Preface
By E. M. Zerr
[Page 9] |
The character of the subject matter on which I have been writing for some years was somewhat restricted. There was not much opportunity for entering into controversial issues. As a result I have been criticized for not "coming out" on the issues that have been stirring for a few years. But I mailed my final article of the series on word studies a few weeks ago. I enclosed a personal note to Carl in which I stated that I did not agree with many of the items which he and certain other writers had been advocating under the general head of "restoration." I told him I could not conscientiously continue to write for the paper unless I were free to express myself. He replied "I want to invite you to express yourself freely and fully upon these matters."
I have lived to see three major divisions come among the churches of Christ. The first one came some three quarters of a century ago, and the issue came to be popularly referred to as the "organ and societies" question. But the movement did not long remain confined to those items. Soon the local issues developed into state and national dimensions, and various other humanisms were finally included. I was a small boy when this condition began to show itself. Yet I well recall how the older brethren would shake their heads in a gesture of doubt. These old brethren were called "old fogies" and "Sandcreekers." The division finally crystallized and the innovating group came to be known officially as the Christian Church.
The next division came when the Bible College movement was thrust among the churches of Christ. Its advocates claimed that the church was not able to
[Page 10] |
The third division was occasioned by the introduction of the Rough Draft. It is fair to state that its authors did not capitalize the words, but they did use the term in the body of the document. But it was not the title of the document that caused the opposition. It proposed to select some things in the New Testament on which we could all "agree," and then accept that list as a basis of unity. This was objected to on the ground that it was subversive as to the completeness of the New Testament as a rule of religious conduct. If only those parts of the N. T. were accepted on which we could "agree," then what would be left in the divine book would have to be regarded as nonessential. The logical reaction to this was a rejection of the preachers and churches that accepted it, and an insidious line of teaching was diffused through the brotherhood.
Now we are confronted with the threat of another division. After weathering the storms of the three divisions described above, we are disturbed by a class of reasoning more insidious than even the third one mentioned. Its growth is favored doubtless by its being cloaked in the term "restoration." Brethren have expressed themselves in writing and otherwise, and I have been prompted to place myself on record concerning the situation. I may hear cries of "divider" for taking my stand. But even that will not be very new. In the days of the first innovation described above such a charge was made. Advocates of the humanisms maintained that the man who drives the wedge is not guilty of splitting the log, but the man who objects is the culprit. And even that was not the first time such a false accusation was made. Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel, whereas he was the guilty one in that he took up with a false religion. I am not vain enough to think I can "stem the tide" of this disastrous movement. But I know that I can clear my conscience by raising my voice and hand against another incipient gash in the body of Christ.
It is true that we have asked Brother Zerr to express his mind fully and
freely on current issues. We want truth. That is the only thing we seek. If our aged brother has
truth we do not have, we will count him our best friend if he shares it with us. He will be no less
a friend in pointing out our errors. We beg of all our readers to study carefully what our brother
writes. His age, experience and scholarship demand that we give respectful attention to his
articles. I will study them carefully, soberly and honestly, without prejudice. I will be as quick to
admit my errors as I am to advocate my convictions.
Our good brother is unduly worried. There is no threat of another division
and there will be none. I say that on the following bases:
[Page 11] |