BY HUGH FULFORD ─ (Note: The following article was written by F. W. Smith for the January 5, 1928 issue of the Gospel Advocate. Brother Smith served as a staff writer for the Advocate for many years, and in the 100th anniversary edition of that periodical of July 14, 1955 [a treasured copy of which I have owned and cherished since that date], he was pictured and named with a noble quintet of Advocate writers: E. A. Elam, M. C. Kurfees, F. B. Srygley, F. D. Srygley, and F. W. Smith. Though now almost one hundred years old, this article is still timely, relevant, and needed. Brother Smith preached for the Lord’s church in Franklin, TN for many years. May all read it and profit from it. It is as follows).
Timid souls are very apt to conclude that it is much better to “generalize” than to be “specific” or to “designate” in teaching the truth with the view of exposing error. Circumstances and conditions should have more to do in determining the better method to pursue than the fear of incurring the ill will of mankind. To speak or write in a way to leave people in doubt or under a misunderstanding as to what is meant is very ineffectual in benefiting those in error.
AN ILLUSTRATION.
To illustrate the "ineffectiveness" of generalizing in some instances, suppose we take this passage: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book." (Rev. 22: 18, 19.) I presume no one would call in question the fact that what is here said of the book of Revelation is true of every book in the Bible. The same was said in substance to the Israelites—namely: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it," etc. (Deut. 4: 2.)
Very well. And now suppose a preacher, before an audience made up of religionists from all the different religious bodies in Christendom, should take for his text the Scriptures quoted and spend his time generalizing on the subject of neither adding to nor taking from the word. Does anyone suppose there would be a "dissenting" voice from the audience or that "amen" responses would not be uttered? No matter how forcefully, eloquently, and pointedly the preacher might emphasize the wrong and danger of adding to or taking from the word of God, his audience would stay with him, accept all the preacher had said, and compliment him on his effort. But suppose the preacher pointed out, plainly designating wherein men add to and take from the word of God, what would be the result? If he should show wherein men had changed, modified, and violated the word of God, would his audience say "amen" to his discourse? If the preacher’s purpose was to benefit the people before him, which course should he have pursued?
MY EXPERIENCE.
I sat in a large audience and listened to a preacher who, in principle, generalizing, burst into smithereens all unscriptural societies, instrumental music in the worship of God, and, in fact, I heard worlds crashing and timber falling all around. At the conclusion of the service I turned to a society and organ man with whom I had a controversy and said to him: "Now I reckon you see where the preacher stands on the organ and society question." He had denied that this preacher was opposed to such; and when he replied to my question by saying, "There was not a thing in the world in that sermon against societies or the organ," my feathers fell, and I determined then and there that when I drew a picture of a horse, I would, like the boy, write under it, "This am a hoss!"
Another instance. One of the ablest preachers in the South was holding a meeting for a church in Kentucky, more "digressive" than otherwise. One day he preached a strong sermon, in principle, against innovations, at the conclusion of which one member said to another: "I never intend to give another cent to a missionary society." The other replied: "Why, what has come over you?" The first speaker said: "Did you not hear that sermon’? " The reply came: "Yes, but there was not one word in that sermon against a missionary society." They were both honest in their judgment. But if the preacher had only "designated" the thing he had in mind, there would have been no misunderstanding on the part of either one of these members. The simple truth is, only a few can see and properly apply principles deduced from the word of God and need applications made for them.
BIBLE EXAMPLES.
While teachers of the Bible today are not "inspired," yet surely they may be permitted to follow the example of inspired men, when such an example does not demand inspiration to be followed. Note, then, Paul’s example in dealing with matters of false teaching and things that caused division among Christians. If there was trouble over circumcision, eating of meat, or the keeping of days, Paul did not fail to specify those things causing the trouble. Furthermore, when individuals needed criticism or exposure, Paul did not fail to call their names and specify the false teaching. He called Peter’s name and specified the thing wherein he had acted the hypocrite. (Gal. 2: 11-14.) He also called the name of the beloved Barnabas as being guilty of wrong. He pointed out the cowardice of John Mark, specifying wherein he had so acted. (Acts 15: 36-38.) Paul mentioned Demas as loving this present world rather than Jesus Christ. (2 Tim. 4: 10.) Surely, in the light of such examples, a preacher is justified in not only "specifying" false teaching, but in “designating” the false teacher. If men and women are living in a way to bring reproach upon the church and the interests of truth demand an exposure of both the offender and the offense, there can be found Bible examples for it. Of course, if the same ends can be attained without such publicity, well and good; but such will be the exception and not the rule. "Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear." (1 Tim. 5: 20.) This, it seems to me, carries with it the duty to point out by name the guilty party, as well as to specify the sin committed.
PRUDENCE NECESSARY.
Of course wisdom and tact should always be employed in dealing with sin and sinners; but when the public good demands a public exposure, it should be done. Especially is the public better served by pointing out false teaching and false teachers; otherwise, how can we see any reason in the exposure of false doctrine and the naming of false teachers as recorded in the Bible?
The article was published yesterday in brother Hugh’s ezine called “Hugh’s News & Views.”
- Danger of too much generalizing: Hugh Fulford - 2025-06-24
- Under all changes: Quote of the day - 2025-06-01
- Some questions concerning Christian fellowship: Fulford - 2025-05-13