(Part 3 of a Four Part Series of Articles)
Lexington, Kentucky, is a place of great historical interest for those
studying a movement to restore New Testament Christianity, which began
about 150 years ago. Many significant events in the early days of that
movement took place at Lexington. And, at Lexington, I
am sorry to say, a great battle was lost in that effort to restore New
Testament Christianity. There is more than one movement to restore New
Testament Christianity. For restoring the faith and practice of the New
Testament is something that ought to be going on everywhere, and all of
the time.
The most influential figure living at Lexington in that restoration
movement during the past 100 years was John W. McGarvey, who was a
teacher in the College Of The Bible for 46 years, and its President for
the last 16 years of his life. He died in October, 1911. He was
outstanding for his Christian manhood, his knowledge of the Bible, and
his impressiveness as a teacher and a preacher. It has been aptly said
of him that he was: "Easy to hear; hard to forget". In the three former
articles of this series, I have given an account of McGarvey as a man,
as a preacher, as President of the College Of The Bible, as a teacher,
and as a preacher. I have recounted his opposition to the introduction
of the organ into the worship, and how he withdrew his membership from
the Broadway Christian Church, just before that congregation, by
majority vote, decided to use the organ in the worship. I have also
pointed out that McGarvey did wrong in defending the American Christian
Missionary Society, organized in 1849 with Alexander Campbell as its
first President. This digressive action opened the door for other
departures from gospel simplicity. Brother McGarvey opposed the use of
mechanical instruments in the worship to the end of his life. But his
associates were those who upheld the Missionary Society. And almost all
of the advocates of the Society were also advocates of the use of the
organ in the worship. And would we not naturally expect that they would?
For there is a very close kinship between these two unscriptural
positions. Thus, McGarvey's opposition to the use of the organ in
worship was hampered by his fellowship, much of the time, with those who
used it. And McGarvey's association with the officials of the Missionary
Society, and the great number of preachers who supported it, was partly
the cause of the subversion of the College later on. For there is a
natural kinship and affinity between digression and modernism.
Modernism loves centralization. Digression creates
centralization.
The New Testament, of course, does not authorize the organization of
a seminary, or a college. As a private institution it has the right to
exist, if right in other ways. But as an ecclesiastical institution, it
is unauthorized. The College Of The Bible seemed to be regarded as very
much like the Missionary Society. We cannot expect the teaching of a
college to remain Scriptural, if it is founded in an unscriptural
way.
It is indeed sad — even
tragical — that McGarvey departed from gospel simplicity when he
supported the Missionary Society. But in many, many ways he upheld the
truth of the gospel. One day, as the session was closing for the
holidays, he said to us students: "I don't wish you a "merry Christmas".
There is too much merriment about it already". In an ironical tone, he
spoke about a preacher who was going to take
charge of a church. He taught us that the elders were to take
charge. In Lard's Quarterly, Volume II, page 311 in an article on
"Pastors", McGarvey shows that, in the New Testament,
an evangelist is not a pastor. He would doubtless object to a man who
spoke of himself as "the" minister, and, even more to an "associate"
minister. Is it not hard, brethren, to find a Scriptural name for an
unscriptural thing? McGarvey, too, pointed out the vanity of calling a
preacher "Doctor". He taught against all affectation and all pretense of
any kind. He opposed all bally-hoo, all synthetic religion. A preacher's
power, he taught us, is to be the power of the Lord, the power of the
gospel. And he lived and preached as he taught us to do. In many ways he
upheld gospel simplicity and purity.
But already the current was going against McGarvey; during his
lifetime like Paul, he might have said; " — the mystery of lawlessness
does already work". (2 Thessalonians 2:7) The "leaven of the Pharisees
and Sadducees" was spreading. A great part of the student body and of
the faculty had conformed. If any preacher was to have any "future", as
worldly-minded preachers think of it, he would need to adapt himself to
digression. In 1906 a new professor began to teach in the College Of The
Bible. He had graduated from the College Of The Bible in 1898. Between
that time and his coming in 1906 to Lexington he had studied at Harvard
and Yale. All of us students expected a great deal from him, from what
we had heard of him. But it was evident that a great change had come
over him. His faith had been blighted at Harvard and Yale, and he had
lost his singleness of heart. He began to "bore from within". He
introduced as a text-book a work by a modernist that had a great deal
that was unbelieving. He was one of the first in the modernist movement
to destroy the College's faith and integrity.
During the years that I was at Lexington there was a great deal of
interest in foreign missions among the students. I remember some earnest
young men who were preparing for work in the foreign field. The
sincerity of a number of them was evident. But there was also this
sinister argument — that if you oppose the Society, you are
"Anti-missionary". The advocates of organized societies of that day had
a sentimental argument — "the lost heathen". And, is it not a
significant thing, that those who uphold institutionalism today, use a
similar emotional appeal: "Who COULD BE opposed to caring for widows and
orphans," thus beclouding the issue with a sentimental appeal?
Brother McGarvey thought that he had arranged the method of choosing
the Trustees of the College Of The Bible so that the faith of the
College in the integrity of the Word of God would not be undermined I
heard him say one day: "I would rather see this building leveled to the
ground than to have it fall into the hands of higher critics". He tried
to avoid that tragedy. But men became members of board of Trustees who
were sympathetic toward modernism.
Then, after McGarvey's death, changes for the worse followed in rapid
order. Two prominent modernists wanted to teach at the College and were
chosen. Brother Hall L. Calhoun was then Dean, as I recall. I wrote him,
protesting against the choice of these men as teachers. He afterwards
told me, personally, when he was in Kentucky in a meeting, that he
examined one of these men very thoroughly on all matters pertaining to
the infallibility of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, and the resurrection
of the body, and that he answered every one of them satisfactorily. And
then he asked him if he was making any "mental reservation", as the
Jesuits have taught it, and he said he was not. But, afterwards it
became evident that Bro. Calhoun was misled about this man; he himself
told me.
On January 23, 1923, a preacher who was for years a professor in the
College Of The Bible, and for several years, its Dean, preached a sermon
before one of the Christian Churches at Lexington, in which he said: "It
is immaterial whether a man accepts evolution or not". This man also
sneered at a student who stated that he believed in the resurrection of
the body. Now, this remark about evolution just about expressed the
attitude toward the Bible that the men held who took over control of the
College Of The Bible, following McGarvey's death. Yet these men knew
that the endowment of the College Of The Bible had been solicited
largely by McGarvey himself and was given to uphold the integrity of the
word of God. But they did not hesitate to break faith with dead men who
had given this money. They did not blush when they used this money in a
way that was exactly contrary to the will of the donors. This is
Jesuitry, pure and simple. Why did they do it? Simply, because modernism
has no conscience, and only one fixed principle, and that is
self-interest.
As I thought about this "decline" of the College Of The Bible, of
this departure from the faith, I was like Gibson musing among the ruins
of Rome. It was then that I saw digression as it really is. My mind had
not been fully made up until I saw what took place after McGarvey's
death. I then saw that the only way to control unbelief is to be exactly
on the New Testament position.
In 1929 the College Of The Bible held a "Centennial" of the birth of
Brother McGarvey. It was supposed to be in his honor. A number of good
things were said about him. But these were in the minor strain. The main
theme of the Centennial addresses was that McGarvey had been out-grown,
and that the churches and the College had advanced since his day.
McGarvey was "wounded in the house of his friends". The very school
which he helped to establish, and in which for over half of a century he
was the most influential person, was used to attack the faith that
McGarvey held. Right thinking people among his former students
disapproved of this method of detraction, and of this sinister way of
undermining the faith.
In 1940, the College Of The Bible celebrated the 75th Anniversary of
the founding of the College Of The Bible. W. C. Morro, in behalf of the
College wrote the 75th Anniversary with a biography of McGarvey,
entitled: "BROTHER McGARVEY". Professor Morro was a teacher at the
College Of The Bible from 1906 until 1911, then a teacher in Butler
College, at Indianapolis, and during his last year a professor at Brite
College Of The Bible, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. I
was a student in some of the classes of Professor Morro, and remember
him well, as a very scholarly man, and a polished gentleman. But he
lacked convictions, and so, was unimpressive as a teacher and as a
preacher, and far less influential than McGarvey. Professor Morro
undoubtedly had the ability, but he did not have the faith. As some
expressed it "Artifice cannot charm the Devil out of humanity". The evil
spirit answered the exorcists: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who
are ye?" (Acts 19:15) No modernist can speak with authority. Professor
Morro says many kind things about McGarvey as a man. But he finds much
fault with him as a teacher, and for the inflexible attitude that
McGarvey took toward the Bible, and the faith which was "once for all
delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) Professor Morro cannot understand
why McGarvey would oppose the use of the organ in worship. He tells us
that when McGarvey began preaching people were poor and did not have
organs in their homes, but with better economic conditions they had
them, and it was then hard to show them that it was wrong to use them in
the worship (Pages 133-136). And he tells us that "Here in Texas, there
is a preacher who, on Sunday morning condemns the use of pianos, but
who spends the time from Monday till Saturday tuning and selling them"
(P. 133). It is hard to believe that a man could be a Professor in a
Seminary of people professedly advocating a return to the faith of the
New Testament and have so little spiritual discrimination. Professor
Morro regrets the sharp criticism that McGarvey had for modernist
preachers. On page 166 Morro criticizes McGarvey for ever expecting that
we would ever have a "perfect" text of the Bible. Instead, Morro insists
that the scholarship of today asserts only "probability" in regard to
the text of the Bible. He cannot endure McGarvey's positive convictions,
for Morro had more tolerance for error than he had for the truth, as all
modernists do. There were three things that Morro had no conception of:
(1) Divine authority, (2) Faith, and (3) Fixed principles. Such a man
could never understand the Bible, until he changed; nor could he even
understand McGarvey.
What has followed among the churches that digressed from the New
Testament teaching about 100 years ago? Well, more and more of them
receive "the pious unimmersed" as members. There is more observance of
lent, of Good Friday, of the "Holy Week", and there is more pride. There
is less of the divine in the worship all of the time, and more of the
human. There is more wealth, but less spiritual power, among Christian
churches. There is less emphasis on the gospel and more emphasis on
gaudy, unscriptural ritual. A son of Karl Barth, after teaching in the
country for some months, remarked that, among Protestant churches there
was a "movement from the pulpit to the altar", a ceasing to preach the
gospel, and a dependence on Romish worship.
What happened at the College Of The Bible since McGarvey's death is
surely a lesson that we should study. For digression, once started, goes
farther away from the New Testament, all of the time.
Gospel Guardian,
February 1959
(To be continued)
Other Articles on the History of the Church
J.W. McGarvey - And the Course of Digression in
Lexington, Kentucky (Part 4 of 4)