This section of my analysis of Hardshell history, doctrine, and practice will reveal in more detail Hardshell “hypocrisy” and "peculiarities" in those areas. I have already exposed it somewhat in their “version” of Baptist “history,” and in their novel interpretations, and I will also expose it further, giving extended historical records that contradict those “revisionist histories,” further examples of novel interpretations, and of their gross violations of sound Biblical hermeneutics, (of which I have already given some examples and that the Hardshells are infamous for putting forth) and I will also certainly expose their hypocrisies and contradictions in Christian doctrine.
In the area of practice, I will take up the subjects of “Musical Instruments,” “Associations” and “societies,” “Weekly” or “Protracted Meetings,” “Sunday Schools,” “Bible classes,” “Church Discipline” (involving peculiar views on Divorce, Baptism, Church Exclusions, Closed Communion, terms of fellowship, etc.),
Musical Instruments
First, then, consider the Hardshell hypocrisy in the belief and practice concerning the subject of “musical instruments in the public worship of the church.”
The Hardshell doctrinal position on this matter is like the Campbellites, the Hardshell’s “twin brother,” namely, that it is “unlawful” for the New Testament Church to use instruments “in the worship service.” They argue that there is no “direct command” authorizing them. Like the “Non-instrumental” Campbellites, they argue that whatever is not positively enjoined by a “divine command” or “scriptural example” is “forbidden” and “taboo”, to be "anathematized," for and by the church. This reflects one of their many likenesses, as "twins." Both cults have accepted a false doctrine called “Patternism.”
But, let me ask the Hardshell (who might be reading this) for his “direct command” or “scriptural example” for his beloved “associations,” “tuning forks,” “hymnals,” “Union Meetings,” “Singing Schools,” “preachers meetings,” “council of churches,” “moderators,” “clerks” (both for individual churches and for associations of churches), “Primitive Baptist Libraries” and book “Publishers” and “periodicals,” etc.
I will not take time to present the Hardshell “arguments” against the use of music in the church or of choirs. They use the same worn out, hashed and rehashed, Campbellite “arguments” of the past and which Brother Ross has done a fine job thoroughly refuting in his book on “Campbellites, Cowbells, Rosary Beads, and Snake-Handling." He also refutes in an extensive way the errors of “Patternism.”
For myself I never was satisfied with the Hardshell position on that and just went along with the denomination. I saw all their arguments against it as being of little weight.
Hardshells say that instruments of music are “forbidden” for use in the New Testament Church, or for the public worship service. They affirm that such a use “stirs up animal emotions and appetites” in people, even citing Alexander Campbell in defense of their position (who said the same thing). They say, as did Campbell, that it is “worldly” and “carnal” in such a time and place.
However, they nearly all extol the level of joy received by those same musical instruments in private home worship. I have witnessed “singings” with a group of Hardshells in a private home where a piano, guitar, violin, banjo, etc., accompanied the singing of praise. God was praised and pleased in a private home, but such would suddenly become evil if they moved into the official church meeting house and did the same? That is laughable and only reveals their hypocrisy and prejudice and other social idiosyncrasies. People were edified in the one setting but not in the other? Can anyone give a sane reason for this kind of thinking, this kind of “logic”?
Many Hardshells also use instruments in “Church Weddings,” but not always without a “fuss.” But those that do, manifest again their “inconsistency.” In those wedding ceremonies, the church gathers in the meeting house for a "service" that is clearly religious in nature. At such services, the name of God is invoked, prayers offered, and homilies are given on the Christian view of marriage, and yet this is okay but in a little different setting it is all wrong? “Consistency thou art a jewel”!
They also sometimes have musical instruments in church “funeral services.” A sermon is preached, prayers are heard, and saints are present. It is also a public gathering. But, music is all right in this case. Ironic.
It is also noteworthy that though Hardshells oppose choirs, quartets, and special group-singing in the regular worship service, they nevertheless have those special groups to sing in homes, to the edification of the saints, and on records and tapes, but they become evil and unedifying when it becomes part of the official worship service? That is just "plain nonsense" and is the kind of “logic” and behavior one would expect from a cult.
They can find “authority” for their “pitch pipes,” “tuning forks,” but not for a “piano.” David could praise God with his strings and his harp but we cannot today? Where, in the New Testament was it ever voided? Forbidden?
Associations
Let me now show their “hypocrisy” in the area of “associations.” They claim to support only those things pertaining to the church that began with the Apostles. They are against seminaries and Sunday Schools because they are of “human origin” and arose “after the Apostles.” Well, this criteria also certainly condemns “associations”! But, doesn’t it all show how they “pick and choose” which “institutions of men” that they condone?
They also have been guilty of hypocrisy in violating the very principles upon which those very associations were established. One of those principles, a Hardshell one, ironically, outlaws their own associations! Another principle, often violated throughout Hardshell history, involved the "setting aside" of the rule and prohibition for associations not to “interfere in the internal affairs of the local churches,” or to “lord it over God’s heritage,” or to be a “Supreme Court” for the churches to bring their “disputes.”
But the fact of the matter is, in far too many cases, with Hardshells themselves testifying, the associations have become all of the above forbidden things. They have often served as a “catalyst” for trouble, strife, and division. They have often been the scene of endless controversy and of preacher and party competition.
Some Hardshells, like Elder Ralph Harris of Florida, have written against the “legality,” “authority,” and “profitability” of associations. He has, like others, warned of their danger and exposed their evil consequences. This has led many of brother Harris’s cohorts in Florida to change their name from “associational meetings” to “fellowship meetings.” However, they are still basically the same thing though called by a different name.
Concerning Hardshell “hypocrisy” regarding “weekly meetings,” just recall those statements by the first Hardshells that I cited earlier and who denounced as “iniquitous” those “protracted” and “revival” meetings.
They now do those things that they once condemned, only they call those same things by different names. They have had “conventions,” “councils,” “peace meetings,”“preachers meetings,” and other such things.
Here is what Gilbert Beebe wrote on the subject of Associations.
It is to us, at all times, a matter of no small joy, to witness a disposition on the part of our brethren, to examine the divine rule, and to inquire at the sacred oracle for the validity of every institution of our religious practice. The attention of several of our dear brethren, in these parts and elsewhere, has lately led to the subject of Associations, and it will be seen that the result of their investigation, thus far, has not produced a unanimity of sentiment on the subject. Some are of the opinion that the New Testament provides neither precept or example for them, and other some conceive that the assembly which convened at Jerusalem, on the question from the Antioch church, amounts at least to an example. We have listened with a good degree of interest to the arguments thus far brought forward, pro and con; and without designing to check the discussion of so important a point, we esteem it our privilege to offer our brethren a few remarks which have occurred to us, on the subject, in doing which we shall probably accord, in part, and in some things differ from all who have furnished us with their views.
In the first place we admit that what we call “Associations,” are, or are not divine institutions; they are, or are not directly and positively warranted in the New Testament. If from the Scriptures we can show them to be divinely instituted, and precept and example given for their observance by the church, then we must consider no church complete and independent, or walking in all the ordinances blameless, which do not stand in such connection associated with other churches; and if on a careful examination we find that what we denominate “associations” are not divinely authorized, we must admit (painful as it may be) that we have and do observe a religious practice, for which there is no “Thus saith the Lord;” and we may be subjected to the fearful interrogative, “Who hath required this at our hand?”
But to the merits of the question. Are they from heaven, or of men? We have failed to see with some of our brethren whom we love, that the assembly referred to at Jerusalem, furnishes the least testimony in support of what we denominate “Associations;” and if we can produce no other, or more tenable ground for them, we shall be disposed to give them up, notwithstanding our feelings are strongly, very strongly, enlisted in favor of them. Without going minutely into the comparison of modem associations, with the meeting at Jerusalem, we will observe a few particulars which to us present serious discrepancies. First, those who form our modern associations are Elders and brethren, sent by their respective churches, as messengers, or what is by far more exceptionable, delegates. [That churches have the right to send their messengers on lawful messages, is fully warranted by the practice of the primitive churches, but that she has the right to delegate her authority to messengers, committees, or to councils, is to us as absurd as that a married wife should have the right to transfer her relationship or privileges to another woman.]
The meeting at Jerusalem, was not composed of messengers, or delegates from the churches, but the apostles and Elders came together for to consider this matter. (Acts 15:6) And the whole church, not delegates from the church (see verse 22,) and the Holy Ghost, (verse 28). But our modern Associations are not composed of apostles, the Holy Ghost, and the whole church. The regulations of many associations of our acquaintance, restricts the churches in regard to the number of messengers to be sent. We have said this council at Jerusalem was not composed of messengers from churches represented in that meeting. True there were messengers (not delegates) present from the church at Antioch, but let it be observed these formed no part of the council, but were merely messengers of Antioch church, to the council and other messengers of their own company (verse 22) bore the message of the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders and the whole church, to Antioch. How our brethren can make this meeting an example for modern associations, without involving the right of associations to rule in judgment, if not in legislation over the churches, we are unable to perceive; yet all our brethren agree that the churches are the highest religious body on earth, and contend earnestly for the independence of the churches.
Another discrepancy which we would notice as we pass; as being, in our judgment, no less formidable than the foregoing, is that the council at Jerusalem was not, nor did it pretend to be, a constituted body, independent of, or separate from the church, having a written constitution and by-laws for their special regulation; and a body to be continued, and to hold annual sessions for business, to impose yokes and grant exemption from burdens, from time to time, as might seem good to them and their successors in all subsequent ages. The apostles, seated on the twelve thrones, for the express purpose of judging the spiritual tribes, the Holy Ghost, whose office it is to write the law of the new covenant in the hearts of the spiritual family, and the church, which is divinely empowered and qualified to judge angels, assembled as they were, certainly were in possession of power which would not become us, in what we call “associations.”
The wretched work of New School Baptist associations in arrogating such powers as were exercised by the council at Jerusalem, has very justly excited great alarm among our old fashioned brethren.
After what we have written our readers may suppose that we renounce associations in to to, but such is not the fact; for while we wash our hands from all such associations as we have described above, we hold most sacred and dear the association of the children of God, upon Gospel ground; and while we deny the divine authority of any constituted religious body, except the church of God, as such, we are prepared to show from the practice of the primitive saints, that it is proper, lawful and expedient that the saints should associate together, for social worship, for correspondence, for mutual edification and instruction in righteousness, and for the promotion of that christian fellowship and Gospel union which is like the oil which was poured on Aaron’s head, and like the dew of Hermon which descended upon the mountains of Zion, &c.
If any, or all of our associations have been led off from the simplicity of the Gospel track, let them correct the wrong, renounce it and flee from it. But to cease from “christian correspondence” among the churches which are in fellowship, would be to run into as great an error as that from which they attempt to fly. We should not contend for constitutions, or anything which would have a tendency to characterize associations as an organized, or standing body, apart from the church; yet we conceive that a full understanding of the terms of correspondence, or association, is essential, and should be agreed to, reduced to writing and published in order to prevent, as far as possible, the amalgamation of heterogeneous materials in such religious assembles.
There can be no lack of Scriptural testimony that the primitive churches of Christ kept up a correspondence, and that the disciples were in a habit of mingling together for religious worship, and mutual edification, wherever, and whenever opportunity served; and such meetings we would call “associations.” They, however, being not so parliamentary in their forms of communicating with each other as modern professors are, could generally proceed to worship, or to edify, without waiting to elect by ballot a Chairman, or President (Moderator) and being minute men, could even preach an introductory sermon without being appointed for that purpose twelves months in advance!
The primitive churches on various occasions, sent messengers to deliver messages, contributions, &c.,, for them. It is therefore lawful for Old School churches to send their messengers to report their welfare, for the comfort of sister churches, and to bring back word of the prosperity of the cause, among such sister churches. Such messengers, when assembled with a sister church, may unite in worship, in preaching, and in the general improvement of all the gifts among them. Such a meeting we would call an “association,” and against such associations we conclude there is no law.
In the foregoing we have given some of our views on the subject. Our columns are open for the views of our brethren, judiciously written, on the same subject; we recommend moderation and free discussion. Let us prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.
Here is what a modern Hardshell had to say about Beebe's article on "Associations": (By Elder Gilbert Beebe, 1838)
"The above position advanced by Beebe, is, in general, the position that we hold to in our churches relative to the subject. Perhaps Beebe was too much alone to stand against the major trend in the development of the Baptists. The associations, and their chains of correspondence, continued to development in spite of his opposition, and that of others. James Osborn, very nearly as close to the Strict Baptist brethren as any minister in America during this same period, held basically to this same position. In most matters, Beebe influenced a great many of the Old School Baptist churches; but on the subject of associations, apparently he had his least success. Baptists had not had time to see the attendent evil associated with organized papacy among themselves.
Is it now possible many of us have learned by past experience that fellowship must be had on a better principle? We invite the readers to join our columns in discussing this subject in love and respect. If you wish to comment, please do."
(From www.geocities.com/elder_beebe)
All this confirms what I have been saying about Hardshell hypocrisy relative to their "Associations" and the violating of their principles of not having any institution that they cannot find a specific "thus saith the Lord" Beebe was in a "tight spot" on the subject of "Associations". "Associations" had been around in the Baptist family for hundreds of years. No one complained about them. But, when the Hardshells began to argue against mission organizations and seminaries, their leading argument was that they were "unscriptural," having no direct warrant, therefore wrong to participate in. But, this argument would come back to bite them when it came to their coveted "Associations". Would they be forced to "throw out the baby with the bath water?"
The Divorce Issue
On the subject of “divorce” and church “exclusions,” Hardshells have almost outdone themselves in being “hypocritical.”
Hardshells believe that to “commit adultery,” as a married person, is to commit, in some respect, the “unpardonable sin” or “sin unto death.” This is the “red letter” sin, worse than anything else, so far as church membership is concerned. A murderer can be forgiven and restored to church membership but not one who is guilty of what the Hardshells call “marital adultery.”
When I was ordained, I was asked, like many others, whether I believed that “regeneration takes one out of adultery.” If you say “yes,” then you are set aside as a “heretic.” If you say “no,” then you are ordained. It is that important.
Their “reasoning” is that only death and/or fornication constitutes grounds for divorce. If you divorce and remarry on some other grounds, then you are an adulterer and will continue as such until you either leave your present spouse and go back to your former, or else wait till the former dies!
When a Hardshell experiences a “non-scriptural” divorce, they generally will remain single and dateless, waiting until the divorced spouse commits adultery or begins to date first! This will allow them to get a church sanctioned divorce.
Generally, when a person joins a Hardshell church, the person is asked if he or she has been divorced. If yes, the person is further questioned as to whether it was for adultery or not. If the reason was not for adultery, then the person is denied baptism, church membership, and the Lord’s Supper.
Sometimes these petitioning members can’t locate their first spouse to ascertain “who committed adultery first”! In such cases, the church will generally, but not always, vote not to “take in” that person.
They do however encourage such rejected applicants to “support the old church” with their presence and money! Many times have I seen their churches occupied by such persons who do support the church and weep and cry. It makes me angry and sad at such evil practices. Denying church membership, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper to these is a great evil.
This practice is evil to the core, full of hypocrisy and deceit! It is stated by the Hardshell “historians” that the first Hardshell churches were determined to counteract the perceived “looseness” in “church discipline” among the “Arminian” or “Missionary” churches by “keeping up a strong discipline” and “preserving decency and order.” In order to execute this, they became super strict in their rules for retaining church membership. Some of these legalists have excluded people for the minutest of reasons, such as missing one church service “without a valid reason”!
So-called church discipline and the threat of exclusion have been used to keep folks in line and bring them into submission. It has led to “mental entrapment” and “phobias” of an evil kind. It is more evidence of their being a “cult.” “He shall have judgment without mercy on those who showed no mercy.” (James 2:13)
You can see from what has been said thus far, that the Hardshell “terms of fellowship” and “communion” are strict and severe, to say the least. “Harsh” would be a good word for it too. These Hardshells have drawn such a very tight circle around themselves and said, as it were, “come not near to me, for I am holier than thou.”
I know that when my wife and I separated, not one Hardshell came to counsel, comfort or help me in that time of loneliness and depression. The good old “Arminians” and “Missionaries” did however show me much more Christian love and concern. This revealed much to me.
My brother, Eddie K. Garrett, Jr., who too was a Hardshell preacher at one time, suffered the same kind of shunning when he and his first wife separated and divorced (though he had good reason). It is sad that in leaving the Hardshells he went to the Campbellites, then left them, to go to another cult, and now is almost an infidel. Sigh.
My sister Judy, also a former Hardshell, also experienced this same treatment when she and her husband separated and divorced (he is an ex Hardshell also).
The Lord’s Supper
As for myself, I am in some ways a “closed” and in other ways an “open” communionist. It is, in my opinion, open to some and closed to others. I believe the Hardshells have restricted it beyond measure and acted as though they were the Lord of the Communion table.
And you talk about “priestcraft” (as the Hardshells have done against the Missionaries and Arminians)! The Missionaries are “guilty” of this simply because they support Sunday Schools! That is the Hardshell accusation. But no, it is the Hardshells who are guilty of it. For it is they who claim “sole authority” to “administer” the Supper. Most Hardshells believe that only an ordained minister can baptize or serve the Lord’s Supper and that they authoritatively decide who can eat and who cannot. A church without a minister can’t even partake of the service? Friends, that is “priestcraft”!
Thank God that though the Hardshells may close their “communion” to some, God nevertheless “communes” and “sups” with them! (Rev. 3:20)
Beebe, in answer to the a query about John Bunyan, that great Old Baptist, as to whether he was a Hardshell, says "no." He gave as the reason Bunyan's views on "open communion." I am sure that Bunyan would be rejected too for his belief that God regenerates his elect by means of the gospel. I am happy to be alligned with the truly Old Baptists like Bunyan.
Peculiarism
Concerning Hardshell “peculiarities,” let me say that Hardshells claim that they are especially and particularly that “peculiar people” mentioned by Paul in Titus 2:11.
Any time some one outside of the Hardshell ranks makes a reference to some strange and unusual Hardshell custom, the Hardshells will say that they are, as Paul said, a “peculiar people.” To them, “peculiar” means weird, strange, odd, different, unique, and special. They try their best to live up to this definition!
However, “peculiar” does not carry that denotation nor connotation at all! That is Hardshell ignorance for you. Paul defines “peculiar” by adding “zealous of good works,” but the Hardshells oppose those! Spreading the gospel, benevolent work, tract publishing, preacher education, Sunday Schools, Bible classes, etc.; all these are “good works” which they all oppose! But of course, those are “evil works” to the Hardshells! “Good works,” to them, are such things as “excluding adulterers,” “preaching against” the above things, etc.
You judge for yourself, dear reader; are they “peculiar” as Paul defines it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Post a Comment