Glenn Blanchard's Correspondence Defending Liberalism in Reply to an Article Published by Elder Ralph E. Harris in the Advocate & Messenger
The following article appeared in the September 2001 issue of the Advocate & Messenger
HOW LONG WOULD IT LAST?
I want to propose some questions to anyone who has been involved in any way with the introduction of anything into the church that she had not been practicing or advocating before those things were introduced. First and foremost, how long do you think the Primitive Baptist Church would maintain her apostolic identity if each successive generation were to adopt just one new practice or doctrine into the worship service? If my generation sets up a foundation for the express purpose of collecting funds for missionary work, on what grounds could we deny the following generation the right to set up a Church Board to dispense those funds as they felt needful? Could they not argue that they have the same right to set up a Missionary Board that we had to establish a Foundation for the collection of missionary funds?
If my generation starts teaching that the Commission of Matt. 28:16-20 & Mark 16:14-15 was given to the church as a body instead of to the apostles and ministry, what is to keep the next generation from setting up some kind of organization to guarantee that the church sends someone to fulfill that commission? Since it is obvious that the church, as a body, cannot go and preach, how else is the church going to comply with their supposed commission if they do not send someone from their body? This would require some kind of Church Board or organization that the Bible does not give us any instructions for---not one word. What is to keep future generations from adding on that accessory? Could they not argue that they have the same authority to add on a Board that we do to set up a Foundation and to maintain that the Commission was given to the church as a body?
If my generation starts holding organized, church sponsored Bible Classes, what is to keep the next generation from moving those classes to Sunday morning and calling it a Sunday School? What argument would we use to dissuade them from so doing? Would we have any argument that would not also condemn our Bible Classes? Might not the next generation then decide to divide those classes into age groups and start having a publisher print teaching materials for the various groups? And if it went that far could we be surprised if they then decided to go the rest of the way and appoint women to teach those classes? Do you say there is no likelihood that this would happen? Upon what do you base that opinion? It has happened with others who have begun to depart from the old paths, why shouldn't it happen again?
If my generation begins taking scripturally unqualified persons into our churches, what shall we say to the next generation if they want to drop all requirements for membership? For instance, if we take in one adulterer, what argument could we use against taking in the next adulterers who offered themselves for membership? The same goes for effeminate persons, whoremongers, covetous persons, idolaters, thieves, drunkards, extortioners, etc. (See I Cor. 6:9-10 & Eph. 5:5). Where would we draw the line and where, and on what basis, could we consistently stop the downward slide?
These are just a few examples of what I have under consideration, and should be enough to make my point. If my generation starts adding unscriptural practices of any kind, such as setting up preacher schools, paying ministers a salary, instituting Old Testament tithing in the New Testament Church, etc., what right will we have to complain if future generations then want to bring in every other conceivable religious practice known to man? And again I ask, if we were to go this route how long would it be before our churches looked essentially the same as all other religious orders?
It is my understanding of the Scriptures that if we depart in any point from the old paths laid out for us by Christ and the apostles and do not repent of it, it will not be long before we only have the outer shell of a church. The candlestick will have been removed. Why should the Lord continue to recognize a body of people as a part of His church when they walk in open rebellion against His teachings?
If anyone in the liberal camp should read this, I ask him or her, do you feel that you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction? But most of all, do you think you can anwer them to the Lord's satisfaction? And if you can't, where does that leave you? It is not enough merely to say (as I have heard some do) that they don't believe there will be any further departures added on to their's. That answer not only acknowledges that there has been a departure, but it clearly flies in the face of history.
I pray that those who have been caught up in the liberal movement will soon realize where they are going before the Lord totally blinds them to any concept of what the old church is all about and how it is supposed to be carried on. We cannot introduce any new things without opening the floodgates for the introduction of more and more innovations. That is why it is such a serious and hurtful matter to introduce practices and teachings into the old church that she has not historically held. When we veer from the original path in either direction it will not be long before we are in the ditch. Christ placed within His church everything it would ever need when He established it. Therefore any time anyone adds anything to it they are, in essence, saying that He did not know what all it would need at the time He set it up and therefore He needs their help in supplying the things He left lacking. They are also saying that the Scriptures are not a thorough furnisher unto all good works (See II Tim. 3:17). Does anyone really want to place him or herself in that position?
At the time I united with the old church forty-two years ago, and until relatively recently, it was not bothered with any of the additions mentioned in this article and our churches were prospering more than they are now. Why then have these additions been made in many places over the country and why are so many going along with it? It has caused a tremendous amount of disturbance,---and "God is not the author of confusion" (I Cor. 14:33). What is the underlying motivation behind it? Remember, it was the priests and diviners of the Philistines who advised that the ark of the Lord be put on a new cart (I Sam. 6:7).
May the Lord help us to be content with the old church as He set it up and as our able old forefathers have maintained it for almost two millennia.
Elder Ralph Harris
Glenn Blanchard sent the following rebuttal to the article
October 19, 2001
Dear Elder Harris,
I hope and pray this finds you enjoying the Lord's many rich blessings. In the September issue of your paper you had an article entitled "How Long Would It Last?" It was very discouraging to me, to see an article that attacked certain practices in an uneven manner. Let me explain:
1. Primitive Baptist churches have always collected money for the missionary work they propose to do. In modern America, if the church is not a tax-free corporation, the funds cannot be subtracted from your income tax. Thus a foundation is formed. The money goes to the one doing the work and that doesn't need a board to figure out. We will never be that big. Was it necessary to raise this straw man, just so you could write about it?
2. The great commission is so ignored among our people, whatever they believe about it, that it hardly bears consideration. Why keep bringing it up? Don't we have more pressing problems?
3. You say Bible Study will lead to Sunday School. If you will take the time to study the beginning of Sunday School, in it's historical setting, you will see that it did not evolve from Bible Studies. I have been conducting Bible Studies at New Hope for seven years. Because of these Bible Studies my members are better equipped to defend the doctrines and practices of the Primitive Baptist then they were before I came. If I, or a successor, were to suggest Sunday Schools at New Hope, the whole congregation would rise up, with scripture, and defeat the idea.
4. You then went on about taking in "scripturally unqualified persons" for church membership. Are we, as Primitive Baptist, taking in so many new members that we are having to sort them out? Do you actually have a revival going on that is so big you have to stop and qualify new members?
Since I have been the pastor at New Hope (11/94) I have baptized 72 newmembers into membership at New Hope and have taken in another 20 or so, by letter. Are they all a great success? No. Did I make some mistakes? Yes. Have we excluded the mistakes? After a time of labor, yes. We recently excluded one for gossip. You see, brother, we practice church discipline, more, I feel, then some "conservative" congregations. In your close you say that these "departures" are not "historically held." Brother, just because something is old doesn't mean it is right. Are you against the practice of a church meeting once a month? What scripture do you have for not meeting as a local congregation every Lord's day? What scripture do you have for charging for church papers? You say you can't send it out free. We send out almost 1,500 papers a month, free, and with no Board of Trustees in another state. Where is your scripture for Associations and Moderators? Who has placed you over the churches to decide what should be done at each turn? Do you have so little confidence in our ministry that you feel they can't tell the difference between Bible Study and Sunday School? I do not believe so strongly in the power of evolution. I believe that are ministers can stop a practice before it becomes corrupt. Can you be so wise that you should set the standard for each minister in each church, and than publish it and charge people to read it? No, my brother, I do not wish to be harsh. I only desire that you feel how your words, in your paper, might feel to others. I open my church papers for learning, fellowship with others and for consolation. I don't get them for strife and debate. My blood pressure is high enough. Please keep this letter as a private correspondence between us. Also, please cancel my subscription and use the time left on it for someone that can't pay.
May God bless you and your ministry. If I have unduly offended, please forgive me. Sometimes I am too offensive, due to my limited vocabulary and my sinful nature.
Elder Glenn Blanchard
Elder Ralph Harris's reply.
Oct. 23,2001
Dear Brother Blanchard,
An editor from Arkansas wrote to me concerning the September article that you object to and stated, "I enjoyed your article, How Long Would It Last? To my mind it is unanswerable. If any would look, the logic is there. There is no need for us to get creative in order to preach the gospel in distant areas. If we would just do it the way Paul did it I don't think there would be problems with any reasonable and informed Old Baptists. It is all the shortcuts and inventiveness that is causing the concern."
Isn't it amazing that there should be such a wide disparity between your view of the article and his? He sees the logic of it and you don't. What makes the difference?
I have had a number of favorable responses to the article. Yours is the only response from the liberal side. Essentially your only answer to it is that you do not believe my concerns are justified. In your view, the Foundation started by Gus Harter is a "straw man", the Great Commission "hardly bears consideration", Bible classes could never become Sunday Schools, and taking in unqualified members is no real concern.
There are some very serious charges against me in your letter that clearly reflect a fatal spirit that I have observed among all the liberal brethren. You imply, without any foundation whatsoever, that I think I have been placed over the churches to decide what should be done at each turn, and that I think I am so wise that I should set the standard for each minister in each church to follow. I have had a lot of unchristian accusations and slanders leveled at me during my 40 plus years in the ministry, but perhaps none so harsh and baseless as these. If you can live with that Icertainly can, but you write as though you are totally ignorant of Matthew 18:6. Yours is not a vocabulary problem, my brother, believe me. The sinful nature I can go along with.
It has been my experience that the liberal brethren totally discount and ignore all the cautions that are raised by the conservative brethren and pass them off lightly (and often sarcastically) as being weightless and without foundation. All I have sought to do is to point out the dangers associated with introducing new practices into our worship services, yet the only responses I have gotten from the liberal side is ridicule, ungodly charges and last, but by no means least, cancellations. I think just about all the liberals have long since canceled their subscriptions to the A&M. The attitude here seems to be, "Let us silence the opposition. We will learn from the Old Baptist periodicals just so long as we do not learn of our errors. We will pay no attention to anything that is contrary to our own agenda. We will go headlong into this agenda even though we see it is causing havoc among the churches. Besides, it is those who oppose our new things who are dividing the churches." May God spare me of such a spirit!
Just here let me dispossess you of some of your false assumptions: (1) I don't need any scripture "for not meeting as a local congregation every Lord's day. My home church meets every Sunday. (2) I also don't need any scripture for Associations and Moderators. I am not in an Association and I have never cared for them as they have been carried on. I have an article lined up for the December issue of the A&M that deals with the abuse of Associations. That ought to get me some more cancellations. (3) I don't need any scripture for "charging for church papers". I have nothing to do with the subscription price that is charged for the A&M. I don't ever even see the subscription list, though each month the secretary does mail me a list of the new subscribers and the cancellations. I edit the paper and nothing else. I have never placed a charge on anything that I have personally published, and I have mailed out thousands of booklets and other materials. If I were the owner of the A&M and operated it strictly on my own I would not charge for it, but that's out of my control.
With regard to churches meeting but once a month, no, I am not against a church meeting no more often than that if that's the best they can do. A great many of our churches in the past have had to limit their meetings to once a month because of a preacher shortage and sometimes other considerations, and I am not going to condemn all those people and say they were wrong. Many of those churches flourished far more than our churches generally are today. There was also much more visitation between churches then than there is now. Would you have stood up against them and condemned them?
The way we view what is called The Great Commission is vital. No, we don't have more pressing problems, not if the view of the liberals is correct. If the commission was given to the church, as the liberals maintain, and if, as you say, this commission is "so ignored among our people," could we have a more pressing problem? Do you believe the commission was given to the church. If so, is your church going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature? If not, why not? Or does your church feel that they are fulfilling the commission by contributing funds to those who do go to a place or two overseas? Do you personally have any desire to go into all the world (not just to the Philippines or to India) and preach the gospel? If so, why aren't you going? Please explain what you mean when you say, "The great commission is so ignored among our people that it hardly bears consideration."
When you say, "Primitive Baptist churches have always collected money for the missionary work they propose to do," where do you get this astounding bit of information? Please do me the favor of giving me chapter and verse, or the pages from Primitive Baptist histories. I was bom and raised in the Old Baptist church and have lived for 63 years and have never heard or read such a statement from anyone claiming to be a Primitive Baptist.
Just this week I copied a statement from Hassell's History that was made by Elder J. R. Respess sometime before 1886. HP. said, "It is God's order that those to whom the gospel is ministered are the ones to minister in carnal things to the preacher. God opened the heart of Lydia, and He is the same God now. We grant that if the letter of the gospel is forced upon an unwilling people, those sending it must be at charges for it; but when God sends it, they will care for those preaching it. Though even then God's ministers are made to approve themselves ministers of Christ, in necessities, distresses, cold, nakedness and hunger. No other ministers save God's ministers will endure such things for the love of God. Men will endure such things for the love of the world, but not for the love of God."
I added an Editor's note as follows: "The modern, unscriptural way, is for the people here in America to provide for the needs of those who go to preach in other lands. It is for preachers to go, not by faith, nor depending upon the Lord, but relying upon funds already provided in advance. It is to solicit, and collect, support from one field in order to labor in another field. This is not the Lord's way.)
When the angel of the Lord told Philip to "Arise and go toward the south," etc., did he tell him to first collect enough funds for the trip? Of course not! That was the Lord's way. If He sends a man on a mission then He will provide for that man. The field in which the man labors will supply his needs. All his -wants may not be supplied, but his needs will be supplied. Do our present day "missionaries" have that kind of faith? Obviously not. One Elder near us had his church hold bake sales and such to raise money for him to go to the Philippines, and he didn't go until the funds were raised (our old forefathers would turn over in their graves). And then it was only for a flying trip. If you can find scripture for this kind of thing I would surely like to know where it is. You will notice that when Philip was told to rise and go, the very next verse says, "And he arose and went." Nothing is said about his raising money beforehand. And obviously he didn't starve before he got back home.
You say that if you or your successor were to suggest Sunday Schools at New Hope, the whole congregation would rise up, with scripture, and defeat the idea. But let me ask you, brother, how do you know what your successors will do? The fact is you don't know, and that is just the point: a point, that you have chosen to ignore, along with others I made in my article,. You cannot say with certainty that your present Bible class will not somewhere down the line be turned into a Sunday School. And I doubt seriously that you can say right now what your whole congregation would or would not do.
What scripture would your church use to defeat the idea of a Sunday School? Have you taught them that in your Bible classes. Whatever you might say that scripture is, that same scripture could just as appropriately be used to defeat your Bible class. You essentially already have a Sunday School, brother. You just don't hold it on Sunday.
I can well understand why you want your letter kept as a private correspondence. If I had written it I would want it kept private too. Your closing remarks remind me of so many other letters I have gotten over the years. They lambaste me and paint me in a horrible light and then close by saying forgive me if I have unduly offended you. I suppose putting a little salve on the wounds is better than no salve at all.
I reckon I have been skinned so many times in the last 40 years that my hide has gotten pretty tough. It doesn't hurt nearly as much as it used to when I am misrepresented and maligned, but I've never yet learned to enjoy it. I take comfort in the fact that I stand firm, as I always have, upon the principles and practices of our able old forefathers of the past. I have many hundreds of volumes of their writings and they, to a man, stood solidly opposed to the things that the liberals are now pushing. If they were wrong, then I am wrong, but I feel far more comfortable standing with them than I would standing with the liberals. I think the liberals are now in the majority, but I don't recall a single instance in the Scriptures when the majority was right.
I wish you no ill, brother, but I don't believe you are seeing very far down the road. You are far enough along in years that you may not live long enough to see the consequences that I have cautioned about for years, but just as they have always come in the past, they will this time too. I just wonder how many will be man enough to stand up and acknowledge it when it happens.
Yours in hope,
Ralph E. Harris
P.S. If you still wish to cancel you may write to the secretary and treasurer whose address is on the front cover.
Copyright c. 2002. Permission is given for this material to be freely copied and distributed. The Primitive Baptist Library.
