Comments On Brother N. B. Hardeman's "Interview"
The Gospel Advocate has recently undergone a face lifting. The material appearance of the journal has been greatly changed. When I first saw the new look, I wondered if perhaps the printed contents of the paper might also have undergone a change (for the better). But, alas, such was not the case!
The first issue of the "new look" Advocate (Vol. CII, No. 40) contains "An Interview With N. B. Hardeman." This interview was conducted by Paul S. Hunton, Vice President of the Gospel Press, and Violet DeVaney, Secretary to B. C. Goodpasture, Editor of the Gospel Advocate, on Saturday, September 10, 1960. The article, entitled "Not Almost, Not About, But That's It," was prepared by Willard Collins.
In his interview brother Hardeman had much to say that was good and highly interesting. He also, however, had some things to say which are deceptive in their nature.
It will be interesting to notice some of brother Hardeman's comments and to compare them with the attitudes of the leaders in the Christian Church digression some years ago. Those digressive preachers could well have used the same type of language that brother Hardeman uses.
Hardeman
Q. "Do you believe there will be a division in the church over these issues, ("orphan home," RH), and if so, how large do you think t his group (those who oppose, RH) will be?"
A. " 'I'm afraid there will be a division. The Christian Church and the Premillennialists are concrete examples. The division will be relatively small. Those whom we call 'antis' have made all the arguments they know and the only thing left is to go over the ground again. They have no plan or suggestion for carrying out the church obligation: "
Old Digressive
Q. "Do you believe there will be a division in the church over these issues, the missionary society and instrumental music, and if so how large do you think the group which opposes these things will be?"
A. "I'm afraid that there will be a division but it will, no doubt, be very small. These 'antis,' who are opposing the preaching of the gospel and music in the church, are dying out. They have made all of the arguments they know. We have answered every argument and all that they can do is go over the same old ground again. After all, they have no plan at all for preaching the gospel by means of any society. Why there isn't a society under heaven that they will endorse! They just keep saying that the church should do that which the Lord authorized it to do. They just keep crying for Bible authority for the societies. We have proved to them that this is just a matter of "how" to do the job — a matter of expediency. All of the loyal brethren are convinced. It's just these few "Johnny-come-lately antis" who are causing the confusion and division. But their little group will soon die and we won't hear any more from them. Our best bet is just to ignore them."
When brother Hardeman states that the division will be relatively small, I assume that he means that only a small number of brethren are standing opposed to the modernism, institutionalism — the digression — which is sweeping the church. If so, he needs to "count noses" again. There are countless numbers who are not being carried away with the pet theories and promotions of these brethren.
I note that brother Hardeman resorts to the old prejudice-producing tactic of labeling those who disagree with him. It would be interesting to hear brother Hardeman define an "anti." I wonder if he is an "anti." What is an "anti:" Is it one who opposes everything? If so, I have never seen one. Is it one who opposes some things? If so, I have seen nothing but "antis." To resort to name calling is a manifestation of a weakness in one's position.
Brother Hardeman states that the "antis" have made all of the arguments that they know. Even if this be true, the arguments haven't yet been successfully answered. And fewer and fewer brethren are attempting to answer.
Brother Hardeman says of the "antis" that they "have no plan or suggestion for carrying out the church obligation." He needs to define what he means by "church obligation." We certainly have no plan for caring for the needy of the world. Neither has brother Hardeman! If he has such a plan, it is a miserable failure! Indeed, the church has no such obligation. He is wrong, though, if he believes that those whom he dubs "antis" have no plans for doing what God commands.
Hardeman
Q. "Brother Hardeman, do you think that these debates with the 'antis' ought to be stopped? Don't you think Guy N. Woods and others have threshed out all of the arguments?"
A. " 'I think so. I told Guy that I wouldn't unless they would affirm some kind of an affirmative proposition.' "
Q. "Do they have anything to affirm?"
A." 'No, that is the reason that they will never do it.' "
Old Digressive
Q. "Do you believe that we ought to discontinue our debates with these 'antis?' Don't you believe that we have soundly whipped them enough as it is?"
A. "Oh, definitely so!
The sooner we quit debating the better it will be for us. I'm sure that the Apostle Paul and others quit after having met their opponents a few times. And I certainly wouldn't debate one of these 'anti music' brethren unless he would affirm something."
Q. "Do they have anything to affirm?"
A. "No! They won't affirm anything about music or about societies."
I doubt not that brother Hardeman thinks the debates on the issues should be stopped. In fact, when the few champions of institutionalism are gone, it will probably become as difficult to get them to debate as it is to get Christian Church preachers to debate.
Our brother charges that "antis" have nothing to affirm. He is either mistaken or willfully deceptive on this point. I choose to believe that he is mistaken. (I trust that he isn't telling an outright lie.) We do have something to affirm! Christian Church preachers wail that we who oppose their errors don't have anything to affirm. But we do have something to affirm. The truth is that they will not deny that which we will affirm. We can unite upon that which we believe. We are divided over that which the Christian Church preachers accept. The same is true of brother Hardeman and his cohorts. We "antis" and they can unite upon that which we "antis" believe! The division comes over that which they accept without divine authority. They will not deny that which we affirm.
Hardeman
Q. "According to your knowledge of the scriptures, do you believe that there is one scriptural pattern excluding all others that the church must follow in caring for the orphans and widows?"
A. " I do not. If such could be found that would end the controversy regarding orphans and widows. The whole matter belongs in the realm of expediency, good judgment, and common sense as determined by the seniors of the congregation.' "
Old Digressive
Q. "According to your knowledge of the scriptures, do you believe that there is one scriptural pattern excluding all others that the church must follow in preaching the gospel?"
A. "No, I do not. If such could be found, that would end the controversy regarding the preaching of the gospel and music in worship. The whole mar ter belongs in the realm of expediency, good judgment, and common sense. Our missionary society or organization is just a method of preaching the gospel as the Lord demanded. It is as brother C. C. Crawford said in his SERMON OUTLINES ON THE RESTORATION PLEA:
"The United Christian Missionary Society is just a legal corporation. As such it receives and disburses funds contributed by the churches and by individual Christians for the purposes specified in its charter. It is merely a tool of the churches...." (p. 130)
And our mechanical instrumental music is just an aid to worship. Yes, the 'anti music' and 'anti gospel preaching' brethren are dividing the church of God over a matter of HOW the church should do her work — over matters of expediency."
Brother Hardeman makes the same mistake in the above answer that Christian Church preachers made years ago (and are still making). The controversy was not then over preaching the gospel and aids to worship. It was not over HOW to preach the gospel. It was over additions to scriptural worship. It was over organization. Today, the controversy is not over "orphans and widows." It is not over mere methods. It is over organization! I believe that the methods may be in the realm of "expediency." However, the organization is not in this realm. The Bible specifies the organization. It is the local congregation. Brother Hardeman states that the controversy would be ended if "one scriptural pattern" could be found. Such is not true! The Bible gives the pattern when it comes to organization but the controversy continues.