INDEPENDENTS by William N. Glenn

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 25, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 45.

INDEPENDENTS.

By William N. Glenn

IN every Christian denomination there occasionally arises an independent operator, who conceives that his ability is not appreciated in the church, and that the Scriptures warrant him in laboring, regardless of church obligation or the advice of the brethren. Such laborers generally insist on doing as they please, whether it be in harmony with the church or not; yet they will put on a solemn air of injured innocence if their church refuses to indorse them. No matter how utterly out of harmony their hobbies may be with the church to which they belong, they will insist on their right to advocate them, as members of that church, thereby making the church responsible to the public for their idiosyncrasies.

In most cases these individuals have eccentricities of character, arising mainly from ambitious desires and a spirit of self-sufficiency, which render them unreliable as representatives of any body of Christians, and without exception they are averse to the restraints of counsel, which is essential to the success of organized effort. In a majority of cases, such persons are "unlearned" as well as "unstable," and not only unlearned, but are disposed to boast of the fact, and claim that the Lord can the better use them on that account.

Amongst this class of "evangelists," or "apostles," or "reformers," or whatever role they may choose to assume, are some would-be Abrahams, and Johns, and Pauls, who have been specially called (in imagination) to do some wonderful work, and particularly to be very conspicuous. This last characteristic is made manifest by the prerogatives generally claimed as being directly given of the Lord, and the assumption of offices "set in the church," and to be conferred through the church in an orderly manner.

Now no one will deny that individuals have been, and are yet, and ever will be, specially called to do special duty in the Lord's work, and for which duty a special fitting can only come from his Spirit. And this very fact gives us a measure by which the pretended imitators of such may be tested. Abraham, for instance, was called of God to be the "father of the faithful." Among other requirements, he was obliged to leave his country and his father's house. Why did the Lord call Abraham? Was it because Abraham set himself up, and became dissatisfied with his brethren's estimate of his ability and qualifications? The record says it was because God knew Abraham, that he would be obedient, and bring up his children in obedience to the truth.

When Moses was called out for a leader of God's people, he was not taken until he was schooled to humility. He did not then start out and assume prerogatives, but rather shrank from responsibilities. Was he ignorant?—No man of his time had greater learning. And God gave him unmistakable credentials, so that all might know that "I AM" had sent him forth. Aaron was called into a new mission, but God so endowed him that his authority was indisputable. And under that order of priesthood there was regular provision for ordination to the ministry, while some who attempted an independent ministration were summarily rejected of the Lord, and swallowed up by the opening earth.

John the Baptist was sent out independently on a special mission. There was no voluntary assumption on his part. His advent into the world was preannounced by an angel; it was then said of him that he should "be great in the sight of the Lord," and that he should go before the Messiah "in the spirit and power of Elias." He was miraculously born, and by special manifestations was acknowledged as one sent of Heaven. Let those who cite John as a warrant for their independent assumptions in spiritual things, show like qualifications, and bring forth such credentials as he presented.

Paul is frequently cited as an example by those who claim to be specially led by the Spirit in a way of their own. And it may well be demanded that they show the same evidences of a call that Paul did. The inspired record shows that the Lord personally appeared to Paul by the way, when he was called "to show how great things he should suffer" for the sake of the name of Jesus. It is true that he "conferred not with flesh and blood," nor went up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before him, but "went away into Arabia." It is also true that when he went back to Jerusalem, three years afterward, he tarried but a short time, and then went away into Syria and Silicia, and did not return again for fourteen years. But during that short stay at Jerusalem, he abode with Peter fifteen days, and there is no reference to any inharmony at this time. It is also true that when he left Jerusalem after his first short visit, the brethren gave him a safe escort to Cesarea, and sent him forth to his home at Tarsus.

Admitting that Paul did labor somewhat independently, the proof that he was led by the Spirit lies in the fact that after seventeen years of isolated ministry he was found to be in harmony with the church. The first thing he did on his second return to Jerusalem was to seek out "them which were of reputation" (leaders in the church) and "privately" show them what he had been preaching, as he says, "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." This carefulness showed that he had been careful all the way through, and that was why the Spirit could lead him so perfectly in the truth that when he came to report his labor to the apostles at headquarters, they could give him "the right hand of fellowship," and indorse his ministry. Paul had a sharp contention with Peter at one time, and again with Barnabas, but never ran counter to the body. He was one of the men chosen to go on the first foreign mission tour on record; and on another occasion was one of the delegates from a conference at Jerusalem to carry a special message to the church at Antioch.

These remarks are by no means intended to convey the idea that the church is infallible; history forbids any such conclusion, and there is no church but may become so degenerate as to be utterly "spewed out" by the Lord. But it is poor evidence of a special call from the Lord, when self-styled reformers feel the necessity of making some denomination responsible for their acts and hobbies, even though they be out of harmony with its practices and teaching.

The only man who can fairly lay claim to the considerations accorded to John, or Paul, or Luther, or any other of the Lord's special laborers, is he who can show like credentials, or exhibit like fruit. "By their fruits ye shall know them."