What Is "Sommerism"?
It is no strange thing to see in some of our religious journals, now and then, where some good brethren are accusing other good brethren of teaching "Sommerism". It seems that many don't understand what "Sommerism" is. Probably some editors that publish such don't know what it is. "Sommerism" is of such a nature that it can be either practiced or taught. One can practice it just as surely as he can teach it. It is just as bad to practice it as it is to teach it. Probably some of our editors are actually practicing "Sommerism" and don't know it. Suppose we allow David Lipscomb to tell us what constitutes real "Sommerism". We give in full the following article from his pen, in which he reveals what "Sommer-ism" truly is. He wrote under the caption:
Difficulties And Differences Among Brethren
God lays down principles of justice and right, in the adjudication and settlement of differences and difficulties among Christians. Oftener than otherwise the treatment of a difficulty leads to greater sin than the original fault. When one is guilty of sin the spirit that "judges not" must look kindly and leniently upon it as an unconscious wrong. He must look kindly upon it because, first, he is not to judge his brother harshly; secondly, he is to do it knowing he is liable to fall into the same or similar sin. The sin is to be reproved as a fault into which one has fallen, and he needs encouragement and help to be delivered from it. The reproof or warning is to be accepted as intended to help out of a hurtful sin, so must be accepted in a kind and grateful heart. When this spirit prevails, it is not difficult to settle troubles. But sometimes this spirit does not prevail, and the difficulty grows. Jesus has told us to settle the difficulty at once. "First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison . . ." (Matt. 5:24.25.) The wrong was to be settled quickly. "And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone; if he hear thee, thou has gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it unto the church; and if he refuses to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican." (Matt. 18:15-17.) When difficulties arise, these scriptures teach how each party is to act to heal the wrong or obviate its evil influences and to bring good out of it to those willing to obey God. Peter's denial of Christ helped him to be a better and truer man when he had repented of his sin.
In settling difficulties or troubles, one must be just and fair. When two brethren have a difference, they must talk together to settle the matter. Then they must tell it before two or three witnesses, that every word may properly come before the church. The meaning of this is, the statement of both parties shall be heard and fairly judged. This all civilized rulers insist is right. In the contest over Paul between the Jews and the Roman rulers, from the twenty-first chapter to the last chapter of Acts, as to whether Paul should be condemned on the charges of his enemies alone or both sides should be heard, Paul said, "I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged . . . If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is true whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up unto them." (Acts 25:10,11.) The Roman governor decided, "It is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him." (Verse 16.) Hackett said: "The claim to this impartiality was a human right in the eyes of the Roman law." It was inhuman to deny a hearing to both. Paul, Christians, and God so regard it.
I have been near the end of my earthly journey for some time. I have by good brethren and sisters been complimented for the good I have done them and others. This good has come from holding the Gospel Advocate open to discuss the evils of introducing into the church things not required by God. Evil has seemed to grow out of this by the failure to treat the subject as God directs. If these evils are not discussed, we disobey God and leave evil to run riot in the churches. Evil will grow up in the churches, and the failure to expose it is to invite the evil. The brethren at Dallas, Texas, started the Gospel Guide to keep out of the paper all contentions and strife. This was the good motive. In a short time a misrepresentation of me or my teaching was made. The matter was unimportant; I forget what it was; but if called up, the truth ought to have been told. They declined to publish my article, and published an explanation of their own. This is the exact equivalent of two persons going into court in a lawsuit or into a church trial and one of them insisting he shall tell both sides, and the other's mouth be stopped. A man who adopts this policy cannot be fair and just. As an example, Brother Warlick in quotations says, "Brother Elam says that Brother Lipscomb says he 'does not read Warlick's paper because I do not allow him in the Guide'."
I never said such a thing, and Elam did not say I did. I said, "I do not read Warlick's paper, because he will not publish both sides of a question." He would not have made such a misstatement in a debate with a Baptist. While I had thought well of Warlick and his associate editors and had befriended some of them, I, like Paul and Barnabas, thought, as we cannot agree, we had better try to work separately. Brother Sommer, of the Octographic Review, adopted this policy some years ago, the only example of it I had ever known avowed among disciples. I ceased to read his paper, and we get along so peaceably. The Guide adopts the same plan. I treat both alike.
Brother White then published something about the Nashville churches and their work. I did not read it and do not know just what it is. The brethren who read it thought it unjust. Brother Sewell, Brother McQuiddy, and Brother Shepherd, who are not wranglers, wrote Warlick a note. He declined to publish their statement. I have not heard them speak of it, but they cannot feel they were treated in a kind and brotherly way when refused a hearing where they were wrongly represented.
I am recognizing in all these things the purest and best of motives to all — Warlick, Sommer, and all — the effort to keep the church free from wrangles and fusses. We kindly tell them that in doing this they are violating the most sacred principles of fairness and right approved by both God and man, and must make themselves appear unfair and unjust to those so treated. I would like to see all of us get along pleasantly and harmoniously in obeying the commands of God. But if the Gospel Advocate were to adopt this policy of criticizing others and refusing to let them reply, I would cease to read it. "Righteousness and justice are the foundations of thy throne; loving-kindness and truth go before thy face." (Gospel Advocate, 1912, p. 44,45.)
Lipscomb reveals in no uncertain terms what real "Sommerism" is, at its highest peak. It is a policy — the policy NOT to publish both sides of an issue. So when we see an editor who has adopted Sommer's policy of NOT publishing both sides, we know that he is practicing the real "Sommerism." Sommer's policy caused Lipscomb to cease reading the Octographic Review. If he were living today, would he be reading his own "old Reliable"? We wonder.