NEITHER—NOR
In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the above caption as follows:
One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or denies.
Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an immersionist.
“But what difference does it make whether I am ‘pre’ or ‘Post’?” I should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some “Neither ... Nor’s.” But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour himself shows the likely effect for one to say: “My Lord delays his coming.” Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, “The Lord is at hand,” or “The Judge standeth before the door,” or “The end of all things is at hand,” or “When ye see these things, know that he is near.” Too much store is being set by this “what difference does it make?” The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations it were well to avoid. As every truth of God’s word is helpful, so every error is harmful, and any error may lead to fatality. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
Yes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been all along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class, names. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see how a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. In his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some sort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is. And so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians. Here, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations. It will not help the situation any to say that these are merely descriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these descriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different parties? Methodist was first a descriptive term, and then a party name. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist Christian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one of the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups, classes, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men to create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of them? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that make it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to designate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in nature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created conditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate to line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly mistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party label, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But if he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he do about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program these brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to these brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things mapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they believed him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his first coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and the fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the present program makers.
But Brother Chambers thinks that neither “pre” nor “post” should be made a test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea that one’s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The plea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same plea from the “progressives.” No matter from whom it comes, it sounds like a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in its long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you imagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb begging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a test of fellowship?
There has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To raise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any attention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the issue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man might make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion you must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should decide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness, and that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that flashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel disposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But suppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him that he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried away with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a divider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it? Suppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads that the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of fellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of course, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of churches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do? Would he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold meetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by preaching hurtful and untrue theories.
If brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us that we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us, what can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a “manifesto.” And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship.
What is their object in talking so much about tests of fellowship? Do they live up to their plea? When has a church which indorses whole-heartedly the Word and Work theory ever called one who opposed such theory to hold their meeting? What fellowship do they extend to preachers who do not indorse them? Why do they not call Foy E. Wallace, Jr., C. R. Nichol, or men like these, to assist them in meetings? No longer ago than last year some friends of mine wanted me to teach a Bible class of nights in their meetinghouse. Two of the elders are ardent admirers of Brother Boll and his teaching; they refused to allow the class to be taught in the meetinghouse. Look at the matter any way you please, and it was worse than a refusal to fellowship me. And the only grounds of refusal was the fact that I was not a “pre.” Now, until they show some fellowship toward those who oppose their theories, all clear-thinking brethren will conclude that their talk about “tests of fellowship” is indulged in merely to create prejudice in their favor. Such a thing is cheap politics.
“Our Savior himself shows the likely effect for one to say: ‘My Lord delays his coming.’” Brother Chambers here quotes from the parable found in Luke 12:42-48. These brethren quote, “My Lord delays his coming,” as if that was the real crime of that wicked servant; whereas he merely took advantage of his lord’s delay to give expression to the villainy that was already in him. The use these brethren make of this seems to indicate that they think the only thing that keeps people out of all meanness is the expectation that the Lord might come any moment. But I have never said that the Lord delays his coming, and, therefore, do not belong in the class with that wicked servant. The word translated delayeth means “to linger, delay, tarry.”—Thayer. “To spend time; to continue or last long, hold out; to persevere in doing; especially, to tarry, linger, delay, be slow; to prolong, put off.”—Liddell and Scott. This word would not be used concerning an event that was not delayed beyond the time it was expected. Now, these future-kingdom advocates tell us that the first Christians were taught to expect Jesus to come again while they lived. But he did not come then. According to their teaching, the Lord has delayed his coming several hundred years beyond the time expected. Who is it that says the Lord did not come at the time he was expected? They are the ones, according to their own teaching, who say: “My Lord delays his coming.”
Brother Chambers says: “It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, ‘The Lord is at hand,’ or ‘The Judge standeth before the door,’ or ‘The end of all things is at hand,’ or ‘When ye see these things, know that the end is near.’” Who opposes his quoting the Scriptures referred to? When a man makes an implied charge of that nature, he is honor bound to name the parties, when called on to do so. Will Brother Chambers give the name of the person to whom he refers, or is he merely insinuating things to create prejudice?