Gospel Guardian, February 1, 1978
by James W. Adams
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 4, December 1996
Almost two decades ago, the late B.C. Goodpasture, then the "Pastepot" but occasionally the rampaging and recalcitrant editor of "Old Reliable" The Gospel Advocate, characterized those opposing church support of human institutions and centralized control and oversight as
"Johnny-come-lately Sommerites." On this basis, he hung the yellow tag of "quarantine" about our necks and thus set in motion the current division between so-called "conservative" and "liberal" congregations. Today, these two fellowships of professed Christians, for all practical purposes, constitute two separate and distinct religious bodies. While we deplore the fact and wish it were not so, honesty and realism demand that we view this division as almost, if not altogether, irreversible. If time proves me wrong, I shall rejoice, nor shall my pessimistic view preclude my being open-minded about any proper reapproach to unity, but facts will not allow me to view such even as a remote possibility, much less a probability.
Will We Come to the Same Sad End?
In this editorial, I am less interested in the accuracy of B.C. Goodpasture’s description of us or the determination of "who split the log," but rather, I am concerned about the future of that fellowship of Christians, of which I am a part, dedicated to conservative principles of Scripture application. I care very little for labels or epithets. They rarely advance the cause of truth. I consider Goodpasture’s reference to the group of people with which Daniel Sommer stood identified as "Sommerites" to be both inaccurate and unkind; however, I know what he meant. Daniel Sommer and those who agreed with him taught that secular colleges in which the Bible was taught as an academic subject, owned and operated by Christians, were wrong per se, and that Christians who supported them sinned in so doing. They also opposed benevolent institutions owned or supported by churches to care for widows and orphans. Because we opposed church support of such colleges and such benevolent institutions, Goodpasture viewed us as "Johnny-come-lately Sommerites."
There were a great many things taught and practiced by Daniel Sommer and those who stood with him with which I do not agree, yet the fact remains that they did teach much
fundamental truth on the question of the relationship of churches to human institutions. Furthermore, history shows that, at one time, they constituted a militant, influential, and prosperous fellowship of Christians. Then, churches numbered in the thousands, and so did their preachers. Many of their preachers were well-informed and able men. Daniel Sommer was no pygmy, intellectually or otherwise. He was a man of intellectual stature and tremendous ability. How fare they today? They are all but extinct. What brought this to pass? They descended deeper and deeper into the morass of negativism, became hopelessly involved in petty squabbles over immaterial and inconsequential matters, developed a spirit of partisan jealousy and rivalry, and divided themselves into practical oblivion.
My fear is: Will “conservatives” today give real substance to Goodpasture’s malicious, partisan charge of some eighteen years ago by coming to the same sad end to which those whom Goodpasture styled "Sommerites" have come? Signs definitely point in this direction. I do not wish to be regarded as a "crepe hanger," but on the other hand, I do not intend to stupidly ignore the obvious and qualify for membership in that faternity of religionists who were told by Jesus, "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3). In the words of the writer of Hebrews, "time would fail me to tell of" the militant anti-college-Bible-department brethren, the antiweddings-and-funerals-in-the-church-building group, the anti-recognition of Christmas (even as a national holiday) group, the propermissive-attitude-toward-divorce and remarriage group along with their opposites -- the infallible judges-of-the-validity-of-every-case-of-divorce and remarriage group, the grace-fellowship group and their symphathizers, the hat-and-hair-question group, ad infinitum. That such views exist is not the occasion of my fear; rather, the militant, pressing attitude and conduct of those espousing them concern me. Many holding these views manifest an attitude that can only be described as partisan to the core.
A continued maintenance of such an attitude will inevitably divide us into a motley mess of sectarian groups, destroy our influence among sensible people and prejudice our future. An attitude of schismatic reactionism is the "kiss of death" upon any association of people for common purposes, regardless of the validity of the basic reasons for their existence as such an association. The roadside of history is literally strewn with the bleaching bones of such bodies. Jesus knew that the vitality of any movement, even a divinely-inspired one, depended upon the essential unity of that body, hence he said, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25), and prayed, "Father ... neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21).
An Appeal
Brethren of influence and ability can stop our progress toward oblivion on the road of "partyism" if they have the courage to speak out against it boldly and plainly. No one person, church, or paper can do it. I am personally committed, as is The Gospel Guardian as long as I am its editor, to opposition to this destructive "ism" at work among us. This may not build our subscription list (at least in some quarters), but it is the only course that will satisfy my conscience. Here I stand, so help me God!
