To the Board and Administration of Lubbock Christian college . . .

CONCERNING SPEAKERS THAT BACK OUT

It may be true, as some contend, that no one is so enslaved as he who supposes that he is free. It is a way of saying that none of us is wholly and completely free. Freedom is a relative thing, and we may all be much more unfree that we suppose. We must grow toward freedom, and it is probable that most of us are stymied in our growth. This is illustrated in the little, insignificant things that happen as we move along toward the more eventful things. We have reference especially to the men among us who agree to appear on a program (an unorthodox program, let us say) and then, because of the pressures that are applied by the keepers of orthodoxy, back down and do not appear after all, even after the announcements have gone out.

This happened to us at one of our Dallas unity meetings. A brother from Abilene was invited to be on the program, and he graciously accepted, knowing full well who was to be on the program with him. A short time before the program was to begin, he felt obligated to excuse himself. We had reports from several quarters that he was under pressure to crawfish. Knowing his reputation for courage, a number of us were confident that he would resist such pressure and exert his freedom in Christ. But we were mistaken. He crawfished. While we were disappointed, we understood. The pressures from the powers that be can be almost a matter of life and death, or so it appears to be, for one’s professional future may well be at stake.

A more recent case of this has just come to light. This time the brother is from Lubbock and the program is a lectureship conducted by Southeastern Christian College, Winchester, Kentucky. This college would be styled a “premillennial college” by the faithful in Lubbock and Abilene. Even though our brethren in Winchester have been maltreated somewhat through the years because of their premillennial heresies, they have responded most affirmatively to current efforts for unity among all our groups. They have been trying to help by sharing in the programs of the anti-premills, and they have been inviting leaders from other groups to be with them. This they have done despite some opposition from within their own ranks.

Speaking for myself, I have appeared on numerous programs conducted by our premill brethren, including the lectureship in Winchester, and I have learned to love these people deeply through such associations. Those who refuse to enjoy fellowship in Christ with these fine brethren are the losers. That I may differ with them on the millennium has no relation whatever to my love for them or the fellowship that is ours to enjoy together. These brethren have shared in some of our unity meetings, and they have enriched such gatherings by their graciousness. It is not easy for them to invite me to their programs, being the controversial figure that I am, and they have sometime had to withdraw invitations, opposition to my appearance making it unwise. We have to understand that these brethren also have the “keepers of orthodoxy” in their own ranks, making it difficult for those who would to cross party lines and enjoy a larger fellowship. This makes it all the more tragic when their noble efforts in this direction are frustrated by our own unwillingness to participate with them. It must be that we simply do not love enough.

Well, anyway the college in Winchester invited the Lubbock brother, and he accepted. Incidentally, shouldn’t a man’s word mean something? I agree with Sir David Ross, the British moralist, that a promise is a sacred obligation, a prima facie duty, as he calls it; and that one is not to go back on his word except in very unusual circumstances. My girls in Ethics at the university where I teach agree that a woman who in a moment of grief promises her dying husband that she will not remarry might break such a promise. But they didn’t find many cases where one might justifiably go back on his word.

Our preachers who back down after committing themselves should at least take their word more seriously than to suppose that all that is necessary is to send a telegram and call the thing off. Arrangements have long been made, announcements have gone out, it is too late to get someone else (and who wants to be asked at the last minute?), and much more. Try your hand at working up such a program, and then have them start backing out on you, and you’ll see what I mean. Yet I realize that there is that strange morality that permits some people to treat heretics and digressives differently from faithful brethren. After all, error does not have the same rights as truth, and you don’t have to be as courteous to things like premillennialists!

I read in The Exhorter (a “premill paper”) that the educator from Lubbock was to appear, and I was pleased that he would do this, and was convinced that it would be a happy experience for all concerned. I am also certain that the brother accepted the invitation in all good faith; that he was pleased to be asked and happy to accept. He wanted to do it. Though I do not know this brother personally, I have every reason to believe that he is a fine Christian gentleman. It was, therefore, with deep regret that I learned that he had withdrawn.

Unlike the Abilene brother who did not wish to admit that it was because of pressure that he reneged, the Lubbock brother was as candid as a camera. His wire stated that it was because the administration and board of Lubbock Christian College “believe that my participation in SCC lectureship would hurt the influence of LCC” He added that “brethren also advise that my personal influence and usefulness would be affected without helping SCC.”

We tell this little story not only to show how enslaved we are to the powers of institutionalism and professionalism, but how sectarian we are. Can you imagine a Luther or a Campbell giving such a reason as that! The question here is not what is right, but what is expedient. A man must safeguard his future; he must not keep the wrong company. He must know the right people and appear on the right programs. He must play it smart. And so we are told that the brother’s “personal influence and usefulness would be affected” if he dared to cross party lines and appear on the program of a little premill college in Kentucky. Imagine a John Knox or a Raccoon John Smith in such a situation! Can you not see the gleam of righteousness indignation in their eyes at such an audacious display of ecclesiastical dictation?

This shows what institutionalism and partyism can do to people. If it were truth and love that motivated such decisions, the powers that be in Lubbock would have said to their staff member something like this: “Go on up there and be with those brethren. It will be good for everybody. After all, we haven’t had enough contact with each other, and we need to show those brethren that we love them too. Who knows but what we may through such associations lead them to greater truth. By all means, go, and we’ll be praying for you and for them.”

And they would have been right. It would have helped, not hurt, the Lubbock school. Even the Church of Christ brotherhood would not have condemned them. The brother in question would have had an enriching experience, and his usefulness would not have been affected adversely. To any brother that might have raised an eyebrow, they could simply have said: “We believe in speaking the truth in love anywhere. And besides we are free men in Christ,” This kind of spirit would also give Lubbock Christian College a better image before the world of education, for they need not be talking about building a liberal arts institution when they will not even permit a staff member to visit a college with a different color and deliver lectures on education.

That is why this kind of maneuver will be confined to party circles. The college officers would not want folk like the Ford Foundation to know that this is the way they really are in under the surface. A liberal education, indeed! How can they talk about principles of freedom, justice, democracy, love, and brotherhood, and then be so sectarian in their thinking as to be afraid to stick their heads out the front door?

I am strongly suspicious that such brethren as these would really like to be free from such parochialism — and let us face it, men just aren’t free when they have to pick out the places where they can afford to speak. This journal criticized John F. Kennedy when he permitted a bishop of his church to tell him he could not speak at a memorial service for the four chaplains that died together. The then Congressman Kennedy withdrew when the bishop told him to. We raised the question as to whether a man like this was free enough from parochialism to be president of the United States.

The some shoe fits us. An institution that will not let a staff member speak at another college on the subject of education because it is off-limits within party ranks is not free enough to call itself a liberal educational institution. It is in truth parochial, they themselves bearing witness to this by their own narrowness.

Yes, such brethren want to be free, but the question is whether they want freedom more than they want party approbation and support. Partyism builds fear into men. Even when they would like to do something, they dare not. Perhaps even the majority of the party leaders would like to see a broader view taken of things, but none dares to take the first move. Everyone fears everyone else. It is a tragic thing.

It is only the love of Christ that can overcome such fear and make men free. Partyism enslaves men; Christ makes men free. This is why we pursue the rather thankless task of publishing this journal. We hope we may motivate men to love Christ and those who are His more than they love their party.

“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed,” (John 8:36) — the Editor