Views: 64<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One of the unmistakable lessons of history is the tendency of men to engage in extremes of thought and practice.1<\/sup> This fact is no more clearly demonstrated than in the field of religion. Roman Catholicism\u2019s extreme of salvation by meritorious works, which it has advocated for centuries, and the sixteenth-century Reformers\u2019 opposite extreme of salvation by faith only (generally perpetuated in the Protestant denominations), provide a classic illustration. Moreover, extremes sometimes (but not always) beget extremes. The \u201cworks only\u201d system of the Roman Church certainly begat the \u201cfaith only\u201d system of the Reformers.<\/span><\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s church has likely never been immune to extremes. Every extreme position among God\u2019s people, from the apostolic era to the present, revolves basically around the two opposite philosophies, commonly designated \u201cliberalism\u201d and \u201canti-ism.\u201d Although these terms are likely generally understood, they are nonetheless worthy of brief definition in relation to the subsequent material in this study. Liberalism <\/em>refers to a certain attitude and approach in religion that is unwilling to be as strict and definitive as God\u2019s Word is. A theological \u201cliberal\u201d is \u201cgenerous,\u201d but he has a misplaced \u201cgenerosity\u201d through which he \u201cgives away\u201d things which he does not own or possess, but which belong to Another\u2014namely, to God. \u201cLiberals\u201d refuse to bind certain things that God has bound; they treat some matters of Scriptural obligation as if they were matters of our human option or judgment. Brethren afflicted with this spiritual malady tend to rely on their emotions and subjective opinions (thereby making presumptions on the grace and mercy of God), rather than adhering strictly to the law of Christ. An example of \u201cliberalism\u201d is the teaching that the church may observe the Lord\u2019s supper on days of the week besides the Lord\u2019s day. This mentality in the church has already produced massive and devastating apostasy over the past several decades, and it continues to gain influence.<\/span><\/p>\n The opposite extreme to \u201cliberalism\u201d is \u201canti-ism,\u201d the focal point of this manuscript. By anti-ism <\/em>I refer to the disposition to be stricter than the law of God is. Brethren of this inclination often occupy a negative position, opposing or forbidding things which God allows (thus the \u201canti\u201d part of anti-ism<\/em>). The other side of the \u201canti-ism\u201d coin is that such brethren also often seek to bind or enjoin things God has not bound or enjoined. In either case (whether forbidding or enjoining), these brethren assume the roles of lawmakers on God\u2019s behalf.2<\/sup> \u201cAnti-ism\u201d thus treats certain matters of option and human judgment as matters of Scriptural law and obligation. An illustration of \u201canti-ism\u201d would be to forbid the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper before the sermon on the Lord\u2019s day or to demand that it come afterward. Thus, the private scruples of the \u201canti,\u201d rather than the actual dictates of the law of Christ, become the standard of doctrine and behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n By a large majority, brethren of the \u201canti\u201d persuasion believe strongly in the verbal inspiration of the Bible and its authority, for which we commend them. However, their mistake is in making their opinions as authoritative as the Scriptures themselves are. Just as the \u201cliberals\u201d are broader than God is, the \u201cantis\u201d are narrower than God is in their approach to the Bible and religion. Furthermore, just as \u201cliberalism\u201d is progressive, ever enlarging the content of what God authorizes, so \u201canti-ism\u201d often draws ever narrower the boundaries of doctrine and those whom its advocates can fellowship (e.g., at first they opposed church support of orphan homes; next they forbade church support for any non-Christian; finally some of them decreed that a church\u2014out of the church treasury\u2014could not give one penny to provide milk for a starving baby).<\/span><\/p>\n While varied in their points of attack, all the \u201canti\u201d movements make the same basic arguments and the same basic mistakes in Biblical interpretation:<\/span><\/p>\n In the course of this study, my use of the terms anti-ism <\/em>and anti <\/em>in reference to certain brethren is not with any unkind, disrespectful, or malevolent intent. Rather, since these are terms generally understood, I use them for the simple purpose of ease of identity (even as some \u201canti\u201d brethren use the term institutional <\/em>to identify some brethren with whom they disagree on these certain issues). As with \u201cliberalism,\u201d we shall see that \u201canti-ism\u201d has manifested itself in a wide variety of issues among brethren.<\/span><\/p>\n New Testament Roots and Illustrations of \u201cAnti-ism\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n While this treatise deals specifically with the history of anti-ism in the past two centuries, this phenomenon in religion has been evident for much longer. Entire manuscripts have been devoted to examples of \u201canti-ism\u201d in the New Testament. I will therefore not belabor this material, but still I deem it helpful to give brief attention to some of these cases as background material for more recent manifestations of the phenomenon.<\/span><\/p>\n The scribes and Pharisees are sometimes called \u201cfirst-century \u2018antis\u2019\u201d with good reason. They ever sought to bind upon others as law their own traditions and opinions, which God had not bound (Mat. 9:11\u201313; 12:10\u201312; 15:2; et al.). Clearly, the Judaizing teachers of the early years of the church were antis in their contentions. They taught: \u201cExcept ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved\u201d (Acts 15:1). However, God had not bound circumcision as a religious act or a condition of covenant privilege under the new covenant (v. 24). Therefore, those who were binding it were troublesome and were attempting to subvert the brethren by binding a law that God had not bound. They were, in fact, adding another condition to the Lord\u2019s plan of salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n Even the apostle Peter was caught up in the spirit of \u201canti-ism,\u201d as demonstrated by his behavior in Antioch (Gal. 2:11\u201314). The Gospel was for Gentile and Jew without respect of persons by God (Acts 10:34\u201335), but Peter refused to eat with Gentile brethren and influenced others to do the same. He was refusing those whom God had accepted, thus binding where God had not bound. As Paul \u201cresisted him to the face, because he stood condemned\u201d (Gal. 2:11), so must we continue to do today in regard to those guilty of Peter\u2019s behavior on this occasion\u2014and for the same reason.<\/span><\/p>\n Diotrephes was guilty of the same \u201canti\u201d error by refusing to extend fellowship to those who were in fellowship with God and by forbidding others to fellowship faithful brethren (3 John 9\u201310). Paul warned of a coming apostasy in which men would forbid others to marry and to eat meat (1 Tim. 4:3), but these were things which God allowed <\/strong>(Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 4:3\u20134). The apostates Paul described were making laws which God had not <\/strong>made. Paul labeled those teachers as hypocritical liars and called their doctrines the \u201cdoctrines of demons\u201d (vv. 1\u20132). They were \u201cantis\u201d in the truest sense.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnt-ism\u201d in the 19<\/strong>th <\/strong>Century<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Whatever elements of \u201canti-ism\u201d there might have been among brethren in the first half of the nineteenth century were apparently so miniscule that they did not merit room in the history of those times, at least not in any that I could find. Those who were heralding the plea for restoration of primitive Christianity were so busy continuing to study themselves out of their respective Calvinistic heritages and helping others escape from sectarian error that whatever \u201canti\u201d mentality there might have been stayed beneath the surface.<\/span><\/p>\n The latter half of the century was dominated by the great upheavals in the church over the introduction of mechanical instruments of music and the launching of the American Christian Missionary Society\u2014and the other denominational trappings that inevitably followed in their aftermath. These two issues and their implications concerning Biblical authority for the worship and work of the church, respectively, served as the wedge that caused unavoidable division among the Lord\u2019s people, officially recognized by the federal census of 1906.<\/span><\/p>\n The thoroughgoing discussions resulting from the instrument and society issues produced a climate of scrutiny of numerous other practices which had previously gone unchallenged. Peripheral issues arose among brethren who were united in their opposition to the innovations. In searching for Bible authority for various practices, some arrived at extreme positions. Earl West is likely correct in his assessment of the cause of the \u201canti-ism\u201d that emerged in the final quarter of the century.3<\/sup> In other words, the \u201canti\u201d positions generally represented over-zealous reactions to various practices which were perceived <\/strong>to be unauthorized innovations, but which were not such at all when fully examined and understood. The principal controversies revolved around \u201clocated\u201d preachers, the order of worship, \u201cBible colleges,\u201d and Sunday schools.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-located Preacher\u201d Issue <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As early as the 1860s, some congregations, especially in metropolitan areas, were hiring a preacher, placing him \u201cin charge\u201d of the congregation, and calling him \u201cthe pastor.\u201d4<\/sup> Brethren were justified in opposing this practice as unauthorized, but some did not perceive that it was the one-man \u201cpastor\u201d system that was unscriptural, rather than the practice of congregations employing a \u201clocated preacher\u201d to serve under their respective elderships. From opposition to the \u201cpastor system\u201d arose an \u201canti-located-preacher\u201d sentiment that long persisted among a large segment of brethren. David Lipscomb and The Gospel Advocate <\/em>opposed the local preacher concept for several years, while also allowing brethren to defend the practice in its pages.<\/span><\/p>\n Opposition to \u201clocated preachers\u201d was still strong in 1889, when brethren in Shelby County, Illinois, issued the \u201cSand Creek Address and Declaration.\u201d After Daniel Sommer preached to a gathering of six thousand for an hour and forty minutes, decrying the innovations being recklessly foisted upon the church, one of the Sand Creek elders read the document. It shamed those who were introducing the \u201cinnovations and corruptions,\u201d and stated that if they did not repent, faithful saints could no longer regard them as brethren. Along with church-sponsored festivals, instrumental music and choirs in worship, and the missionary society, the statement denounced \u201cthe one-man, imported preacher pastor to feed and watch over the flock.\u201d5<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n In the sincere zeal of some to defend the Truth, objectors nonetheless sought to forbid a practice that God allows, for His Word nowhere specifies the length of time a preacher and a congregation may work together. In spite of considerable teaching and reasoning to this effect, many brethren maintained their \u201canti\u201d stance on this issue as the sun set on the nineteenth century.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Variety-of-Order-of-Worship\u201d Issue <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Controversy arose over the order of the acts of worship partly in connection with the \u201clocated preacher\u201d issue and partly as a reaction to the introduction of instruments of music. As instruments became increasingly widely advocated and used, faithful brethren raised the argument against them that they were human additions to a Divine pattern for worship. Instrument advocates countered that there is no such Divine worship pattern. In response, a brother by the name of Alfred Ellmore vociferously advocated that Acts 2:42 (\u201cAnd they devoted themselves to the apostles\u2019 teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.\u201d) contains the exclusive pattern. To him, this was the \u201cDivine model\u201d which obviously does not include instrumental music (never mind that it does not include singing, either). Ellmore also thought adoption of the \u201cDivine model\u201d for worship would take care of the \u201clocated preacher\u201d problem. In urging his Acts 2:42 dictum, he once inquired of brethren, \u201cWhy continue in that hireling-pastor-every-Sunday system?\u201d He was right to oppose instrumental music, but wrong in his argumentation against it. His position was one of \u201canti-ism,\u201d in which he sought to bind where God has not bound. This \u201canti\u201d doctrine did not spread far beyond the sphere of Ellmore\u2019s influence in Indiana, and I have not run across in later times.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Bible College\u201d Issue <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The \u201canti\u201d position in the nineteenth century that opposed Bible colleges is also related to the \u201clocated preacher\u201d issue. Just as some brethren failed to separate the idea of a \u201cpastor\u201d who was \u201cin charge\u201d of a congregation from the idea of a \u201clocated preacher,\u201d for the same reason, many failed to separate schools that existed for the purpose of educating preachers from the production of a \u201cpastor\u201d class and clergy system. Daniel Sommer was one of the strongest voices against colleges. He attended Bethany from 1870\u20131872 as a young man and a new convert and left without graduating, thoroughly disillusioned. President W.K. Pendleton\u2019s philosophy of \u201clove God and do as you please\u201d and \u201csincerity is all-sufficient\u201d disgusted him. Sommer made his opposition to \u201cBible colleges\u201d known publicly as early as 1878 by writing a series of articles on \u201cEducating Preachers\u201d in The American Christian Review<\/em>.6<\/sup> Ten years later he stated his views in no uncertain terms in an article in Octographic Review<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n Colleges for educating preachers have proved to be perverting schools among disciples of Christ. When the cornerstone of Bethany College was laid, the foundation for another clergy was begun, and thus it was that a revolutionist [i.e., A. Campbell, DM] established the institution which tends to destroy his revolutionary work\u20267<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While faithful saints today find much to agree with in the foregoing observation concerning what we now call \u201cChristian education,\u201d he unfortunately could not separate in his mind the abuse <\/strong>of an authorized practice from the authorized practice itself. He thus objected to the very concept <\/strong>of a Bible college, not merely the abuse of its purpose. He (and many others) thus made a crucial mistake regarding the schools.<\/span><\/p>\n Ironically, brethren had generally taken for granted the Scriptural authority for such schools until the heated controversies over the missionary society forced a critical look at all human religious institutions. When the society advocates paralleled their society with colleges operated by those who opposed the society, brethren began to study seriously the question of authority for Bible colleges.<\/span><\/p>\n Sommer\u2019s long-held convictions that such schools were unauthorized were rekindled with the beginning of David Lipscomb\u2019s Nashville Bible School in 1891. He was not by himself. The losses of Bethany College and The College of the Bible at Lexington, Kentucky, to liberal elements had combined to arouse strong opposition to colleges in other stalwarts, including Jacob Creath, Jr., and Ben Franklin, Sommer\u2019s mentor. As we shall see, Sommer\u2019s strong opposition to such colleges carried over well into the twentieth century, both through his personal activities (he lived until 1940 and was still writing for publication in 1936 at the age of eighty-six) and through those he influenced.<\/span><\/p>\n Very many saints of our time are strong opponents of most of the \u201cBible colleges\u201d (i.e., \u201cChristian universities\u201d) that exist today, but not because we oppose the Scriptural authority for such schools to exist. Our opposition lies in their egregious abuse of the Scriptural aim and purpose of their founders and the resulting deleterious effect these institutions have had on the church over the past four decades. They have a Biblical right to exist as an extension of our Christian homes (Eph. 6:4), but Sommer and others denied their right to exist per se, and in thus forbidding what God allows, they occupied the role of \u201cantis.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Sunday School\u201d and \u201cAnti-Literature\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSunday schools\u201d or Sunday \u201cBible classes\u201d in churches of Christ can be traced back as\u00a0<\/span>far as 1834.8 <\/sup>Until the inroads of liberalism in the 1860s and 1870s, they were apparently accepted without question as Scriptural expedients for teaching the Word of God. One major factor causing Sunday schools to come under critical review was the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society (and its smaller regional siblings). The other was the denominational model of Sunday schools in the \u201cSunday School Movement,\u201d which some congregations had begun to adopt. Some objected on the assertion that they were unauthorized by Scripture.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Missionary society devotees sought to justify their societies by arguing that they were parallel in principle to the Sunday schools found in many of the congregations that opposed the societies.9<\/sup> Some who opposed the societies failed to examine critically this assertion of equivalency, assumed it had substance, and therefore decided that consistency demanded that they oppose every arrangement called \u201cSunday school.\u201d From these factors emerged the \u201canti- Sunday school\u201d movement among our brethren. Their general alarm over the introduction of innovations was commendable and understandable, but their zeal in opposing them was at times misdirected, as in this case. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Brethren based their opposition on various logical and\/or hermeneutical flaws, such as failing to define and identify correctly what \u201cSunday schools\u201d in faithful congregations actually were, in contrast to the denominational models. The former were (and still are) merely class arrangements for teaching the Bible according to student age and\/or other categories and were (are) conducted by individual, autonomous congregations under their own respective elderships. In contrast, the denominational \u201cSunday school\u201d model involved an organization separate from local churches that was controlled by a hierarchy. Only the denominational model was in any sense parallel to the missionary societies. Brethren correctly counteracted this \u201canti\u201d position by declaring that Bible classes conducted by local churches on the Lord\u2019s day were merely an expedient means of edifying the saints (Acts 20:32; Eph. 4:12\u201316).<\/span><\/p>\n Hand in hand with opposition to \u201cSunday schools\u201d came the opposition to using uninspired literature in Bible classes. As early as 1866 David Lipscomb urged the use of \u201clesson leaves\u201d (printed Bible lessons) that were adapted to respective age groups, and in 1878 he encouraged the forerunner of a \u201cteacher\u2019s workshop\u201d in Nashville.10<\/sup> William Woodson reports: \u201cBy the 1880s the Gospel Advocate Company was publishing literature for all age groups.\u201d11 <\/sup>Some brethren went so far as to compare such printed lesson materials to denominational creeds, which comparison only served to accentuate their extremism. An additional facet of the anti-Sunday school issue was the objection of some to women teachers in the children\u2019s classes. Many brethren linked lesson sheets and women teachers with Sunday schools as instances of departures from the Sacred pattern.<\/span><\/p>\n In response, Lipscomb and others pointed out that printed materials were merely a written means of teaching, just as preaching was an oral means. Both were merely innocent and allowable expedients in carrying out Scriptural responsibilities. The ultimate inconsistency of the anti-literature position is seen in the fact that its adherents relied upon printed materials (\u201clessons\u201d) to advance their cause. Although it had begun to decline, the \u201canti-Sunday school,\u201d \u201canti-literature,\u201d \u201canti-women teachers\u201d element still had numerous adherents at the turn of the 19th<\/sup> century.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnti-ism\u201d in the 20<\/strong>th <\/strong>Century<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The dawning of the twentieth century found the church in severe turmoil that was rapidly coming to a head. For half a century the heated controversy had raged over instruments of music and the missionary society. The \u201cprogressives\u201d were insistent on the employment of both. They had captured the hearts of a large majority of the church, in spite of fierce resistance and opposition from men who were determined not to compromise the Truth of God\u2019s Word. Although division had already occurred in a multitude of locations,12<\/sup> it took the U.S. Census of 1906 to reveal the finality of the inevitable church-wide sundering of fellowship.<\/span><\/p>\n As the new century dawned, it also found the Lord\u2019s church struggling not only to weather the storm involving its fight with the liberals. It also was beset with the major issues of nineteenth century \u201canti-ism\u201d that bled over the invisible century timeline. By the middle of the new century, new and more destructive than ever \u201canti\u201d positions arose.<\/span><\/p>\n The First Half of the Century<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Located Preacher\u201d and \u201cAnti-College\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As Daniel Sommer had been the champion of those opposed to Bible colleges and located preachers in the nineteenth century, he continued in this role into the twentieth.13<\/sup>These issues had become largely inseparable by the beginning of the new century. Those who held one usually held the other (although The Gospel Advocate<\/em>, at the turn of the century, generally opposed located preachers, while staunchly defending the Scriptural right of colleges to exist). Sommer was so notorious for promoting these positions that they came to be called \u201cSommerism\u201d and those who advocated them, \u201cSommerites.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, as able and influential men, such as J.D. Tant and M.C. Kurfees, set forth the logical and Scriptural case for a congregation\u2019s employing a full-time preacher and distinguished this practice from the denominational \u201cpastor\u201d system, opposing voices were heard less and less. Brethren could also see the effectiveness of such men in various congregations that had a \u201cregular\u201d preacher who worked with them. Even Lipscomb, with The Gospel Advocate, <\/em>eventually gave up his long-standing opposition to what had come to be known as the \u201cmutual ministry\u201d contention. Those agitating these positions gradually became increasingly marginalized so that by mid-century the vast majority of brethren perceived them as extremists<\/span><\/p>\n Sommer\u2019s \u201cspiritual heirs,\u201d W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, were the last loud voices to keep pushing these two hobbies past the mid-century point, principally by debating and writing.14 <\/sup>Ketcherside debated such men of repute as Rue Porter, G.C. Brewer, and G.K. Wallace,15<\/sup> and Garrett\u2019s opponents were Bill J. Humble and George W. Dehoff.16<\/sup> The greatest influence of this strain of \u201canti-ism\u201d was in the states of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, and it is largely dead even in those areas.17<\/sup> Ironically, Ketcherside (in 1957) and Garrett (in 1959) reversed themselves completely, leaving the extreme narrow view of fellowship demanded by their hobbies, and began championing the most liberal kind of open fellowship and ecumenism. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Sunday School\u201d and \u201cAnti-Literature\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n By late nineteenth century, the Sunday school and literature issue had picked up an additional ingredient\u2014opposition to women teachers. (Some even threw in their opposition to the use of song books for good measure.) E.G. Sewell was one of the strong voices defending Sunday schools and the use of printed Bible lessons as the new century began. In a Gospel Advocate <\/em>article in 1902, he argued that the classes, conducted under the elders, were distinct from the worship, and that women could therefore teach children without violating the Scriptural limitations on them in church assemblies. He correctly observed that there was \u201c…no legitimate ground for such opposition and felt that those who opposed the work were making laws God had not made\u201d\u2014a good statement of the definition of an \u201canti.\u201d18<\/sup> West states: \u201cThe Sunday School question is by far the most volatile the brotherhood faced at the beginning of the century,\u201d and that by then it was centered mainly in Texas.19<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Besides the discussions of the issue that continued in The Gospel Advocate, <\/em>the subject flared up in the fledgling Firm Foundation <\/em>as well. Austin McGary, founder-editor, defended the Sunday schools, but the two editors who succeeded him, N.L. Clark and G.A. Trott, were strong in their opposition.20<\/sup> R.L. Whiteside, Joe Warlick, C.R. Nichol, and others answered them. In spite of such responses, many brethren succumbed to the \u201canti-Sunday-school\u201d position in the early part of the century. According to one source, several hundred non-Bible-class churches had separated from \u201cmainstream\u201d congregations by the 1920s.21<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The first oral and written debates on the issue occurred in 1924, followed by the call for more of them to clarify the issue and perhaps prevent division. The discussion continued with increasing heat through the 1920s and 1930s. The \u201canti-Sunday school\u201d brethren advanced their cause by means of tracts and their own journals, including The Old Paths Advocate <\/em>and The Truth. <\/em>Guy. N. Woods wrote a series of articles on women teachers for The Gospel Advocate <\/em>in 1944. In 1948, The Gospel Advocate <\/em>carried a long series of articles by Roy H. Lanier, Sr., defending Sunday schools. The debates and articles gradually had their desired effect, as some of the leading preachers who had opposed Sunday schools and their appurtenances began to renounce their opposition. By mid-century the battle had been largely won, with most congregations having a Sunday school program and those still opposing them being left in an ever-dwindling condition of few numbers and little influence.<\/span><\/p>\n Additional \u201cAnti\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The great sweep of the plea for restoration had resulted in hundreds of thousands of converts during the nineteenth century. These had been baptized in creeks, rivers, cattle troughs, farm ponds, and even the oceans. Baptisms sometimes involved such things as breaking ice on a pond, keeping watch for poisonous snakes, traveling several miles, and using lanterns or other means of artificial light to overcome the darkness of night. As brethren began to build more commodious and elaborate buildings, some congregations decided it made sense to include in their buildings a place to baptize ready subjects instantly and conveniently. In response, several brethren raised their voices in protest. An \u201canti-baptistery\u201d faction <\/strong>arose, whose principal contention was that, since Jesus was baptized in running (i.e., \u201cliving\u201d) water, so must others be. However, defenders correctly pointed out that non-running pools had to have been used to baptize the three thousand on Pentecost, and that the \u201ckind\u201d of water or its container is never specified in Scripture as long as the quantity is sufficient to immerse the candidate. Understandably, this \u201canti\u201d position was so easily refuted and shown to be absurd that it caused very little division.<\/span><\/p>\n In observing the Lord\u2019s supper, the general practice in restored congregations from the beginning of the nineteenth century was to use a single container for the fruit of the vine. Some surely did so because of the Lord\u2019s precedent at the supper\u2019s institution, but many likely did so because of necessity\u2014they had no other practical option. (The use of only one cup certainly never had any hygienic appeal, in consideration of such matters as communicable diseases, snuff-dipping, and tobacco-chewing. Many sipping from a common container doubtless encouraged some worshipers to arrive early and sit near the front.)22<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n However, some larger congregations had begun using more than one (but not individual) containers in the last half of the 1800s as a practical means of serving the congregation more efficiently. The small, individual cups, so common among the congregations for decades now, were not even available a hundred years ago. As they became available in the 1920s23<\/sup> and as a few congregations began to use them, vigorous opposition soon arose. The chief contention of the out criers was that the Lord used only one cup to institute the Lord\u2019s supper, and there was no Scriptural precedent for using more. Thus, the \u201canti-multiple cup\u201d faction <\/strong>(its adherents commonly called, \u201cone-cuppers\u201d) was born. Largely, the same brethren who opposed Bible classes, printed literature, and women teachers, took up this position.<\/span><\/p>\n Defenders of individual cups pointed out that the objectors were inconsistent to begin opposing the multiple cups suddenly when they did not oppose their use by some congregations years earlier. Also, most brethren came to understand that Jesus\u2019 emphasis in the second element of the Lord\u2019s Supper was upon the cup\u2019s contents and its signification, rather than upon the container itself, which was a mere expedient. Articles, sermons, and debates (G.C. Brewer led these efforts initially) exposed the fallacies of this \u201canti\u201d doctrine, preventing its domination of the church. As with all \u201canti\u201d positions, the \u201cone-cup\u201d contention sought to forbid that which God allowed and attempted to turn an option into an obligation. These brethren eventually divided among themselves, with some of them opposing classes while allowing separate cups and others still opposing both classes and cups. A small element of Anti-ism \u201cone-cup\u201d brethren still exists, mainly in Texas, but their numbers are \u201cfew and far between.\u201d24<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The Second Half of the Century<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n By the middle point of the century, most of the \u201canti\u201d hobbies previously reviewed had been exposed and largely defeated except for small, random pockets of influence. The vast majority of the church was marching onward and was poised to enter an unprecedented (at least in modern times) period of numerical growth. However, as the familiar platitude states, \u201cThe devil never sleeps.\u201d The most devastating of all \u201canti\u201d doctrines and offensives would soon be thrust upon an unsuspecting brotherhood.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAnti-Cooperation\u201d and \u201cAnti-Orphan-Home\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Since the apostolic era, congregations had worked together to preach the Gospel and help the helpless. However, a few brethren concluded that such cooperation was unauthorized. Likewise, for several generations, congregations had (with little objection, except an occasional extremist such as Sommer and his followers) established and\/or supported out of their treasuries homes to supply the needs of otherwise homeless children. The brethren who advocated the new doctrine that opposed congregational cooperation also asserted that congregations were unauthorized to support such homes in this manner (thus reviving this aspect of Sommerism).<\/span><\/p>\n The prime movers in this campaign had formerly participated without qualms, much less opposition, in both of these arrangements, which they suddenly began to proscribe. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., commenting on the major tenets of the mid-century \u201cantis,\u201d made this very point:<\/span><\/p>\n Every one of these points that have been made an issue were previously preached and practiced by the leaders of the new party themselves and only lately have been seized in the frustration of grasping for issues <\/em>where there were no issues, to form their party line.25<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These newly enlightened brethren decided they must bind their scruples upon the entire church. Their fierce and determined campaign against what they variously call \u201cinstitutionalism,\u201d \u201cliberalism,\u201d and \u201cdigression\u201d has likely wrought more rack and ruin in the church than did all of the previous \u201canti\u201d issues combined.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201canti-cooperation\u201d campaign\u2019s beginning date is usually marked in 1950. Actually, Roy E. Cogdill, one of the leaders of the faction, fired the initial salvos somewhat earlier. On August 9, 1946, Cogdill, who lived in Houston, Texas, at the time, delivered a lecture on \u201cInter- Congregational Cooperation\u201d in the East Oakland, California, church building. More than four hundred assembled brethren heard him advance the doctrine \u201cthat no two congregations could scripturally cooperate in anything <\/strong>without violating each other\u2019s local autonomy.\u201d26<\/sup> Ira Y. Rice, Jr., and Robert R. Price heard Cogdill deliver the sermon and tried to warn brethren of his doctrine, but brethren apparently thought the doctrine was so palpably ridiculous that, even if someone taught such, no one would believe it.<\/span><\/p>\n When the campaign\u2019s leaders got underway in earnest, they specifically targeted the Herald of Truth radio program, which was sponsored by the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas, and was overseen by its elders. This program was being aired on several radio stations, and other congregations were sending financial support to Highland to enable it to continue and to increase its coverage. With a four-year head start on the \u201canti-cooperation\u201d theme, the April 20, 1950, issue of Gospel Guardian <\/em>began open warfare against what it labeled \u201capostasy\u201d and a \u201cnew digression.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The formative personalities and circumstances of Gospel Guardian <\/em>are interesting. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., began the original Gospel Guardian <\/em>in October 1935 as a medium through which to fight R.H. Boll\u2019s premillennial theories. The paper ceased publication the next June for lack of funding. Two years later Wallace began The Bible Banner<\/em>, a monthly paper, which continued publication for twelve years and was widely read. Roy E Cogdill, quoted above, had become The Banner\u2019s <\/em>publisher by 1948. In 1949 Wallace decided to discontinue the monthly Banner <\/em>and revive the old Gospel Guardian <\/em>as a weekly, which he did, installing Fanning Yater Tant, a friend of several years (and son of J.D. Tant, the legendary Texas preacher), as Editor, and Cogdill as publisher.<\/span><\/p>\n The revived Guardian <\/em>made its appearance from Lufkin, Texas, May 5, 1949, and began beating its two-headed hobby drum soon thereafter.27<\/sup> A few months after the first issue, Wallace distanced himself from the paper, leaving Tant and Cogdill in complete control. In its first anniversary issue (May 4, 1950), it carried the following editorial statement relating to its dearest dogmas and its editorial aim:<\/span><\/p>\n We are committed to battle and that without restraint, yes even to the point of division on exactly the same basis that those who opposed the instrumental music divided the church seventy-five years ago.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This warning from Cogdill and Tant could only be understood as a declaration of war. Thereafter these two men dedicated The Gospel Guardian <\/em>(indeed, their lives) to opposing cooperation and children\u2019s homes. Through its pages, through preaching, and through publication of tracts they spread their hobbies widely.<\/span><\/p>\n As they began to gain influence among some preachers and as these preachers began to disturb, divide, and\/or steal congregations, faithful brethren realized that they must respond to and refute these doctrines with the Truth. Numerous debates were conducted on these issues, some of the most crucial of which were those between W. L. Totty and Charles Holt (1954), E. R. Harper and Yater Tant (1955, 1956), Guy N. Woods and W. Curtis Porter (1956), Guy N. Woods and Roy E. Cogdill (1957), and G. K. Wallace and Charles Holt (1959). Roy C. Deaver and Thomas B. Warren, both young men in the early 1950s, studied their way through these matters and by means of articles, lectures, and debates helped stop the advance of these \u201canti\u201d forces that threatened to engulf the church for a while.28<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Analogous \u201cAnti\u201d Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Predictably, the two foregoing \u201canti\u201d contentions spawned additional \u201canti\u201d hobbies (although not all who rode off on the \u201canti-cooperation\u201d and \u201canti-orphan home\u201d horses rode off on all of the sub-hobbies). These kindred doctrines included (1) declaring it sinful to eat a physical meal on church property and (2) declaring it sinful for the church to render physical\/material aid to anyone who is not a Christian (i.e., the \u201csaints only\u201d doctrine).<\/span><\/p>\n The anti-Bible class, anti-literature, anti-women-teacher, anti-located- preacher, anti- variety-of-worship-order, anti-multiple-cups, and anti-Bible-college positions were generally recognized as extreme by most brethren through the efforts of stalwart men who exposed their fallacies. They therefore captured only a relatively small percentage of congregations and had largely run their respective courses by the1940s.<\/span><\/p>\n Although, as earlier noted, all of the \u201canti\u201d doctrines make the same basic arguments and the same basic mistakes in Biblical interpretation, for some reason(s) the more recent \u201canti\u201d doctrines attracted far more adherents than previous ones had done. Many preachers succumbed to them and aligned themselves with them, and at least a few hundred congregations were captured by them. Florida Christian College in Tampa, Florida came under the influence of this faction and it continues in this alignment as Florida College. One writer estimates that, before resistance and refutation slowed their efforts, they had captured perhaps ten percent of the brotherhood.29<\/sup> While these \u201canti\u201d brethren continue to propagate their doctrine, refusing to fellowship those who will not bow to their personal scruples, they have not made any major gains in the past four decades.<\/span><\/p>\n It is encouraging to note that with the passing of years (and of the influence of some of its long-time, hardline leaders) this latest incarnation of the \u201canti\u201d hermeneutic is showing signs of moderating. One may observe an increasing number of brethren and congregations who hold these views that are counting their scruples as matters of option rather than of obligation. Such brethren thus grant fellowship to those of us whom their forefathers labeled \u201cliberals.\u201d We \u201cliberals\u201d have always been willing to grant our \u201canti\u201d brethren the right to their scruples\u2014as long as they did not seek to bind them on all others. We should all pray that these developments are only the beginning stages of a trend that presages a grand scale of restored fellowship between brethren\u2014one that should never have been severed in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n Brethren who have sought to force such extremism upon the church have from the beginning sought to claim Foy E. Wallace, Jr., for their cause. One cannot read the numerous and strong disclaimers from him made over several years and still honestly believe that he ever supported their program of religious mayhem\u2014either its doctrines or its tactics. He described these brethren as \u201ca group of \u2018aginners\u2019 who verily by that description have distinguished themselves as antis<\/em>, a stigmatic title which their personal conduct has earned.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n\n