|
 As
a rule this is our “quote” page where we present reflections
of the history of God’s people. Each month, for over five
years, we have searched bound volumes of old papers, history
books, biographies, etc., for material that would supply “hind-sights”
for our readers.
What
readers?? Reader reaction to this page has been almost NIL. If
anyone reads this section of Plain Talk they are seldom aroused
to comment. So, why do we continue this page?? It may be pure
stubborn nature, but we wish to offer our defense.
We
do not cite “pioneer” preachers as authority for today or
any day. We feel no obligation to walk in their tracks, to
accept their interpretations of scripture as final. Our effort
to “restore the restoration” is limited to the “spirit”
of some early men who “despised the shame” of being
ostracized, quarantined, cast out by their sectarian brethren,
because they insisted upon an objective study of God’s word
for its truth.
There
is an oft-repeated adage that “those who ignore history are
doomed to repeat it.” This does not mean that exact details
will be duplicated — details of circumstances are ever
charging — but like attitudes continue to produce
like results. We firmly believe that, despite the dangers
of generalization, the past has many lessons for the future. The
man is a fool who thinks he can not learn from the experiences
of others. It is our desire to call attention to the many
parallels (in essence) that exist between the problems of the
past, and current problems among brethren, and emphasize (with
case histories) the result of’ erroneous
|
|
attitudes toward the divine
word.
An
honest look at “our” history would explode the myth that “the
great mainstream” of “brotherhood thinking” has always
been true to God. This thinking persists, even among “conservative”
brethren today. Actually, about 80 to 85% of the “brotherhood”
accepted mechanical instrumental music and missionary societies
in the 19th century “split”. Further, the more liberal
segment of that digression “went on” to embrace classic
liberalism, including denial of the verbal inspiration of the
scriptures.
And
— a look at “our” neglected history would show us that
they moved along much the same lanes as today’s more liberal
thinkers — ”love”, social work, direct Spirit influence,
etc. (What is the point of a March ‘69 article in ACTION, that
defends “myth” as a figure of speech, comparable to Jesus’
parables: that says “mythological does not necessarily mean
that it is untrue”; defends the application of such
terminology to Genesis 1— 2; but says, “we can now say that
in our opinion Genesis 1— 2 is NOT myth.”? Now what is the
point??)
Sometimes
we will “quote” from our brethren to re-emphasize some point
made — long ago, or more recently. We believe there can and
should be a certain amount of interest in the affairs of
brethren, without appealing to them as authorities. For these,
and many other reasons, we will continue our “quote” page in
Volume 6.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
