We
cannot visit former days in a time machine and alter the past. Such is
the material of science fiction. It may be beneficial, however, to look
at past events and consider "what might have been" if men and women had
chosen to speak up at various crucial points in history. While this will
not change the present, it might very well help us to consider our own
need to make choices in our own time that just might create a better
future than otherwise would have unfolded.
I grew
up just south of Akron, Ohio. If you drive through the many towns and
villages of that area you are sure to see many signs in front of church
buildings that read "Church of Christ." You will see others that read
"Christian Church." Not having actually made the count, I suspect that
there are a good many more such churches that use instrumental music in
their attempts to worship God in that part of the country than there are
churches that have remained with the New Testament pattern. These are
confusing for brethren who travel there and look for a place to worship.
When they stumble into such churches they are shocked to see that many
things are practiced and taught that are not found in the New Testament.
The drift away from the Restoration Plea and ideal has continued for
well over a century. There was a period of time in which those churches
were identical in teaching and practice to those churches that have
remained with the New Testament pattern. The drift that ultimately led
to division began many years prior to the "official" division that came
about in 1906. Those who ushered in the novelties that brought the
division about were not in any respect different from those who are
attempting to do the same thing in our own time. In principle, the
issues are the same even if the doctrines and practices being pressed
into passive churches today are somewhat different and more numerous. We
lay the blame for division at the feet of those who pressed the
innovations of a century ago. This is reasonable and fair. The axiom is
true:
Those who drive the wedge are responsible for splitting the log.
There
is
also room for culpability at the feet of those who remained passive and
silent.
The church is not a log and must not sleep like one. Those who stand by
and watch a crime taking place without attempting to help save human
lives share in the guilt to some degree. Our laws recognize this
principle. Those who stand by and watch the Body of Christ being
mistreated by human hands -- in our day or at any time -- share some of
the responsibility for the harm that results.
We
need to keep this in mind as we participate in the history that is being
written in our own day. Our silence can contribute to division. Our
speech can allay it.
In
Akron, Ohio... a similar situation occurred. Ben Franklin was invited in
April, 1868 to conduct an evangelistic meeting. The church had in the
past on various occasions used the instrument, but in Franklin's
presence had always refrained. But on this occasion, Franklin went into
the building and took his seat, waiting for the singing to start, and
then for his time to preach. But when the singing began, so did the
instrument. Franklin, opposed as he was to the instrument, was faced
with a serious problem of what to do. He informs us of his thoughts
during these few moments:
We have not been
more tried in a long time. While this was going off, we reflected and
turned the matter in every way possible. What was to be done? We never
felt more unhappy. Are brethren determined, we involuntarily thought, to
deteriorate the worship into music and compel us to endorse it? If we
refuse to preach, it may, we further thought, create a lasting trouble,
and some may blame us for it. We decided to preach, and did so, but with
a heavy heart, in view of the worship having been thus degenerated
before our face (Earl Irvin West, THE SEARCH FOR THE ANCIENT ORDER, Vol.
2, pp. 81, 82).
We admire Ben
Franklin for so much good that he did in his lifetime for the cause of
Christ. We can sense the shame and regret that he had for his own silent
course of action when duty called upon him to speak. We cannot go back
and nudge him to do otherwise. He could not alter his course after this
meeting closed.
In our own day we
can expect to find ourselves in situations where the tide might possibly
be turned if we speak -- and might possibly be encouraged along its
present course if we are silent. Ben Franklin was right in thinking that
some would have blamed him for speaking. If he had it to do over again,
I believe that he would have willingly born the reproach of Christ for
the sake of the lasting good that his words may have done. He had to
make a choice in a matter of minutes that had lasting consequences. You
see those consequences when you drive through the country around Akron.
Apostasy won.
You have choices to
make today. What effect will your choices -- either to speak or to
remain silent -- have upon the future of the Lord's people and upon
those who seem ready to go out from among us?
Other Articles by Tim Nichols
The Futility of Communicating With Subjectivist
Count Your Many Blessings and Then Weigh Them
The Prudent
Pause