialism might be seen as having minimal impact on churches of Christ – numerically, at least.(16) Still, they were a visible minority, circulating a paper (Word and Work) and establishing a college at Winchester, KY, and a private school at Portland Avenue in Louisville. Generally, many Christians recognized that a division existed, whatever its size, between the two sides of this issue.

However, there was a larger group of Christians “on the fringes” of this movement, who were often referred to as “premillennial sympathizers” and were accused by many of being “soft on premillennialism.” While not publicly advocating the doctrine (indeed, usually publicly disavowing the doctrine iteself), they were seen by the more vocal premillennial opponents as lending moral support, if not aid and comfort, to premillennial advocates.(17) Charges and counter-charges were exchanged regularly from the 1920s to the 1940s and there were several dismissals and/or resignations from the faculties of various “Christian colleges.”(18)

Again, the story of these incidents has been recorded elsewhere; to recount them would require more space than we have available. However, an incident not previously published may serve to give some insight into the true impact of the premillennial controversy on the church. Perhaps the single factor most evident during this period was the unwillingness of many brethren, whether openly premillennial or not, to engage in any sort of controversy over the issue. Those who were involved with churches which eventually divided over the issue (for example, M.C. Kurfees and others in the Louisville area where R.H. Boll lived), or those whose disposition was to meet head-on any hint of deviation from sound biblical teaching (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., for instance), could see clearly the actual effects and future implications of the doctrine and would argue the case against premillennialism and its proponents. But others were not inclined to get too excited about the issue, urging “caution,” “love,” and insisting that “God’s grace” would cover deviations about doctrinal matters such as questions about God’s kingdom and the earthly reign of His Son. preached in various places throughout the state of Kentucky and elsewhere. Though dead many years, Jorgenson’s influence is still evident in the area of the country where I now live. He was perhaps best known as the compiler of the hymnal, Great Songs of the Church.

When Roy Cogdill came to Louisville for a meeting at the Bardstown Road church in April, 1942, he preached on premillennialism. during the week, and recorded some radio sermons on the subject to be broadcast after he left town. His preaching drew the ire of E.L. Jorgenson, who attempted to get Cogdill banned from the airwaves by surreptitiously writing to the management of radio station WGRC. Like other premillennial teachers, Jorgenson attempted to portray in public the very image of a sweet, loving, “non-controversialist” who wanted no breach of fellowship over the issue. What he (and others like him) apparently meant by insisting on the right to “disagree peacefully” was in reality their “right” to teach as they pleased, while expecting others to hold their peace about the subject. The incident over Cogdill’s radio sermons in Louisville demonstrated a more realistic portrait of premillennial. advocates than they intended.

Brother Cogdill had been involved in the fight against premillennial doctrines and teachers in the church from an early age. His first writing was done in 1923 in the Herald of Truth, published by E.M. Borden. It was Borden who made some of the original charges about Harding College’s sympathies toward premillennial teachers. Brother Cogdill had also formed a close friendship with Foy E. Wallace, Jr. – in whose paper Cogdill continued to write about premillennialism and which friendship continued through Wallace’s battles against premillennialists in the 1930s and 40s.(19) Brother Cogdill was preaching at the Norhill church in Houston when that congregation organized the Houston Music Hall meetings in 1946, inviting brother Wallace to preach on the subject of premillennialism – which sermons were later published by brother Cogdill’s printing company as God’s Prophetic Word.(20)

Jorgenson wrote to the radio station a month before Cogdill came to town – not waiting even to hear what Cogdill might say. His letter to the radio station charged that only two or three of about thirty churches in the Louisville area supported the kind of preaching Cogdill would do (a blatant falsehood), calling them “dogmatic, sectarian, and bitter in the extreme. . . they do not represent the Churches of this area even in doctrine, much less in spirit and attitude.”(21)

Because Jorgenson’s supposedly confidential letter was released to others and later published in the bulletin of one church, readers were (and are) able to judge for themselves who had the “attitude problem.” But it is this very idea that we wish to emphasize in the conclusion of this article. Historical hindsight seems to suggest that the churches in this period were experiencing a change of “climate.” Several decades had passed since their major rupture with the “Christian churches,” and a second (even the beginnings of a third) generation had come to maturity. Many preachers and Christians seemed to be allergic to any sort of controversy, and willing to do nearly anything to avoid it, including embracing premillennial teachers (if not their doctrine), “running interference” for them, and, at best, ignoring critics of premillennialism. Often, the only attack some were willing to make was to attack the opponents of the premillennial teachers.

It has been noticed by contemporary observers, including this author, that the descendant of those in premillennial churches are very open to “Restoration ecumenists” such as W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett.(22) Often, one hears premillennial theorists refer to their conception of God’s “grace” as making millennial views relatively unimportant (though they continue to insist upon teaching their particular views of millennial theories).

Several years ago, two of the surviving leaders of the premillennial churches commented upon the situation in years past, both mentioning some surprisingly similar ideas regarding the flavor of premillennialism. among churches of Christ. LaVern Houtz, president of the premillennial college (Southeastern Christian College at Winchester, KY), was interviewed in 1967 for the “avant-garde” (read: “liberal”) publication, Mission, by David Stewart of Sweet Publishing Company. When asked about “the attitude of openness among premillennialists,” Houtz said, “Among our brethren there is a great emphasis on grace rather than on legalism. The love of God manifested in Christ makes us more tolerant. We do not have as many tests of fellowship as does the legalist who bases salvation on doctrinal conformity.” Houtz also admitted the possibility that “premillennial churches of Christ feel a closer kinship to premillennial denominational groups than they do to other amillennial Churches of Christ.”(23)

Several years later, H.E. Schreiner, a stalwart among premillennial churches in Louisville (Schreiner had debated Robert Welch on the premillennial question in 1956), was asked by Ron Durham (then editor of Mission) to publish an article describing the premillennial movement. Durham was impressed with Schreiner’s “maintaining that the thousand-year reign was not the most basic issue at all in this particular division . . . The main issue, Schreiner says, was the doctrine of grace . . . The ‘pre-mills’ depended so heavily on the return of Christ that they also depended heavily on the forgiveness he would bring, and in fact appropriated it confidently in the present. Thus they enjoyed greater confidence of salvation than main liners. . .”(24)

That Durham is not misrepresenting is evident from Schreiner’s own comment that “the real issue dividing us was the grace of God. I found many who were depending upon their correct doctrinal position for salvation.”(25)

I must say that I find this particularly instructive in view of some current circumstances. It is dangerous to attempt to overdraw historical “parallels,” but we have heard much in the last fifteen years about “God’s grace” (or at least, some preacher’s perceptions of it), from some who seem to have an “aversion to controversy” (i.e., who want the right to teach their views about “fellowship” without being criticized). Some of those advocating “wider fellowship” have found a ready audience among a younger generation which grew up in relative peace, not having experienced firsthand the doctrinal controversies which tested the mettle of their spiritual forebears. I must wonder how much of the discussion has truly been about scriptural teaching on “grace,” and how much has been simply a mask for the yearnings of some for wider fellowship and greater “respectability.”

One wonders whether it was the case that premillennialism. had an “impact” on the church, or whether the type of climate had developed among churches in which many Christians either welcomed the doctrine, or, at least, were quite disinclined to consider its implications and confront this false doctrine. Certainly it is true that the doctrine itself developed from denominational ideas and contacts with sectarian preachers and publications – it certainly did not originate from the Scriptures. But the “impact” in terms of number of converts to the doctrine and preachers openly advocating premillennialism was slight. More significant, however, was the revelation of the larger numbers of Christians who were unwilling to oppose anything except those who were combatting the premillennial teachers. By the time that generation (and their children) and others they converted came to maturity, the time was ripe and the stage was set for a fullscale division in the 1950s.

If it is true that “those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” (and it is certainly true that “there is nothing new under the sun”), then we need to inform ourselves, “lest we forget.” Obviously, the “issues” of the future will not be the same, identical “issues” of past generations. The motivations, aspirations, and tactics of digressive teachers, however, often remain the same from generation to generation. It is a time for study, a time to teach about these issues and attitudes, and a time for resolve that we shall not fall victim to error – whether of teaching, practice, or attitude toward God, His word, or our brethren.

Endnotes

1. In 1976, a well-known premillennial preacher estimated that “today we number about 12,000 members” (H.E. Schreiner, “Of Love and Labels and the Thousand-year Reign” [Mission, 9:9, April, 19761, P. 198). Several years earlier, the president of the premillennial college at Winchester, KY, bracketed that figure with an estimate of “about 120 congregations embracing a membership of between 8,000 and 15,000 members” (David Stewart, “On Premillennial Views: An Interview With LaVem Houtz” [Mission, 2:8, February, 1969], p. 248).

The following section of this article, with accompanying notes, comes from the author’s “Millennialism and the American Political Dream, in Guardian of Truth, 26:4 (January 28, 1982), pp. 54-58t, reprinted in A Study of Premillennialism (Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1982), pp. 100-112.

Footnotes in this article are primarily to guide readers who might be interested to appropriate sources for further reading.

2. See, David Edwin Harrell, Quest for a Christian America (Nashville, DCHS, 1966), pp. 39-58.

3. See Steve Wolfgang & Ron Halbrook, “Alexander Campbell & The Spirit of the Revolution, I & II,” in Truth Magazine, 22 (February 16 & 23, 1978), pp. 123ff. & 137ff. See also Richard T. Hughes, “From Primitive Church to Civil Religion: the Millennial Oddyssey of Alexander Campbell,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (March, 1976), pp. 87-103; and Earl Kimbrough, “How the Restorers Dealt With Prophecy,” in The Restoration Heritage in America (Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976), pp. 57ff.

4. Named for a series of pamphlets titled “The Fundamentals” first appearing about 1910 and issued in four bound volumes by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917.

5. C.C. Goen, “Fundamentalism in America,” in American Mosaic. Social Patterns of Religion in the United States (Phillip E. Hammon & Benton Johnson, eds.; New York; Random House, 1970), p. 87.

6. Ernest R. Sandeen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970); reprinted in paperback edition by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978). Other recent studies of Fundamentalism include C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); and the excellent recent book of George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism & American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), cited below.

7. Marsden, pp. 147-148, 271.

8. For an excellent documentary of some aspects of the conflict, see Willard B. Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties.- Fundamentalism, Modernism & Evolution (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969).

9. The following books may be useful in separating the various strands of millennial thought (postmillennial, premillennial, amillennial, dispensational, pre-tribulational, post-tribulational, etc.): Robert C. Clouse, ed. The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), with chapters by George Eldon Ladd (Historic Premillennialism), Herman A. Hoyt (Dispensational Premillennialism), Lorraine Boettner (Postmillennialism), and Anthony A. Hoekema (Amillennialism): Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, ME Eerdmans, 1979); Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, ME Baker, 1977); For some historical backgrounds see Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), and C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1958).

10. Steve Wolfgang, “Neo-Evangelicals: Shift Toward Modernism, ” in Truth Magazine, 22:43 (November 2, 1973), pp. 694-696, especially note 61.

11. The debate was edited by F.L. Rowe and published as the Russell- White Debate (Cincinnati, 1909). See Earl West, “L.S. White,” Restoration Quarterly, 20:3 (Third Quarter 1977), pp. 151-155.

12. Robert C. Welch, “R.H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary,” in Melvin D. Curry, ed., They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, p. 52. See also Welch’s article, “Why Fellowship Does Not Exist With Premillennialists,” in A Study of Premillennialism, pp. 113-118.

13. Welch, “R.H. Boll,” p. 53. See also Edward Fudge, “Millennialism in the Restoration Movement,” Gospel Guardian, 21:12-14 (July 24-August 7, 1969), pp. 182-183.

14. William Woodson, Standing For Their Faith: A History Of Churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J & W Publications, 1979), pp. 107-130.

15. Probably the best-known debates on this question were (1) the Boll-Boles debate, entitled Unfulfilled Prophecy. A Discussion of Prophetic Themes (a written debate carried in the Gospel Advocate from May to November, 1927, and later published in the book form); and (2) the Neal-Wallace Discussion on the Thousand Years Reign of Christ (an oral debate also published by the Gospel Advocate, as a book, in 1933). Neal and Wallace had a similar discussion in Chattanooga, TN. In 1956, H.E. Schreiner debated Robert C. Welch in Louisville on this question, and this debate was also published.

16. A quick glance at Mac Lynn’s Where The Saints Meet for 1983 (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1982), shows approximately 100 premillennial congregations, primarily in Kentucky (36), Indiana (17) and Louisiana (26), with the remainder scattered through about ten other states.

17. Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey: Contender For the Faith (Akron: By the Author, 1964), pp. 264-267, 304, 310-312.

18. Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1969), pp. 213-219, 275-299, especially 215-216. Sears was Armstrong’s son-in-law. See also William S. Banowsky, Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ as Seen Through the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 196-199, and especially pp. 223-224).

19. Sears, pp. 213-215,277.! See also Roy E. Cogdill, “It is Written” (Guardian of Truth, 27:22 [November 17, 1983], pp. 685-686 [reprinted from Herald of Truth, 3:3-4, April 12-19, 1923]). Several of Cogdill’s articles from the 1930s have recently been reprinted in the Guardian of Truth. See “The Present Position of Jesus,” Guardian of Truth, 26:12 (April 15, 1982), pp. 224ff. (reprinted from Gospel Guardian, 1:1 [October, 1935], p. 33); and “The First and Second Coming of Christ,” Guardian of Truth, 26:17 (July 1, 1982), pp. 397ff. (reprinted from Gospel Guardian, 2:2 [February 19361, p. 27).

20. Steve Wolfgang, “There Were Giants in the Earth: A Sketch of the Life of Roy E. Cogdill” (Guardian of Truth, 29:14 [July 18, 1985], pp. 419ff). The author is at work on a biography of Roy Cogdill.

21. Jorgenson to Program Director, WGRC, Louisville, KY, April 16, 1942. A file of Jorgenson’s letters was on deposit in the Southeastern Christian College Library in 1976; xerox copies are in the author’s possession. The college was closed in 1979, and I am not aware of what became of Jorgenson’s papers. Also included in the file was a five-page “Analysis of Attack” by Jorgenson, Boll, and Cecil B. Douthitt, then living in Louisville, and a “confidential” letter to Jorgenson from J.N. Armstrong attacking Foy E. Wallace, Jr., as the editor of a “slanderous” paper with “evil designs. “

22. See Connie W. Adams, “A Pernicious Error Lives On,” Searching the Scriptures, 23:2 (February, 1982), pp. 27f.

23. Stewart, op. cit., p. 249.

24. Ron Durham, “In the Margins,” Mission, 9:9 (April, 1976), p. 194.

25. Schreiner, op. cit., p. 198.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 13-15, 29
January 2, 1986

By Marshall E. Patton

Lest We Forget – Instrumental music in worship unto God pierced with excruciating pain the precious spiritual body of our Lord and left in its wake a body cut asunder, life-long friends, relatives, and brethren alienated, a church impeded in its progress influentially and numerically, and many who were made the object of God’s wrath for all eternity. Furthermore, it left many confused, multiplied unbelievers, and militated against perhaps the most fervent prayer our Lord ever prayed: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20,21).

Anything so catastrophic in the history of God’s people merits careful, honest, objective study. There are other reasons – three primarily: (1) That God’s will might be fulfilled in the life of the individual; (2) That one might stand out of conviction and not because of tradition, emotions, friendship, or other worldly influences; (3) That one might do his part in preventing the same basic issue, in whatever form it may appear, rising up again and history repeating itself.

Its Early Use

Instrumental music worked its way into churches gradually and over the protest of many. The church at Midway’ Kentucky with L.L. Pinkerton as preacher, is credited by many as being the first to introduce the instrument into the worship of the church. This was done when a melodeon was used in its worship in 1859. At first its use was short lived, because of the discord it occasioned. Other churches, one by one, mostly large city churches, introduced the organ *into its worship. Serious eruption and finally division attended nearly every instance of its use.

How instrumental music gradually came to be firmly established in some churches may be accounted for in the following words:

Our brethren are freely introducing melodeons into their Sunday Schools. This is but the first step to the act, I fear. As soon as the children of these schools go into the church, in goes the instrument with them (Moses E. Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, 1867, p. 368).

The Controversy

There were some who simply could not worship with a clear conscience where the instrument was used. In order to maintain a clear conscience (1 Tim. 1:5), these were forced to leave such a congregation and seek out one that did not use it, or establish a new church. Whenever an issue arises involving joint participation in the thing questioned, clarity of conscience always becomes an issue. If it is forced upon the congregation, division is inevitable. Upon this basis Moses E. Lard wrote the following:

(1) Let every preacher in our ranks resolve at once that he will never under any circumstances, or on any account, enter a meetinghouse belonging to our brethren in which an organ stands. (2) Let no brother who takes a letter from one church ever unite with another using an organ. Rather let him live out of a church than go into such a den. (3) Let those brethren who oppose the introduction of an organ first remonstrate in gentle, kind, but decided terms. If their remonstrance is unheeded, and the organ is brought in, then let them at once, and without even the formality of asking for a letter, abandon the church so acting, and let all such members unite elsewhere (Lard’s Quarterly, 1864, pp. 330-336).

The first arguments in favor of the instrument in worship were made on the ground of expediency. The literature of that day reveals many exchange articles on this subject. Many who favored its use spoke out against it because they did not want it at the price of division. Such, however, insisted that its use was not a transgression. Isaac Errett and the Christian Standard, of which he was editor, occupied this position. Errett and the Standard had formerly occupied this position on the missionary society issue. Concerning instrumental music Errett said:

It is a difference of opinion. It is wrong to make this difference a test of fellowship or an occasion of stumbling (“Instrumental Music in Our Churches,” Christian Standard, Vol. V, No. 19 [May 7, 18701, p. 148).

Again H.T. Anderson in reply to Robert Richardson said:

I am no advocate for instrumental music in churches. But the Doctor with his legalism cannot legislate it out of the churches. I might easily say to him, where there is no law, there is no transgression. There is no law against instrumental music in churches; therefore, those who use it are not transgressors (“Law and Expediency,” Christian Standard, Vol. IV, No. 24 [June 12, 1869], p. 186).

The words of Robert Richardson clearly set forth the opposing view. He emphasized that expediency is not without law, but within law; that there can be no expediency until first there is law:

. . . no question of expediency can rightfully arise until it is first proved that the things themselves are lawful and proper to be done. . . it can have no place at all until law has first authorized something to be done, and that, therefore, its exercise must be restricted within the limits of some law, or rule of life and action (“Expediency Once More,” Christian Standard, Vol. IV, No. 10 [March 6, 1869], p. 73).

Ben Franklin wrote:

We put it on no ground of opinion or expediency. The acts of worship are all prescribed in the law of God. . . . If it is not an act of worship, or an element in the worship, it is most wicked and sinful to impose it on the worshipers. It is useless to tell us, It is not to be made a test. If you impose it on the conscience of brethren and, by a majority vote, force it into the worship, are they bound to stifle their conscience? Have you a right to compel them to submit and worship with the instrument? (“Two Standards,” American Christian Review, Vol. XII, No. 24 [June 14, 1870], p. 188).

Franklin said further in the same article concerning those who thus impose the instrument upon worshipers: “You cause division – You are the aggressor – the innovator. “

The use of instrumental music in worship is only symptomatic. The real issue was and is: Must one remain within the confines of law, having either generic or specific authority for the thing in question, or is he free to use as a matter of expediency whatever is not specifically forbidden in the Scriptures? Basically, the issue is one of an attitude toward the Scriptures. It is one of respect for authority.

The apostle Paul taught that before anything could be expedient, it must first be lawful (1 Cor. 10:23). Until someone can show that there is law (authority) for the kind of music in question, any kind of mechanical instrument is out of the question as an expediency. This fundamental rule or principle must be kept in mind, regardless of what the issue may be.

With the passing of time and as more churches came to use the instrument, the controversy became more heated. Other arguments were made, coercion was brought to bear, ugly epithets were hurled, bitter feelings were manifested, and a tragic division occurred. In the year 1906 the United States Census of Religious Bodies listed a once united brotherhood separately. Those favoring the missionary society and instrumental music in worship have generally been known as the “Christian Church” or as the “Disciples of Christ.” Those opposing these innovations have been identified as “churches of Christ” and simply as “Christians” individually.

Controversy Continued

Early in the controversy those favoring the instrument sought to justify its use on the ground of expediency which in their mind was without law not within law. Little appeal was made for scriptural authority. Later, however, especially when numerous debates followed in the wake of division, rather desperate and intensified efforts were made to justify its use by an appeal to scriptural authority. Here we find deceptive arguments, sophistry, and perversion of Scripture in evidence. Examples of this type of argumentation follows:

Instruments were used in Old Testament worship. True, while instruments of music were used by both Greeks and Jews in their worship during the Old Testament period and at the time the church was established, the hard, cold, historical fact is, New Testament churches did not. The Greek Catholic Church has never endorsed its use. It finally, over much protest, gained acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church sometime in the eighth century.

There are nine and only nine verses in the New Testament that relate to music in worship and every one of them involves singing – vocal music (Matt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13). Since New Testament worshipers must do all things “in the name of the Lord” (Col. 3:17), there is no way instruments of music in worship can be used by His authority. Also, remember, Paul said that those who seek justification today by the law of Moses “are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

The Greek word psallo in Ephesians 5:19 means to sing with mechanical instruments of music. If so, then it is strange indeed that the early church never so understood it. It is strange, too, that none of the standard translations so translate it. Furthermore, if this be so, then every one must use the mechanical instruments (have his own instrument) in order to obey God. For a further study of this argument in detail, I suggest Instrumental Music in the Worship by M.C. Kurfees.

The mechanical instrument of music is an aid to our worship, like song books, seats, and lights. Here the issue is one of expediency. If the instrument is an aid, the kind of music it produces must first be lawful. Since there is no authority for such, it follows that its use is an addition – not an aid. Song books, seats, and lights do not inject a new kind of music or element into the worship, but rather aids that kind already authorized.

Conclusion

While these examples do not exhaust the field of argumentation, they suffice to show something of the sophistry involved in the efforts to justify mechanical instruments of music in worship. The sincere individual will be content to “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9). Whatever the issue may be, he will not look for a prohibition against it, but rather look for the authority for it. God has not made a full list of the former, but He had made clear the latter in language too plain to be misunderstood by honest souls. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 5-6
January 2, 1986

By Sewell Hall

One of the largest trading companies in West Africa began as a religious mission sent from Switzerland to preach to the Africans. The evangelists had to bring their own supplies and they brought extra quantities to sell to the natives. As time went on these mercantile activities increased while their religious work diminished. Today, the only vestige of their original purpose is a 10% discount given to missionaries of other denominations.

Under the influence of the social gospel, many religious institutions have changed goals and activities as dramatically as that Swiss mission. Their change has not been as noticeable because they have continued to be called churches and operate under a religious banner. When all around us are changing it is easy for us to change without realizing it. “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard lest we drift away” (Heb. 2:1).

The Gospel Of Christ

Readers of this magazine do not need to be reminded that the gospel of Christ was good news of salvation from sin by the vicarious death, burial d resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Its major concerns were eternal, not temporal – heavenly, not earthly (Col. 3:1-4). Its purpose, as far as this life is concerned, was to transform the spirits of individuals into the image of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13). Whatever impact it was to have in correcting social evils was to be accomplished as a by-product of this transforming of individuals.

The gospel of Christ provided for no organization other than the local church with its “bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1: 1). This was sufficient for all that the gospel was intended to accomplish in remolding individual character. Achieving these goals did not require multi-million dollar multi-purpose buildings; a place for worship and teaching sufficed.

Modernism And The Social Gospel

The ancient world “did not like to retain God in their knowledge” and “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man” (Rom. 1:28, 23). In much the same way, men in recent centuries became dissatisfied with the gospel of Christ.

In the great universities of Germany, scientific objections to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith gained such credenc e in intellectual circles that theologians were forced to re-examine their traditional views. The historic creeds, which rested their claims to authority on the Holy Scriptures, were scrapped or reinterpreted in terms of evolutionary naturalism or divine immanence. Abandoned to the new culture were the inspiration of the Scriptures, the unique deity of Christ, the miracles, the atonement for sin, the bodily resurrection, the individual resurrection of the saints, the second coming of Christ unto final judgment, heaven, hell, and every vestige of the supernatural elements of the Christian faith. The mind of man was made the court of final appeal (James DeForest Murch, Christians Only, p. 224).

This development, commonly called “modernism,” spread rapidly through the Protestant world. Obviously, a rejection of the basic facts of the gospel and of its promises and warnings made the gospel altogether obsolete and irrelevant.

What were the theologians and their churches to do, now that they had renounced their creeds and the gospel on which they were based? Should they close up shop? This was most unlikely. Old institutions seldom die; they just change directions. And new directions were at that very moment demanding attention.

The industrial revolution in the country raised problems in business and political ethics, employer-employee relationships, economic competition, and the nature of poverty and its remedy which shocked many American social philosophers out of a well-worn complacency. No less serious were the social maladjustments connected with the unparalleled rise of huge cities. Slums, drunkenness, prostitution, organized crime, juvenile delinquency, abject poverty, and all the other problems of the sprawling, filthy cities were convincing realities that demanded that something be done (Ed Harrell, Gospel Guardian, Vol. XII, p. 225).

The theologians responded with the “social gospel,” defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary as “a movement in American Protestant Christianity initiated at the end of the 19th Century and reaching its zenith in the first part of the 20th Century and dedicated to the purpose of bringing the social order into conformity with the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

There is no question that Jesus taught some things relevant to these issues but He provided for no organized approach to such problems and they certainly did not form the burden of His gospel. On one occasion, when approached with a question of social injustice, He refused even on a personal level to be involved, telling the one who addressed Him to “beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:13-21).

Implications Of The Social Gospel

Since the social gospel was dealing with new problems, it required bold new approaches and imaginative solutions. The provisions of the ancient gospel of Christ were not sufficient. And having abandoned their faith in that gospel the proponents of the new gospel had no qualms in redesigning its provisions.

Local congregations may have been adequate for transforming individuals, but social problems were too large for any one assembly to tackle. The central organizations of the various denominations took on new significance as they multiplied departments and agencies through which local churches could do their work. And even this was not enough. The Federal Council of Churches of Christ was formed to unite the efforts of the denominations for more effective impact.

Obviously, “evangelists, pastors and teachers” were out of their element in dealing with complex social problems, so each church now needed youth directors, welfare workers’ marriage counselors, educators, activity directors, and a host of other “ministers” on its staff.

The old buildings with their simple facilities for worship and Bible teachings were quickly outmoded. New multi-purpose buildings were required if the church was to minister to “the whole man.” Lester McAllister, an author favorable to these developments writes:

The idea of making a congregation the center of community services came from the social gospel movement. . . . Among the features emphasized by an institutional church were libraries, meals for those persons needing them, gymnasiums and other recreation facilities for youth. Some congregations sponsored a “labor exchange” to help find employment for the unemployed (Journey in Faith, pp. 287-88).

Furthermore, social revolution which was the object of this social gospel required more than preaching. It required political action, media campaigns, boycotts, marches and a host of other pressure tactics to accomplish its purpose. It did not take long to involve the churches in such activities.

Churches of Christ

Have churches of Christ been influenced by the social gospel movement? Who could deny it? Was it not at the very zenith of the movement (as identified in the dictionary definition above) that the very first institutions for social service were built and attached to the churches. And the number now has multiplied. A directory of churches of 1983 lists 19 liberal arts colleges and universities, 96 child care agencies and facilities, and 37 senior citizen care facilities, most of which receive church support in one way or another. The directory does not even undertake to list the day care centers, kindergartens, elementary and high schools operated and supported by churches. None of these existed before the beginning of the social gospel movement.

The staff of many a “Church of Christ” has been expanded to include every kind of “minister” found in any other social gospel oriented church. The schools now offer training for “church workers” in an astounding variety of fields. Look at the new buildings being erected with offices for various counselors and ministers, kitchen and banquet facilities, family life centers and gymnasiums equipped for everything from basketball to video games. Such things were unheard of before the advent of the social gospel and were seldom seen even 20 years ago.

Consider the national publicity recently given to “Church of Christ opposition to pornography.” How was it opposed? By teaching each individual Christian to keep his “heart with all diligence” and to control his TV or radio? Doubtless some of this is being done. But the national publicity has been given to the combined efforts of many congregations in organizing political action, boycotts, and letter writing campaigns that have been directed at pornography as a social evil – clearly a social gospel approach.

In all fairness it must be stated that these churches did not travel the same route as the major denominations. Most have not denied the heart of the gospel and most still believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. These influences have come through two channels: First, a host of young preachers have been trained by teachers who in turn received their training in modernistic senimaries where the social gospel was fully accepted. Second, the congregations to which they preach are largely second and third generation Christians who have done little study of the New Testament pattern and get their ideas of what a church should be from their neighbors. Indeed, they are a bit embarrassed if the “Church of Christ” does not have all the facilities, staff, programs and institutions of which their neighbors boast.

Still desiring to be scriptural in their practices, batteries of preachers search diligently to justify these innovations by the Scriptures, and they succeed to the satisfaction of the innovators. But alas, their arguments, like the practices they defend, were unheard of among churches of Christ for the first 1900 years of their existence. It is clear that these concepts and practices originated in the mind of men, not in the mind of God.

Not one of us is beyond the reach of social gospel influence. Those of us who have not most strongly resisted some facets of it may well be tempted by others. Our strong feelings about abortion, communism, pornography, sale of alcohol, and other social evils can easily tempt us to involve the church in a social gospel type of attack, rather than being content to deal with them on an individual basis as the church was designed to do. We can find ourselves more concerned with finding some scriptural way to deal with social problems such as starvation in Ethiopia than we are with using the obviously scriptural approach to the problem of lost souls in that and other countries.

Conclusion

The real problems of the world are spiritual. The local church is God’s organization for dealing with such problems and the gospel of Christ is the means He has given us with which to confront them. Ten thousand other organizations are addressing the social problems of our day, using every conceivable resource. It is urgent that we not allow ourselves to be distracted from our unique mission nor disillusioned with God’s unique method.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 11-12
January 2, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

The challenge of spreading the gospel includes a place for “the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). In the course of his work, an evangelist may “abide still” at one place and function as part of a local church, giving rise to the expression “a located preacher” (1 Tim. 1:3). Some brethren have opposed that arrangement. In surveying the preacher’s work, we shall assess the impact of opposition to located preachers.

The Work of An Evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5)

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation.” “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 2:2). The heart of every Christian should throb with the same confidence in and determination to spread the gospel as Paul had. We all have the sacred duty and privilege of “preaching the word” (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:3-4). “The Christians of every age are under the same obligation to preach the gospel to every creature that the apostles were. How are we doing it?” (M.C. Kurfees, ed., Questions Answered By Lipscomb and Sewell, p. 503)

All Christians share in evangelism, but a man who especially devotes himself to this work is an evangelist or a gospel preacher in the sense of 2 Timothy 4:1-5. Not every Christian was recommended unto this work. While others stayed in some trade or profession to earn a living, Timothy devoted himself to long hours of study in God’s Word, to sacrificial efforts in proclaiming the truth, and to diligent labors in training new teachers (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:13-16; 2 Tim. 2:1-3; 4:1-5). The evangelist must “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” as he presents the truth to both sinners and saints, but he has no office or position of authority over the affairs of the church as elders do (Tit. 2:15; Eph. 4:11).

The preacher may divide his time with secular work to provide his physical needs, but that limits his time for daily study and evangelism (Acts 18:3-4; 17:17). To free his time for spiritual labors, individuals may share their material blessings with him (Acts 16:15; Gal. 6:6). One or more churches wanting to have fellowship in spreading the gospel may provide him financial support (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8). The latter arrangement is in the realm of liberty and expediency on the parts of both preachers and churches, just as is the question of whether a person marries or not. But no one is to doubt that preachers have the scriptural right “to forbear working” and that churches ought to be ready to support them when circumstances warrant it. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:1-14).

An evangelist may travel from place to place, preaching where Christ has not been named or visiting established churches to build them up (Rom. 15:20; Acts 14:21-23). Such work is right, but abuses can occur. Travel can help to hide dishonesty, immorality, false teaching, compromise, double talk, laziness (less need for fresh study), and greed (taking financial support from a church without staying to face and resolve problems in the church). He may not abide long enough with a church to help train local brethren to preach and teach; then they must depend on “outsiders” for most of their teaching program.

Some brethren insist that a true preacher must travel almost constantly on the theory that the word “evangelist” means a traveling missionary. But the word means one who brings, and expounds the good news of salvation in Christ, no matter how long or short his stay. One theory says that we can “preach” (but not teach) the “gospel” (but not doctrine) to the “lost” (but not to saints), but we “teach” (not preach) the “doctrine” (not gospel) to “saints” (not the lost). By this theory, preachers cannot address established churches but must always be afoot. Actually, “preach” and “teach” maybe used interchangeably (Rom. 2:21). The Apostles had only one message or revelation, not a “gospel” plus a “doctrine,” and it was called the gospel, doctrine, message, word, truth, will of God, way, light, faith, treasure, and testament or covenant (1 Cor. 2:2; Eph. 4:5; Col. 1:5; 1 Jn. 1:5, 7; 2 Jn.9). Paul could preach the gospel to saints and Peter teach the doctrine to the lost (Rom. 1:7, 17; Acts 5:28).

Since Ephesians 4:16 speaks of the church edifying itself, some say this requires “mutual edification” or public preaching by the general membership, excluding a located preacher. This makes the passage teach mutual sermons in public assemblies. In that case, women are included because it says “every part.” The passage simply teaches Christians to help each other and to seek to save the lost, according to our abilities and opportunities. The body has many members and functions – all are not mouths (1 Cor. 12:14-20). Arrangements for public teaching are matters of expediency, including the role of a located preacher.

Another abuse of the work of a preacher who travels is his pastoring the church. Some bluff a local church by claiming, “You cannot cancel my appointment to preach (because I am a member here, or because I oversee this church, etc.).” Some openly claim “evangelistic oversight” until they choose to personally select elders, based on a misuse of what Paul said to Titus, “. . that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders. . . ” (1:5). Paul did not tell Titus to oversee the church or to choose its elders, but to preach the word -including the qualifications for elders – so that he could ordain elders (2:15). When men are to be ordained or appointed to an office, the church itself does the selecting (Acts 6:1-7).

An evangelist may abide, remain, or locate in one place and work with an established church for any length of time. Paul established a church in Ephesus and ended up staying three years (Acts 20:31). Timothy was to “abide still at Ephesus” and “do the work of an evangelist” even though there were elders there (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:5). A preacher may be paid wages in order to give his full time to this work. Some object to the wages being stipulated in advance, but the Holy Spirit used a word for the preacher’s pay which can include a stipulated salary just as a soldier received (1 Cor. 9:7; 2 Cor. 11:8; Lk. 3:14). The work of a located preacher is scriptural, but he must guard against many of the abuses mentioned earlier. He must never try to be a one man pastor nor fail to develop local talent (2 Tim. 2:2).

Opposition to Located Preachers

Why do so many churches use a located preacher? It increases the time he has for evangelistic work in all phases and therefore increases the fruit or harvest of such work. This strengthens the overall work of the local church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). He is not doing someone else’s work so that they can sit down and do nothing in the service of God, any more than Paul or Timothy did. If 30 people work in a factory and harvest oranges when not in the factory, they may support one of their number so that he can harvest oranges on a full time basis. This does not mean the others quit harvesting when not in the factory or that the one man claims to do all their picking for them. They have simply made a wise provision for a larger harvest. God made it possible for us to increase our labors and harvest in the same way!

Not every church without a located preacher opposes the arrangement. Some may have a located preacher but allow him to receive outside support for a time. There may be many reasons for such variations because expediency teaches us that it is not always best to exercise a legitimate right at certain times (1 Cor. 9:12). Planting new churches in a region or rescuing churches from a rising tide of apostasy often requires preachers to travel more. But sometimes churches which could increase their labors with a located man are guilty of apathy and neglect. Some folks will not sacrifice to give enough money to adequately support a man.

The basic arguments of opponents of a located preacher have already been noted. False theories have been built around terms like evangelist, preach-teach, gospel-doctrine, mutual edification, and evangelistic oversight. Opponents harp on abuses such as greed, failure to develop local talent, or the one-man pastor (which they themselves advocate before elders are appointed!). They object to a preacher locating, then to his being paid by the church where he is located, and then to a stipulated wage.

It is often claimed that past preachers who emphasized the restoration plea for Book, Chapter, and Verse uniformly opposed located work but that it came only with the extreme liberalism and apostasy associated with instrumental music and missionary societies. Actually, brethren have differed on the located preacher through the years and generally avoided division over it. Apostates favored the idea of a preacher literally being a one-man pastor about 1875-1900 (W.M. Smith, Servants Without Hire, pp. 40-64, gives the history of this transition), and some brethren over reacted by equating the one-man pastor with all “settled,” “stationed,” or “located” preachers. Ironically, a number of those who over reacted themselves advocated the “evangelistic oversight” theory mentioned earlier. From 1900 through the 1950s brethren who opposed such apostasies as instrumental music suffered division at times over the located preacher controversy.

The roots of controversy and over reaction over this issue reach back to the beginning of the restoration efforts in America (and even earlier in Scotland). Alexander Campbell 1788-1866) throughout his life struck needed blows against the presumptions of the priests and other clergymen in Catholicism and denominationalism, but especially during the Christian Baptist years of 1823-30 he went to such an extreme in opposing “the hireling system” as to hinder the just “remuneration of preachers,” as his friend Lard observed (Lard’s Quarterly, Oct. 1866, pp. 377-82). The results were that many preachers suffered want, many churches were stingy, and many charlatans posed as traveling preachers – all of which Campbell tried to solve by helping to organize the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 (Smith, pp. 30-36). He could not see that this step introduced a spirit of liberalism and apostasy which would lead succeeding generations to embrace the pretensions of the one-man pastor system which he detested so much! And, over reaction to such apostasies led to strife and sects centered on the no-located-preacher concept – a division he would have detested!

Philip S. Fall (1798-1890) preached for the church in Nashville, Tennessee during 1826-31 and 1858-77, as did Jesse B. Ferguson (1819-70) during 1846-56. J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) labored full time with the church at Dover, LaFayette Co., Missouri (1853-62), and in Lexington, Kentucky with Main St. (1862-67) and Broadway (1870-82). “When I first returned to Kentucky, in the spring of 1862, there were only seven congregations in the State, I think, that were supporting preachers to labor exclusively in their midst; now I can count twenty-three that are doing so habitually,” McGarvey noted later (Apostolic Times, 19 Nov. 1874, pp. 4-5). As a result of this improvement, churches were growing stronger, he added. Moses E. Lard (1818-80) has been quoted as opposing a located preacher, but he plainly said, “We have not the least objection to a preacher laboring for the same congregation, if need so require, for one year or ten, as the case may be, but we want him to do so simply as preacher and not as pastor” (L.Q. Apr. 1865, pp. 258-59).

M.C. Kurfees (1856-1931) wrote a monumental refutation of apostasy, Instrumental Music In Worship, but he also warned against making a law which says “a preacher may remain at a place three weeks, three months, or three years, and then move to another place” (Gospel Advocate, 6 Feb. 1913, p. 129). For over 45 years, 1886-193 1, he worked with the same church in Louisville, Kentucky. When F. W. Smith (1858-1930) discussed different views on the located preacher in 1917, he agreed that a preacher may “make tents” for a living, but asked, “Should churches permit him to do this while the time spent in making bread could be devoted to saving souls?” (Murfreesboro Addresses, pp. 135-47) As to the “settled ministry or salaried preacher” F.B. Srygley (1859-1940) warned against the idea of preacher as a mere profession or as a “modern pastor,” but added that no one could justly say “a man might not stay two whole years in one city and keep busy all that time trying to save people and teach them to worship God ‘as it is written'” (G.A., 5 June 1930, pp. 539-40).

Dangers, Tendencies, and Results of Opposition

What are the results of dogmatic opposition to the located preacher? (1) It may cause us to reach fewer souls with the gospel. (2) Unworthy and unprincipled men can pose as preachers by constantly moving before brethren learn their true nature. (3) There is the danger of preachers taking unscriptural authority over churches under the theory of “evangelistic oversight.” (4) The “appointment system” of having a different preacher each week of the month often gives the church an unbalanced and superficial diet of teaching. (5) It hinders growth in giving upon the first day of the week for the support of gospel preaching. Rather than learning to sacrifice for the Lord’s work, Christians feel justified in their covetousness since men “will avail themselves of any excuse to retain their money” rather than part with it even in the Lord’s work (L. Q., Oct. 1866, pp. 377-82).

(6) The spirit of binding where God did not bind may grow stronger if cultivated. There has been a tendency for the no-located-preacher idea to be clustered with other extreme views and tangents, such as the doctrines of one-cup, no Bible class, no women teaching classes of women or children, and no Bible study literature.

(7) The agenda of no located preacher and a few related items are often stressed while many great truths of the gospel are ignored. Where such traditions reigns, brethren and churches are judged “sound” on the basis of the limited agenda in spite of personal ungodliness or liberalism and apostasy in the church (Matt. 23:23; Mk. 7:9).

(8) The swinging pendulum syndrome can be seen in the no-located-preacher movement. History teaches us that a factional spirit causes friction, alienation, disruption, and division among brethren. As the circle of fellowship is drawn smaller and smaller, some brethren become so isolated and disillusioned that an opposite reaction sets in. Now the pendulum swings in the opposite direction and people draw the circle of fellowship wider and wider. It is hard to stop the pendulum at the medium of truth.

In opposing the liberalism of 1875-1900, Daniel Sommer (1850-1940) also opposed located preachers, thus causing friction among brethren in the early 1900s. But then he stood with several friends in publishing “The Rough Draft: Can’t We Agree on Something?” – a plea for located preachers, “mutual edification,” and similar matters to be settled as expediencies by each church (21 June 1932, American Christian Review). Sommer’s peace effort came too late for son D. Austin and protege W. Carl Ketcherside, who with Leroy Garrett continued holding debates and dividing churches over the issue well into the 1950s. (The best debate is the Humble-Garrett Debate of 1954.) But after that, Ketcherside and Garrett led a new unity movement now embracing Catholicism, denominationalism, and modernism. In debating the located preacher issue at Beech Creek near Meador, West Virginia (22-26 July 1985), my opponent argued that “gospel preaching, as done by Timothy,” passed away with miraculous gifts and cannot be done either by locating or traveling today. Such extreme views isolate brethren from all who use evangelists in any way, which can prepare the pendulum to swing over to a radical ecumenical position.

Three things are needed. Let every Christian diligently spread the gospel of Christ (Acts 8:3-4). Some men must be fully devoted to preaching the word and churches willing to support them, that we may increase the harvest of souls (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Cor. 9:14). Brethren and churches should never be divided over the use of authorized expedients in evangelism, but should show mutual love and respect while each church tries its best to sound out the word of the Lord. (1 Thess. 1:8).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 16-18
January 2, 1986