Has Their Plan Failed?

Has Their Plan Failed?

“HAS THEIR PLAN FAILED?”
By Melvin J. Wise The plan or plea of the leaders of the restoration movement for bringing about unity among believers has been well presented. The results obtained through their efforts have been forcefully recalled to our minds. It is now my obligation to answer the question: “Has Their Plan Failed?” It goes without question that their plan was successful when first applied.

Perhaps the best expression of the great objective of the restoration movement is expressed by Moses E. Lard in the following: “The restoration was to consist in holding precisely and only to what is taught in the word of God and in founding our practices strictly thereon. It was determined that the final end to which the restoration should look is a complete return to primitive Christianity in doctrine, in practice, and in spirit. All of which is concisely expressed in the following decision: To believe precisely what the Scriptures teach, to practice only what they enjoin, and to reject everything else. Hence, the restoration proposed was to be marked, positively, by accepting as matters of faith, what and only what the Holy Scriptures teach; practically, by doing everything and only what they enjoin; and negatively, by rejecting everything which they do not sanction.

Hence all practices having their origin in tradition, human reason, or expediency are utterly eschewed. Such was the restoration proposed by Mr. Campbell and his brethren” (Lard’s Quarterly, 1863). Hence their plea was an undenominational plea for the apostolic order “in doctrine, in practice, and in spirit.” In short it was the same plea made by Peter, James, and Paul; expressed well in Paul’s words “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Hence, to say that their plea has failed is to say that the gospel, from which their plea came, has failed. But the gospel is to endure for ever (1 Peter 1:25). But there was a departure from their plea. Just as there was an apostacy from the primitive order of things during the early centuries of our era, there was a departure from the plea of the restoration movement of the past century. It shall, then, be my task to show that the plea is not at fault; it has not failed; but that religious division came within the ranks of those who claimed to be aligned with those who were so earnestly endeavoring to reproduce the church that was built according to the divine pattern. History was, repeating itself, and men arose within the ranks of the church “speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” The transition of the apostolic church as established by Christ, with its simplicity of organization and worship, into the apostate church, with its multiplicity of corruptions and innovations, was gradual, covering a period of five or six centuries; but the departure from the restoration plea was more rapid, covering only a few decades.

The plea for Christian unity, which characterized the restoration movement, has been so completely surrendered by one group of people that a great gulf now separates the two bodies, who at the beginning of this great movement were both one. They no longer “speak the same things,” but divisions exists among them. So divided are they that they are known by different names. One group call themselves, “Progressives,” while they refer to their opposing brethren as “Non-Progressives.” When they think it expedient to refer to them in a complimentary manner they use the term “Conservative Brethren.” The other group call themselves “Loyal Brethren” or “Non-Digressives,” while they refer to their opposing brethren as “Digressives.” Personally I think that the late and beloved Brother F. B. Srygley named them well when he gave them the name “Transgressive Brethren.” The United States Census Bureau lists, the two groups as “Disciples of Christ” and “Church of Christ.” This situation forces us to accept one of these two alternatives: Either to “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent” will not unite the disciples of Christ into one body and restore the New Testament church as the leaders of the restoration movement so earnestly plead that it would; or else somebody has failed to apply the plea, and has, therefore, departed from the original position. Let us notice the plea again: “To believe precisely what the Scriptures teach, to practice only what they enjoin, and to reject everything else.” Hence the essence of the plea is to have Bible authority for all things that we do in religion. To fail to do this is to digress from the apostolic order. Which alternative shall we accept? To say that the plea has failed is to say that the Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and not sufficient as a basis of unity. We cannot agree to this. Then we are forced to the other alternative—that somebody has departed from the original ground and surrendered the plea. Who is it, and how have they departed?

Without misgiving, we charge that our brethren who call themselves “Progressives” have surrendered the restoration plea, have digressed from the ancient order of things. So far have they departed that they have no right to claim any just relation to the restoration movement, nor any Scriptural identity to the New Testament church. They are a denomination among denominations.

There are two evils of digression: Innovation and Organization. They go hand in hand, and seldom, if ever, separate. These brethren have introduced into the worship and practice of the church things unmentioned in the Scriptures, so that their worship is in many instances on the level with entertainment. They have organized and departmentized the work of the church, so that the church is merely a by-product of these organizations.
Let us now notice some innovations and unscriptural practices of the “Progressive brethren.” In these they have gone “beyond that which is written.”

Instrumental Music
This was not the first departure, but I mention it first in the list. The man does not live that can prove by either sacred or profane history that any New Testament church ever used instrumental music in its worship. There is no command, example, or inference in the New Testament authorizing its use in Chiistian worship. Neither did the churches of the nineteenth centuiy use it for more than sixty years. In 1867 the Christians worshipping on Vine Street in St. Louis, Missouri, decided that they needed a better house of worship in a better location. They purchased a meeting house from the Episcopal people on Seventeenth and Olive Street. It was well furnished with carpet runners in the aisles, cushion seats, and a $3,000.00 organ had been built into the biick walls up in the organ loft. Soon after they began meeting in this building the question arose as to what should be done with the organ. The debate waxed warm and the feeling got so strong on one occasion that the organ party locked the anti organ party out, and they had to go to a private home to worship. A committee was appointed to arbitrate. L. I. Wilkes, of Columbia, Missouri; J. K. Rogers, president of Christian College, Columbia, Missouri; and Isaac Errett were selected as arbitrators. These brethren were eminent Bible scholars and able defenders of the apostolic faith. They decided against the organ party, and the organ was torn out of the walls of the building and sold. The organ party withdrew from the congregation and began meeting in a rented hall. They afterwards built the Central Christian Church of St. Louis. The Olive Street church grew rapidly, but later among them there arose those who were not satisfied with the decision of the committee, and in 1869 an organ was placed in the Olive Street church. At other places instruments were forced in over the protest and prayers of the faithful, and those who would not concede to the innovation were forced to worship in their homes, and elsewhere. In many places the question of ownership of the property arose, and the matter was taken into the civil courts to the reproach of the church, a direct violation of 1 Corinthians 6. Much strife, animosity, and faction resulted. All of this was over what? Somethin# for which there was no command, example, or inference of sanction in the New Testament; yet the very plea of the restoration movement was “Where the Bible speaks we speak, and where the Bible is silent we are silent.” Those who advocate the use of instrumental music in worship have exhausted their ef-forts, in quest of some Scriptural authority for their practice. Among their stock-in-trade arguments is: “The Bible does not say anything about not using instrumental music in Christian worship.” In making this argument they overlooked the latter part of their plea: “Where the Bible is silent we are silent.” Thus, they fail to recognize the silence of the Scriptures.

Eight miles from Paris, Kentucky, there still stands, an old meeting house called Cane Ridge. This was built in 1791 by a small Presbyterian church, which had as its minister, Barton W. Stone. In 1804 he was, successful in leading the whole congregation to repudiate all human names in religion, abandon all human creeds, be called by the name “Christian” only, and accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. This was the first congregation of the restoration movement. (This was three years before Thomas Campbell came to America, and five years before Alexander Campbell set foot on American soil, yet, brethren, the people insist on calling us “Camp- bellites”). But today, just a few feet from where Barton W. Stone preached to the earnest and pious souls who gathered there in the long ago, there sets an organ. If it were possible for him to arise some Lord’s day morning from his deathly sleep in the old church graveyard, he could not go into the old meeting house and worship God with those who now gather there. Hence this innovation is a definite departure by these brethren from the plea of the great restoration.

Missionary Societies
The man does not live who can read out of God’s Book anything about a missionary society, save the church of Jesus Christ. God’s wisdom is to be made known by and through the church (Ephesians 3:10). The church is, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). But about the middle of the nineteenth century some began to advocate the organization of churches into a society to do the work of evangelism. Those who were making a plea for the divine order admitted the Scripturalness of cooperation of sister congregations to do this work, but to form an organization of churches would not only be going “beyond that which is written,” but that it would also destroy congregational autonomy. It was a case of not being able to see the difference betwen cooperation and organization. The difference is between man’s wisdom and God’s wisdom. The church at Philippi “sent once and again unto Paul’s necessity” (Php_4:16); but this was cooperation and not organization.

Nevertheless in October, 1349, the American Christian Missionary Society was organized at a general convention of churches in Cincinnati, Ohio. Alexander Campbell was made the president of this society when it was first organized, and was kept as, its president until his death on March 4, 1866. Thus for sixteen years he was its president, yet he never presided over any of its sessions. ^ Rather a unique experience for a president was it not? He was named president because of his great influence in the brotherhood, thus to give the organization all of the prestige possible. But Alexander Campbell was never in favor of or-ganization to the extent of overshadowing the church. His attitude toward organization was expressed in the Millenial Harbinger, 1850, page 64: “It was intended and ordered that the glorious work of evangelizing the heathen should be committed to the church itself, not to separate societies within it and around it.”

Other societies, were organized, but they have all merged into what is known as the United Christian Missionary Society. One great evil of the missionary society, aside from its unscripturalness, was that it dominated the churches. It began to dictate to the churches and became a conference to locate preachers with the churches. If the preachers were not supporters of the society, they were not recommended by the society to the churches.

Conventions
A contemporary with the organization of the society, was the holding of conventions. Both are outgrowths of each other. The watchmen on the walls of Zion protested and endeavored to show that such meetings were not held among apostolic churches, but that such meetings became the medium of an apostacy during the second and third centuries. The “Progressive” brethren insisted that such meetings were for everyone who might desire to attend, and that, no power to legislate would be in the hands of any one individual. But the extreme which is now about to be reached in this organization is that no one shall have a voice in the meeting unless he be sent as a delegate from his home church. This, of course, will make the convention develop into an official, law-making body. Churches sending delegates will be bound by the decision of the delegates reached at the convention. In New Testament times, churches cooperated by means of a messenger. A messenger is the bearer of a message. He has no authority delegated to him to act for those sending him other than to deliver the message. When he delivers the message and returns the answer, if any answer is necessary, his work as a mes-senger ends. A delegate is one sent by a body to speak for the body he represents in forming plans which are binding upon the body he represents. In New Testament churches they had no delegates, they sent messengers.

Ladies Aid Societies
What authority have we for them? Not any. Their purpose was to aid in raising money to help in the church expense and paying the preacher. How did they do this? By having socials, suppers, and bazaars; by selling doughnuts, chili, hot tamales, hot dogs, and candy; by selbng old clothes to the poor that should have been given to the poor at least a year or so before. This, of course, brought another innovation end usurpation of Scripture. How is the Lord’s work to be financed? Not by the church going into a commercial business, but by each one giving upon the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:2) as he has purposed in his own heart (2 Corinthians 9:7). But suppose enough money w ill not be contributed? But enough will be given, for Paul said: “And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8).

Receiving the Unimmersed into the Church
The charge is not made that this unscriptural practice is universal among the “Progressive” brethren. This, like all other innovations, has started only in some localities among them. The New’ Testament teaches that penitent believers are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27). The New Testament teaches also that baptism is performed by immersion (Acts 8:3639; Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12). The New Testament further teaches that there is “one” baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Hence to receive the unimmersed into the church is a definite departure from the faith.

Time will not permit me to point out in this lecture the innovations of feaid choirs, pianists, and organists; the partaking of the Lord’s Supper on other than the Lord’s day; and the dedication of babies. Again I say that thes.e are not practiced universally among the “Progressive” brethren, but nevertheless they have been practiced in some localities under my own observation.

If Alexander Campbell were alive today he would not be akin in any religious way to these transgressive brethren. His writings, show his attitude toward their innovations and organizations. Yet they unhesitatingly propagate the falsehood that they are identified with the Restoration Movement. If he were here today, those who try to ride upon his fame and loyalty would call him a mossback, and treat him in the same indignant way that they treat us.

Some Evil Tendencies Among Us Today
I want to point out some dangerous tendencies which are among us today. By “us” I mean those of us who still claim to “speak where the Bible speaks,, and to be silent where the Bible is silent.” By “tendencies” I mean those things that are apt to cause us to shipwreck in the midst of peril and turmoil, and give up entirely the Restoration plea. Now to consider briefly some of these tendencies.

Institutionalism
Just as the transgressive brethren departed through the route of organization, so it is possible for us to take a similar route; the route of institutionalism. I am interested in all things that the church is to do, but I am intensely interested in keeping any movement or institution inferior to, and apart from the church, even though it may claim relation to the church. It is so easy for us to develop a one track mind. It is so easy for me to decide that the thing that I am most interested in is the most important thing in the church. Thus one says that Orphan Home work is the most important work that the church can be engaged in. Some say that the church will die unless we take more interest in the young people. Some say that the hope of the church of tomorrow lies in the Christian colleges. Then some say that the religious periodicals keep the church alive with vision, zeal, and activity. These various causes are helpful in advancing the great cause of Christ, but they are in no sens,e subsidiaries of the church. You may organize an institution or movement today larger than the local church and you will soon have an authority dictating to the churches. The Modern Pastor System
It will not be denied by any of us that the New Testament church had elders to oversee the flock. Evangelists preached the word to these churches, from one to more than two years; they were sent out by these churches to evangelize the virgin fields; but nothing is inferred in the sacred Scriptures of any preacher “taking charge/’ “taking the work,” or “running the church.” The only names for the officers of a local church were elders (also called bishops, presbyters, overseers, shepherds, pastors) and deacons. There is nothing said in the oracles of God about a “board of elders and deacons/’ the “chairman of the board,” or the “senior elder.”

Losing Sight of the Mission of the Church
It cannot be denied that the mission of the New Testament church was the salvation of lost souls. The mission of the church is co-extensive with the mission of Christ who is the head of the church. “ . . . . Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . . .” (1 Timothy 1:15). Jesus, said: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Since “the gospel of Christ is the power of Cod unto salvation” (Romans 1:16), it then becomes the duty of the church to preach the gospel. The New Testament church was animated with a pass,ion for souls. After the dispersion, the members of the Jerusalem, church “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). It is too evident to be denied that many congregations have lost their true mission. Many congregations today are more interested in a “program of work” than in the proclamation of the good news. Many are more interested in the “building program” than the “mission program.” How many churches today can hold a mission meeting on a city corner lot or in a country schoolhouse and enlist the support of half of its members? The Peril of Compromise
The compromise is twofold:
1. A compromise in doctrine.
When Peter and Paul preached the people were stirred. "When Peter preached to the Sadducees (Acts 4) he preached to them on the resurrection of Christ, the very thing which they opposed, yet the very thing which they definitely needed to hear. When Paul and Silas came to Thess.alonica the people cried out: “These that have turned the world ups,ide down are come hither also” (Acts 17:6). When Stone, Campbell, Scott, and Smith preached, they preached both a positive and a negative message. Postively, they preached that which was authorized by the Scriptures; and negatively, they preached against all that which was practiced and taught by the various, sects of their day, which was not authorized by the Scriptures. The leaders of denominationalism opposed them; they could not oppose them with the truth, but with prejudice, bigotry, and enmity.
There is no more love today among the ranks of sectarianism for those who are contending for the apostolic order than there was in Stone’s and Campbell’s day. Only the manner of opposition has changed. They do not come out and openly condemn “Campbellism” so-called, as they once did from the press and pulpit. They no longer cross s,words with us as they did in the earlier days. Since they have discovered that our plea is scriptural and our position is as impregnable as the Rock of Ages, they have decided it wiser and more effective to retire from the conflict and try to overcome us by compromise and fraternalism. Many of our brethren have fallen victim of this strategy. Many gospel preachers, so-called, no longer aim their guns at denominationalism. They have fraternalized, compromised, and are holding conference with the foe. But all such have sold their Lord for popularity and fame, and have become enemies to the cross of Christ.

2. A Compromise with Sin
Even though many of our brethren have gone in for a stand-for-nothing religion; yet I am persuaded that the majority preach the truth. But not all have cried out in thunderous tones,, in tones of Jeremiah, Elijah, and John the Baptist, against worldliness and sin. There is entirely too much levity among preachers; there is among us a laxity of piety and purity. The increase of the divorce evil, the laxity of morals, the peril of worldliness in the church can never be legislated out ; they must be preached out, beginning with a sermon by example on the part of the ministry. We need to learn and ever remember that we must “keep under our bodies, and bring them into subjection, lest that by any means, when we have preached to others, we ourselves should be a castaway.”

Conclusion
I trust that we have been able to see that the Restoration plea has not failed; but that it has not been faithfully adhered to by some, and as a result they have departed from the primitive pattern; they have definitely become a sect.
I trust that we have also been able to see that there are also currents that beat upon us today, and that these currents tend to sweep us from our anchorage in the faith.