The Hunton - Hardeman Interview --- (II.)
Furthering the review of the Gospel Advocate interview between brethren Paul Hunton and N. B. Hardeman, I wish to quote from the Boswell - Hardeman Debate:
"Why, he says, Hardeman is not on scriptural grounds, and the reason that he is not on scriptural grounds is that he opposed instrumental music. Well, brother Boswell, you said that we could render correct service to God without it. Suppose I did oppose it; am I not scriptural when you say that I can do it successfully and correctly without it? But he wants to know, and it is a fair suggestion, and I want to deal fairly with him. He says: 'Brother Hardeman now mark — 'do you have the right to oppose what I have a right to do?' I am going to say to you: No, if you have the right to do it, brother Boswell, I have no right to oppose it; but your right to do it is the thing that is in question. You have no right to do that. Why? Because not one single word have you read from the Bible as direct authority, apostolic example, or necessary inference. Upon what, ladies and gentlemen, is that right based which proposes to be the right to introduce instruments of music? If he would furnish the proof of it other than say-so declaration, then my right to oppose it would cease; but in the absence of the proof I have the right to oppose it." (pp. 140, 141)
When I severed my relation with Charlotte Avenue Congregation, in Nashville, in November of 1958, as elder and member, over the current issues (the elders stood nine to one, and, therefore, I was over-powered) and placed membership with Franklin Road, I was told that they did not believe in supporting orphans. I made inquiry and found that they have been and still are supporting some orphans. I have recently read the file and can report first hand. Although I am not seeking to defend that congregation nor do they know I am thus writing. But I want to ask brother Hardeman if they have the right to thus care for these children, as a church, directly, without going through the institutional board and doing it in the "orphan home" which the board provides? If he says yes, then by his argument above, to brother Boswell, he has no right to oppose us in it. As he told brother Boswell that it was what he had added that was in question; so in this case, it is not the right of the local church to care for its orphans individually that is challenged, but it is the human organization with its board of directors which builds and runs the orphan home on funds collected from the church treasuries, that is in question. We deny that they have such right, therefore we oppose it.
Now let me state in brother Hardeman's language, quoted above: "But your right to do it is the thing that is in question. You have no right to do that. Why? Because not one single word have you read from the Bible as direct authority, apostolic example, or necessary inference....if he would furnish the proof of it other than say-so declarations then my right to oppose it would cease; but in the absence of the proof I have the right to oppose it."
So, if brother Hardeman, or any one, will produce just one scripture showing that a New Testament Church did or was ever authorized to give aid to the poor through some institutional board comparable to the present boards of directors and heads of the institutional organizations among us, we will immediately acknowledge their right to so act and forthwith cease our opposition thereto. Until then, we have the right to oppose.
In Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons (Vol. 2, p. 206), brother Hardeman said:
" 'Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, (watch it) To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.' (James 1:27) But that is not all. That is a duty obligatory not only upon individual Christians, but upon the church as well, as shown by apostolic example in Acts 11:27. Certain prophets came to Antioch from Jerusalem, who stood up and predicted that in the days of Claudius Caesar there should be a great famine throughout the land of Judea and the whole world. Then what? Then the disciples, as a body, at Antioch determined to send relief unto the saints in Judea; and that they did. Note how: 'Every man according to his ability." They sent it by the hands of Barnabas and Paul unto the elders of the church — not to some receiver, or to some treasurer, or to some board; but they sent it unto the officials of the church of God by the hands of Barnabas and Paul."
In the quote, you will note that the gist of his argument was in opposition to the institutional board. But in the interview I am reviewing, he approved the Herald of Truth which is a cooperative movement involving many congregations, or churches, which movement has a receiver, a treasurer, and some kind of a board. But in the benevolent case of Acts 11:27 cited by brother Hardeman he stated: "They sent it by the hands of Barnabas and Paul unto the elders of the church — NOT TO SOME RECEIVER, OR TO SOME TREASURER, OR TO SOME BOARD; BUT THEY SENT IT UNTO THE OFFICIALS OF THE CHURCH OF God by the hands of Barnabas and Paul." (Emphasis mine — HEW)
And in Vol. 5, p. 50 of his Tabernacle Sermons brother Hardeman said: "I may say some things with which you do not agree," and then blasts the idea "of the church to furnish entertainment for its members," and "All kinds of gymnastic apparatus." If he were still brave enough to collar some of "the powers that be" (within the church) and jerk them back in line with divine truth, it would probably give them the whip-lash neck, but it would be good for their souls as well as his own. In brother Hardeman's approval of the orphan homes, the Gospel Press and Herald of Truth he endorses the cooperative arrangement of churches comparable to the missionary society and centralized power and control. This he would not do back in the 20's during the Tabernacle Meetings. One's past sometimes catches up with him.
Here, let me quote from the fluent and almost unerring pen of that veteran of Bible knowledge, of whom the London Times once wrote: "In all probability John W. McGarvey is the ripest Bible scholar on earth." The following paragraph containing McGarvey's statement is from THE ELDERSHIP by Winkler (pp. 346-347).
"If someone reports that McGarvey worked with the missionary society and cannot be depended upon, it may be of interest to note that while he worked with the societies he made no effort to defend them as scriptural aids or adjuncts in disseminating Bible knowledge. That although, working through the missionary society when called upon to give an example of churches thus cooperating in the preaching of the gospel he replied: 'I do not find in the New Testament a single example of two or more churches that cooperated in mission work.' When he spoke or wrote as a Bible scholar it is almost universally conceded that what he said could be accepted at full face value."
Of course brother McGarvey knew that different churches were sending aid to Paul while at Corinth. "I robbed other churches taking wages of them that I might minister unto you." (2 Cor. 11:8) Also, brother McGarvey knew that these churches were cooperating in the furtherance of the gospel; but in the quote from him, he meant that there was no tie between these churches. That they were working concurrently yet independently of each other. Each church sending her own funds with no pooling of the funds with some sponsoring church or central agency.
When I obeyed the gospel in 1904, and for many years thereafter, the cry was: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) And, "If it is not clearly taught in the Bible, leave it off." The vast majority of the preachers frowned upon even the slightest deviation from the scriptures in favor of the least projection of human wisdom into either the worship or work of the church. But now, the larger portion of the preachers and churches are bending every effort to line up the entire brotherhood in support of the institutional orphan homes, the sponsoring churches and the Herald of Truth, and castigate all those who will not bow to the lash of their whip. We are labeled as "antis," "hobbyists," "church splitters," etc. That is what the digressives called us many years past. Yes, history is repeating itself.
But who divided the churches of yore? The ones who brought in the organ, or those who opposed it? Do you need to be told, who? They divided over the organ Yet, reason says, they never could have divided over the organ until the subject was brought up for discussion — so, the ones who brought it up for discussion and use were the ones who caused the division. So, also, there would be no trouble now over the current issues had they never been brought up. You who use these things, over which the trouble has arisen, are the TROUBLERS of ISRAEL! You cannot pass the buck with God. For the past fifty six years I have observed the attitude and course of those who lend aid to innovations in the work and worship of the church. And when a person or a congregation joins in with any such movement as using the organ in the worship or the missionary societies in evangelism, seldom do you ever hear of either capitulating to the TRUTH. So is it, now respecting current issues. Those who have aligned themselves with the institutional orphan homes, the Gospel Press, the sponsoring church arrangement, and the Herald of Truth, etc., and received the blessings of the great promoters and are considered "loyal brethren," in contrast to the "antis," and have joined the "On the march" crowd have crossed the Rubicon and gone on to the point of no return. They are proud. The praise of men has too great a pull for them now to humble themselves and turn from the rudiments of the world and be content with speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent. When poor, puny man invades the silence of God's Sacred Oracles in going "beyond the things which are written" (1 Cor. 4:6), "And abideth not in the teaching of Christ" (2 John 9), the divine writer says he "hath not God." "Forever, 0 Jehovah, Thy word is settled in heaven." (Ps. 119:89)
"No less than the same authority which institutes can abolish. What God has instituted he alone may abolish. He may abolish by his word, or he may abolish providentially by finally rendering impossible what had once been instituted but unless it is abolished every divine appointment must stand forever." (J. W. McGarvey, Introduction to "The Eldership.")
The strength of God's might was "wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named" in this world and in heaven and "Put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. 1:19-23) And with Christ as head over all things to the church the apostle Paul warns: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power." (Col. 2:8-10) "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23) I will accept anything which heads up in Christ, for, he is the "Head over all things to the church." But, brother, I am from Missouri. And must be shown.