"Modern come-outism, or, better said, no-churchism." We hold that
uniting with the people of God in church fellowship, even of our
own choice, does not necessarily constitute us sectarians.
--Gospel Banner.
In all love we would ask our kind Brother Brenneman to inform us
of those modern "no-church" men of whom he speaks; give us the
address of any man professing godliness who believes in and claims
membership in no church.
Second. Is the body of Christ no church?
Third. If there is any way to get into the church besides Christ
and through the Holy Spirit--if the church is something that men
open the door of and admit members into--please give us "thus saith
the Lord" for it.
Fourth. If uniting with one party or sect of the professed people
of God does not constitute one a sectarian, then why should union
with a Masonic lodge constitute a man a Freemason?
Fifth. If a person is in Christ Jesus, is he not in the church, and
is he not already joined to all others that are joined to the Lord?
Pure Religion very smartly, as she supposes, ranks "come-outers"
with "all other sects," by which she virtually admits that they are
as good as the others, and then says that it takes the following
elements to make a good "come-outer": 1. It is necessary that the
person be "turned out of some church," meaning of course one of
those "other sects," for a little sober, candid reflection upon the
Bible will show any person that such remarks can not apply to the
true church at all; for "the Lord added to the church daily such as
should be [or, were being] saved," and 'no man [or ecclesiastical
court] can pluck them out of his hand.'
If the editress of Pure Religion were half as zealous to know what
the Bible teaches as she is to exhibit her wit, she would doubtless
have learned that the church is not something that men organize and
admit members into, but that it is "a holy temple in the Lord,"
"God's building, God's husbandry."
2. The editress thinks that to be a good "come-outer" the person
should have a small stock of religion and "quite a good stock of
ignorance." We presume that she did not consider that in those
words she condemned as nearly graceless and very ignorant such men
as Luther, Melancthon, Fox, and Wesley, who at the very time when
they stood out of and condemned all sects and did not contemplate
joining or forming any, wielded their greatest power for God.
The Good Way recently informed us that Wesley never contemplated
the forming of a sect. What was he then but a "come-outer"? It
is an undeniable fact upon record that he deplored the unhappy
divisions and parties of Christendom.
It is the uniform testimony of the history of the Reformation
that every reform effort was attended by a much greater power and
demonstration of the Spirit of God before it culminated in a new
sect than ever was manifest in that sect afterward. I think I
can safely challenge a single exception to this fact. During ten
years labor in the denomination that grew out of the labors of J.
Winebrenner and his coworkers, it was the constant admission of
the old fathers and mothers that no such power of God had been
witnessed in that body as was before they assumed and received
the name of another religious denomination. The same is true of
early Methodism, and in a remarkable manner is it true of the Free
Methodists. Let me give you a few extracts from the "History of the
Origin of Free Methodism," by Sister Sidney M'Creery, who with her
husband, Joseph M'Creery, was associated with B. T. Roberts and
William Kendall from the beginning of the great holiness revival
that resulted in their separation from the Methodist Episcopal
sect. Hence she testifies what she knows and declares what she has
seen.
The record is that for six years they worked and prospered
wonderfully under the power of God and freedom from all sect yokes,
and that from the formation of a new sect by B. T. Roberts the
glory departed from the Nazarites, as they had been called. She
says:
"B. T. Roberts in his discipline says the Free Methodist
organization was a necessity. Was it? Let the hundreds testify who
were so wonderfully and lovingly united together in the Holy Ghost.
The truth is this: God's heritage and work were spoiled by the
laying on of man's hands.
"While enjoying this spiritual fellowship all was peace and harmony
and the work of conversion went on, the saints rejoiced, and the
sectarian devil was mad, sinners in Zion were afraid and trembled
as they saw the weakest saint upon his knees.
"B. T. Roberts started out with a trap in hand, making a new test
of fellowship. He visited far and wide among the live pilgrims,
preaching sect fellowship as the one thing needful, and that they
could go no further without it.
"In most cases it took them by surprize. They examined themselves
and reasoned thus: We are already in fellowship with the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, and in holy spiritual fellowship with the
saints, and God has given us the victory again and again while
fighting against the unholy sects. What can the sect yoke do for
us? We are now free to go everywhere preaching and teaching in the
name of Jesus. Thus many stood out for a while. Oh, what robbery,
what treachery, to pervert and use this work of God, which began so
gloriously, to the building up of a carnal and selfish organism! At
every gathering, large or small, the sect yoke was presented and
held forth as 'the cross'.
"My husband was satisfied with God's way of ordering the battle;
yea, more than satisfied; he rejoiced and was exceeding glad to
see the prosperity of Zion in our midst. While B. T. R. said in
action by the formation of his sect, 'I have suffered enough
reproach and shame; I will number Israel and become as other
nations,' then the work of building up 'our church' commenced. How
the enemy triumphed! At all the gatherings the spirit of sectarian
zeal was worked up to the highest pitch, and so fulfiling the
scripture which saith, 'Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who
is blessed for ever.'... "And today he (B. T. R.) has no more
influence than any other sect bishop, whereas he was once a terror
to evil-doers and a praise to them who did well. From this time
the battle of the Lord ceased and the enemies rejoiced. Some who
remember the former days of liberty and power ask B. T. R. why the
same power is not manifested now as formerly. He answers on this
wise: God then gave the people a special blessing for a special
work. Very good; but why not continue under these special blessings
and in this special work? What an absurdity, what inconsistency to
build another sect in order to go through the same variations and
evolutions of its predecessors! Was it pleasing in the sight of God
to manufacture another class of backsliders? Was it a necessity?
Wherever I go I find the burden of Free Methodist preaching is to
backslidden membership, whereas before its formation--while they
remained in God's order, where he placed them--every man, woman,
and child was able to do a full day's work. In visiting many
places I find them (the F. M.'s) nearly, if not quite, extinct. In
missionary fields the work takes well for a season, but when they
begin proselyting and making it a 'necessity' to gather them into
their peck measure, then the Lord leaves them to themselves. As I
am passing through the land I often meet with those with whom I was
acquainted during the war of the Lord, and immediately they refer
to the former days of power and salvation and say, 'We don't have
such meetings nowadays; I would go a long distance to enjoy such
privilege.'"
We might multiply quotations, but these will suffice to show
the fact that the formation of sects is the destruction of
Christianity. Thus it is an undeniable fact, that when men enjoyed
the stigmatized "come-out" "stock of ignorance," they have been
used of God far more than after they suddenly became wise (?) in
building up a wall about themselves or entering a sect pen built by
some one else.
The Vanguard calls coming out of Babylon "a kind of spiritual
rash"; and Pure Religion and Gath Rimmon both think that very
smart, and serve it up to their readers. May the Lord forgive
this lightness. Had we not better look into the Word of God and
see what the Lord saith, than to indulge in mere witticisms? Does
the Word of God teach that it is a "spiritual rash" to belong to
Christ alone and hold only to him, "the head over all things to
the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all"? Was Christ afflicted with a spiritual rash when he said,
"There shall be one fold and one shepherd"? Was that the infirmity
that Paul had when he said 'there should be no schisms in the
body'--no Methodist schism, no Wesleyan schism, no Free Methodist
bond schism, nor United Brethren; yea, =no= schism?
Now, brethren, if you dare drop the scales from your eyes and look
squarely at the Holy Bible, you must admit that every one of those
sect organizations which you call churches are schisms, just what
God condemns and forbids. Unless you are shamefully blind, you know
it to be the truth and nothing but the truth, and your slurs and
sarcasms can not revoke that truth nor enable you to stand when you
are judged by it.
* * * * *
There are other exchanges that have uttered hard things against the
Rock on which I stand. Now, I simply want you to know what you are
doing, then if you wish to continue kicking against the goads, you
may do so. Do you believe that Christ purchased and founded one
church of the living God? Do you believe that the "body of Christ"
is the church? Do you believe that Christ is the only door to the
church, and that "by him if any man enter he shall be saved"? Do
you believe that the Holy Spirit sets the members in the body,
the church? Do you believe there should be "no schisms in the
body"? Do you believe that believers are "made perfect in one" and
that "thorough holiness destroys sects and denominations"? Do you
believe that 'divisions and offences are contrary to the doctrine
we have received' of Christ? Do you believe that Christians should
not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers"?
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ I ask any paper to speak out
and tell me which of these points you dispute. And if you say you
believe them all, as some of you have, then I ask, Why do you
object to my believing the same? for that is just what I believe.
The only difference is, I act consistently with my faith, while you
say and do not.
You admit there is but one church of God, still you think hard of
me for not allowing that all your "churches" are of God. This is
God's truth and you can not deny it. You say that sects are wrong,
but advise God's children to continue in the wrong. I claim that
sects are wrong, and therefore say, Come out from among them, as
saith the Lord. Men professing godliness should act consistently
with their belief.
If you believe that Christ is divided and there are many folds,
many bodies, many Lords, many faiths, instead of "one fold," "one
body," "one Lord," and "one faith," then you may consistently
with your faith antagonize the Gospel Trumpet; but you must abide
the consequences of fighting against God's Word. And remember
this, that in the day of judgment it will do you no good to have
put false colors on the truth you are opposing. You will not
plead before the bar of God that I taught "no-churchism," "no
organization," etc.
If you are ignorant of the Trumpet's teaching, you will be
condemned before God for opposing and speaking evil of the things
you do not understand. You should hold your peace until you know
what you are talking about.
If you do know what we--myself and contributors--teach, you know
that every paper insists on organization, the very organization set
forth in the New Testament, and you do know that we all advocate
the church, and never have encouraged anybody to leave her; but we
chose to learn from the simple Word of God what the church is, and
not from your Dark Age creeds and confused tongues. Now, all you
who have lifted up your heel against Christ and his body, the only
true church in heaven and earth, have done so because you have some
sect idol in your heart and can not receive the truth or endure
sound doctrine, or else you have not the moral courage to assault
the devil in his stronghold of divisions. What does Satan care for
your clamor against the "sin in the sects" so long as you give him
the best means of bringing God's house or kingdom to naught--the
sin of sects? I pity your sad confusion. May God give you all
repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
An editorial in the July 25 number answers an objection by the editor
of the Sword.