L. W. Hayhurst (A Biographical Sketch)
L. W. Hayhurst was born near Claremore, Oklahoma, in the 1890’s. When he was thirteen years of age he obeyed the gospel and began to more closely study the Bible. This caused him to go through Gunter College, to study awhile at Texas Tech, and to take some correspondence courses from the University of Texas.
While at Gunter College he met Miss Mamie Webster who became his wife. Five children were born to this union: the oldest daughter married a preacher of the gospel, Merle King, and the oldest son has been preaching since he was seventeen. The other children are still at home.
He has represented the brethren in public discussion eighteen times. These discussions covered most of the issues between the church of Christ and our religious neighbors. More than once he has conceded the truthfulness of an opponent’s argument, and does not feel that he has lost in doing so. He has a keen logical mind and a special ability to deal with the detailed and tedious in argumentation. Five times he defended the anti-class brethren in their position.
At present he has devoted himself to the proposition that all the anti-class brethren can be brought to see the error of their way by teaching, patience, and counsel. He considers the work of conducting consulations and counsels with brethren one of the best means for bringing disrupted churches into “the same mind and the same judgment.”
At present he is laboring as minister of the church of Christ in Raymondville, Texas.
The freedom and opportunities that we enjoy here in America are probably the greatest in all the world. May we protect and use them to the glory of the Lord, and when we pass, hand them down to oncoming generations.
We who appear on the program have changed and are asked to give our reasons for so doing. This is in harmony with Peter’s teaching to be ready to give every man an answer (I Peter 3:15), and this we hope to do with the meekness and fear that he enjoins, and we trust that our answers may be beneficial to all who hear us.
I opposed Bible classes for twenty-five years and then changed. I did this because I was convinced that I had been wrong, and not through bitterness toward any one with whom I had once agreed. If any of my hearers still oppose Bible classes, all I ask is that they listen with the same honesty, sincerity, and candor with which I speak.
I quit opposing the classes because I saw that I had been mis-applying I Cor. 14:34, 35, binding it on schools as well as on “church;” because my theory of interpreting law excluded room for expedients, which are necessary in carrying out all commands; because I had been perverting passages like Deut. 31:11-13, making them forbid class teaching; and because I could not make one stonewall argument for the anti-class position.
Not Dishonorable to Change
Many people are convinced that they are wrong, but will not change because they are adverse to doing so; they think it is dishonorable. Not long ago two neighbor women who had heard the gospel were talking about it when one asked the other, “If you knew you were wrong would you change?” Her expression indicated that she thought it a dishonorable thing to change even though she knew that she was wrong. And there was the Baptist preacher who got cornered on baptism by a farmer and admitted that he was wrong, but said, “That’s right, but I couldn’t change; my converts and connections all believe this way.” To all this I would reply that Paul saw his mistake and turned a new leaf; Apollos saw his error and changed; and the Bible commands repentance which is a change. The only question with me is not whether a thing requires a change, but “Is it right?” If a thing is right, it should be accepted; if wrong it should be rejected regardless of immediate consequences. For I have the faith to believe that right turns out right, and that wrong turns out wrong, and that there are no exceptions to the rule.
We Misapplied Scriptures
My first reason for changing is the fact that I saw that the anti-class brethren were applying I Cor. 14:34, 35, binding it on groups that are not the whole church “come together into one place.” I did not come to disbelieve the passage, not to discount it, nor to set it aside. I did not even change my interpretation of it; it still means to me what it always has. I just quit misapplying it, quit trying to force it on schools. Our difference here comes not over the law, nor its interpretations, but over its application. Does the command apply to schools? If so, it applies to singing schools as well as Bible classes. From this conclusion no one has been able to show me any escape. And strangely enough, we differ over its application only in one point. Those who have Bible classes and those who reject them, when they have what they call “church,” apply the passage alike: both groups keep their women silent. But in their other meetings—courts, weddings, schools—they do not require silence, although such meetings be formal.
The fight comes when we try to teach the Bible in groups. We think that the application is to be made when “The whole church be come together into one place” (I Cor. 14:23), and functions as such, whereas, they think it applies wherever we teach a Bible class. If any one of their number does not believe this, just let him start a Bible class on any basis that he wants to, individually or otherwise, and see what happens to him.
Confusion on the Rule of Silence
We have been asking them, “If the rule of silence applies to a class to teach Matt. 28:20, why does it not apply to a group assembled to teach Col. 3:16? And, if the church can assemble one of these groups and it not be the ‘Church,’ why can it not assemble the other and it not be the ‘Church’?”
Up to this time I have received two answers. One brother tells me that there is some science taught in the singing class. Well, do we not learn something about reading, the meaning of words, and the way to interpret language in Bible classes? And do not these fall in the class of science? Besides if a group is a church, and we teach some science in it, does that fact change the character of that group? And, if a group be not the church, and we teach Bible to it, does that change its character? Does it cause it to be a church? Take one good look at a class being taught to sing, and one at a group being taught lessons in proper conduct, and try and convince yourself that one is a church, and that the other is not.
The other brother tells us that these are not on a par. Well, is school on a par with school? Are arrangements on a par with arrangements? It is a known fact that the churches arrange for both the Bible school and the one to teach singing. Everybody knows that they are both schools, and that they both are sometimes divided into classes. Is one organized? So is the other, and on the same plan, and by the same people. If these are not on a par in essential respects, let some one show it; the assertion is not enough. It is obvious that if the sisters are to be bound by silence in one of these schools, they are not to be allowed to ask and answer questions in the other one, and for the same reason. From this I see no escape.
The Two Forms of the Church
If we could observe and keep in mind one fact it might help to clarify this matter. It is this: the church exists in two forms, its assembled form, and its non-assembled form. It is seen in its assembled form in I Cor. 14, and in its non-assembled form in such meetings as Acts 5:1-10; 12:12-13, etc. In Acts 5:42 it assembled as such in the temple, but we see it in its non-assembled form teaching all over Jerusalem. A school may meet in “assembly” and function in that capacity. Afterwards it may meet for classes, but these classes are not in that assembly. In the same way the church may come together in one place and function as a church, then it may disassemble as such and have a singing school, a wedding, a church court, or a Bible class. All this the anti-class brethren readily see and admit, except the Bible class. To them I would ask this question, “If you can have a class to teach singing while the church as such is recessed, why can’t you have one to teach Bible while it is recessed?” When pressed with this, they will leave the field of silence and bring in some other objection; but be not deceived; they have not abandoned their idea. And they will be back to this refuge just as soon as they are routed somewhere else and this one seems handy. Let me urge that we stay with the silence question until we decide whether or not it applies to all meetings of Christians. The anti-class brethren will say that it does not. Then to what meetings does it apply?
What Assembly?
One brother contends that it applies to “all assemblies of saints.” But he does not believe this, for he allows many assemblies of Christians that he does not apply the rule to. For instance, he does not apply it to the singing school. And it must be remembered that the singing school is a formal meeting, and one that is called and arranged by the church, and in the church house.
In a letter to me a brother said, “Church is an assembly for teaching or worship.” I reminded him that if that were the case, then the aged women could never arrange to carry out Titus 2, for if they did, it would be teaching or worship, that they would have to keep silence. Then I got to looking around to see how many of the anti-class churches had made, or allowed, any arrangements for their sisters to obey this passage (Titus 2:3-5). To this good day I have not found one, although I have been asking for it in letters to brethren all over the country. The trouble lies in the fact that they so apply I Cor. 14:34 as to cancel the effects of Titus 2:3-5. How unfortunate!
Titus 2:3-5 Ignored
During one of their Bible readings at Abilene, Texas, they discussed women’s work in the church. (In such meetings the sisters are allowed to attend but not to talk, except when singing is taught, then they may ask and answer questions). I asked them, “How many of you are here from a congregation that has assumed its obligation to God to carry out Titus 2?” I asked for hands. No hands went up. I then repeated the question a second time and a third time. Still no hands went up. Then I said, “We are the loyal brethren, aren’t we?” They had people there from several different states, but not from any congregation that made any arrangements to carry out this command.
Not only does this doctrine set aside Titus 2, but many of their members try to so explain the passage as to limit it to family relationships. They will say, “I teach my daughters.” One letter informs me that a certain sister teaches her daughters and nieces. Let any honest hearted person read the passage and say if it is a family duty. But some of their teachers will allow the aged women to teach the younger ones, “incidentally,” which is to say accidentally. However, any time that the aged women get to meeting the younger ones and instructing them, some anti-class preacher will come along and kill it. I challenge for an exception.
By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them
Jesus gave us a rule by which to measure a person or his doctrine: their fruits. What are the fruits of the anti-class doctrine? From this they seek to hide by saying that this does not prove the opposition right. This we freely grant, but the opposition is not under consideration. This is but a “slideover” to get away from being measured by their fruits. What fruits? What arrangements do they make to feed the widows and orphans? Hunt for yourself; I do not find them. How many missionaries have they sent during this time when doors are open to us to preach to all the world? They have sent not one. What have they done? They have applied I Cor. 14:34 so as to prohibit a prophetess from prophesying to any group, if they had one in their midst. Let it be remembered that Joel said that they would prophesy (Joel 2:28), and that Luke and Paul confirms the fact that they did do so (Acts 21:8-9; I Cor. 11:5). As compared to Titus 2, I Cor. 14:34 is a major doctrine, and it rises so high in their minds that certain duties drop out of consciousness. When interpreted in its true perspective, this means that the negative side rises much higher in their minds than the positive, consequently their churches are small, inactive, and usually found haggling over some technicality. Let him who is interested look around; demonstrations are not easily denied.
But we are not through with the silence question. One brother says that to exclude the classes, we must apply I Cor. 14:34, 35, and I Tim. 2:11-12. This being true, to show them that their application of these passages is wrong is to convince them. If this could be done many of them would be a power for good among those who are carrying on the work. It is being done to a greater extent than has been in the past. Many of them are changing; many more will do so; the truth will prevail.
When Is the Church Assembled?
Brother Bonneau says, “When a local congregation calls a group together, that group constitutes a church assembly, be it large or small.” (Teaching the Word, page 21.) He goes on to say that this is the way the classes are convened, and so he clamps on the rule for silence. He is wrong, for he allows the same local congregation to convene the same people for the purpose of teaching them Col. 3:16, and what is necessary to carry it out, and does not bind silence on it. This is one of the first things that I saw, and having seen it, I would like to put the idea where everybody will see it.
But suppose that the Bible class is a church assembly? It is so only in the sense that it is composed in part, or in whole, of church members and is arranged by the church, and this is true of the singing school, the church social, the group that eats dinner at church, the church court, etc. And if we bind silence on this group because it is a “church assembly,” we will have to bind it on all these others, because they are as much church assemblies as it is. The thing to decide is whether or not it is “THE ASSEMBLY” of I Cor. 14. If the Bible class is, then the other meetings which are composed of Christians and are arranged by the church are “Churches” too. If they are not that assembly, neither is the Bible class.
Brother Bonneau and I attended church court in Houston one time, about the first of November, 1944. We stayed two weeks and got many differences settled. These meetings had all the requirements that he and others claim as essentials for “The Assembly”—(1) arranged by the church, (2) called together by it, (3) called to order, (4) begun with prayer, (5) dismissed. Yet the women in them freely asked and answered questions, “No man forbidding.” Not only so, but I, being the go-between, was frequently called on for some point of law which I stated and which was accepted. Others did likewise, so we had teaching.
Was that “The church?” Was it “The Assembly?” It certainly was not, although it had all the essentials of what they call “Church.” Now if they can see this, why can they not see that we can get a group together and have a Bible class and that not be “Church?” That court was convened not by just one church but by two or three, and it had people in it from six or seven. You may call it a sort of church assembly, but it is not the one Paul bound silence in, and neither is the Bible class. It follows then, that if the Bible class is to be condemned, it must be by some other passage than this one.
What Is Church?
The word ekklesia is found in the New Testament 115 times. Three of these times it is rendered “assembly,” the other 112 times it is translated by the word “church.” The original word is used in five senses:
- In Acts 19:32, 39, 40 is designated a mob that worshipped Diana.
- Luke uses it to refer to the Jewish nation (Acts 7:38).
- Jesus names his institution an ekklesia (Matt. 16:18).
- In Romans 16:16 and I Cor. 1:2 it means a local congregation.
- Paul uses it in I Cor. 11:18, and 14:19, 28, 34, 35 (and possibly others) in a peculiar sense. Here he uses it to refer to a special assembly of a local congregation. In my study I have been unable to find it so used elsewhere in the Bible. Paul says, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place…..”, and then he goes on to give instructions to regulate such a meeting.
Now in which of these “churches” is it that the women are bound to silence? Not the mob of Acts 19, because they were a group of unbelieving idolators; not the Jewish nation, for it existed before Jesus built his church and was distinct from it after its establishment; not the institution, for women are in it all the time; and not the local congregation, for they are members of it all the time too. It must, then, refer to the whole assembly of the church as such. From this conclusion there seems to be no escape.
Somebody will ask if that meeting did not have miracles in it. The answer is, “Yes.” Then, do we have such gifts today? We answer, “No.” The conclusion will then be reached that since we do not have a meeting like that, the regulations of that meeting do not apply to us now. To this the anti-class defender will reply that every meeting that is recorded in the New Testament had at least one miracle worker in it, and that if we cancel the commands where there were miracles, we would threby cancel the entire law to us; that we would have to do away with baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), because there are no meetings like that either. Be that as it may, the Corinthians had “Church,” and we have “Church.” Here I think is the parallelism. Not only so, but the Corinthian women kept silence during that time, and so do ours. In all such meetings the men lead the singing, as you see here tonight. They read the lessons, lead the prayers, do the preaching, and the teaching, wait on tables and dismiss—the women keep silence.
The same practice prevails among the churches that are opposed to teaching in classes. Both groups interpret and apply I Cor. 14 exactly alike as it relates to this meeting. The difference comes when they try to stretch the injunction for silence to include the Bible classes which are not the “whole church come together into one place;” they are in different places. Who could say that each class is a church? If that were true, when we operate ten classes we would have ten churches, and that will not do.
Anti-Class Brethren Have Trouble in Defining “Church”
In my correspondence with the anti-class brethren I have been calling on them to tell us just what they mean by the word “church.” Some said that they could not define the word; others said, “Anybody knows that.” Those who tried to do it would first so define it as to include the Bible classes. When they were shown that this would include the singing school, they would re-define so as to exclude it, and when they did they also excluded the Bible classes from their definition. Seeing this they would back off and quit the discussion.
Suppose we try defining the word “church.” Let us try the word “court;” just what do we mean by it?—a judge, plaintiff, defendant, witnesses, and those who plead the case? This would appear to be court if they are all in one place. But you may see all these together in the court room discussing a case, and it not be court, because court had not been convened. So it is with the word “church” too. What we want is room to have Bible classes when the church is not in session. If all the disciples may come together as a social group, and not be “church;” if they may assemble as a court and not be “The Assembly;” if they can come together as a wedding and not be “The Assembly;” if they can meet as a school, and not be “Church,” pray tell me why can’t they come together to have a Bible school and not be “Church?”
Second Reason: The Blunder on Expedients
My second reason for leaving the anti-class position was our blunder on expedients. We reasoned that since the law is perfect, and since it does not mention the details of a Bible class, that, therefore, it is wrong. We did not so use it; we just pointed it at the thing that we wanted to exclude by it. Such arbitrary handling of the sacred word was unconscious on our part, but it was, and is, real. We did not apply the argument to the singing school; we let it by, but the Bible class was sure to get full benefit of that argument.
We used Isaiah 8:20; James 1:25; I Thess. 5:21, etc., to exclude the arrangements of the Bible class. They were not stated in detail, therefore were to be excluded. Had we made a uniform application of it, we would have seen the mistake, for it would have excluded church buildings, deeds, singing schools, etc. Our blunder lay in the fact that we failed to distinguish between principle and expedient, principle and device, principle and arrangement. And, overlooking the fact that the class system is taught in principle, and failing to see modern arrangements in ancient times, we concluded that Bible classes are wrong. How we managed to fail to include the arrangements of radio preaching (it is rather modern), protracted meetings (they come to us as a tradition), and a thousand other expedients that we employ is more than I can see. It seems to me as certain as life itself, that if there is room for all these things under the perfect law, that there is room for a Bible class under it.
Is This a “Digressive” Argument?
Their invariable reply to this is to stigmatize it “digressive” argument. This can have but one motive, and that is to arouse prejudice. Being unable to meet the issue, they presume the point, stigmatize the argument, and slide off on a detour. But this is not to be easily disposed of. It is a principle that enters into all applications of law, and one that they themselves use to defend their arrangements.
A few years ago an anti-class man and a one-cup brother were debating. The brother contending for a plurality of cups affirmed Paul’s principle of expediency (I Cor. 10:23). Not being able to read of individual cups any more than any other expedient, he found room for his arrangements under the command to drink. Was this “digressive” argument? It is the same one that we use to defend the Bible class. If we are digressives, so are they, and so are the one-cup brethren for they put cloths and a plate on the table, and arrange for someone to carry the emblems from one to another, none of which is stated in the perfect law.
Deriving Authority for Expedients
From general commands we derive authority for the details that carry out such commands. From Col. 3:16 we derive authority for a song book, a song leader, fourpart music, although we never read of soprano, alto, tenor and bass; and from this passage we get authority for a school to teach all that pertains to our singing. All this we see clearly enough, and act upon in most things. But it is not in harmony with our arguments built on the perfect law of liberty which we used to exclude teaching the Bible in classes, and which some have used to exclude individual cups.
Paul’s authorization, “Let every man have his own wife” (I Cor. 7:2) says nothing about courting a girl to get her to become a wife, nor a ceremony by a preacher or anyone else, yet the most “died-in-the wool” radical will derive authority from this general authorization for such details. What they need to do is to look at the commands “Go” and “Teach” in the same way. In the time of Jesus there were several ways of going, and several ways of teaching; and he used the different ways of traveling and the different methods of teaching.
Cannot Obey Commands Without Expedients
It must be remembered that an expedient carries out a command. You cannot obey one without some expedient; I challenge you to try it. Of course the thing (principle) must be enjoined, but the detail that carries it out must be chosen. Noah could never have built an ark without many expedients —an axe, nails or something with which to fasten the planks together, or the logs or in whatever form he used the wood. For all things we derive authority for the detail that carries out the command. On no other basis can we apply law. Such detail is lawful but not law.
Someone will want to know, “If we may choose expedients, why not play an instrument in wroship?” The answer is easy: “play” is not commanded, and so cannot authorize an instrument, which could be an expedient under the command, if we had it. But “teach” is a command both to men and to women, and therefore must authorize arrangements that carry it out.
Area of Reason and Judgment
Paul affirms in Rom. 12:1 that our service is a reasonable service. Likewise the commands to “walk circumspectly” (Eph. 5:15) and to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without” (Col. 4:5) indicate the use of reason and judgment. The apostles appealed to reason in Acts 6:2, and Paul urges the Corinthians to be of the same mind and the same judgment (I Cor. 1:10). Let those who will refuse to study, to reason, and to endeavor to walk in wisdom under God’s law. To refuse to do these things is to fail to obey him. Any law that had all of its details written out would be larger than this building—too large for a man to read or to remember in his short life time. The “law of the Lord is perfect” in the sense of giving all the principles needed to make men perfect, but neither that law nor any other law points out all the details involved in it. This not only makes room for reason, it demands the exercise of it. This is so obvious and so universally practiced in all other matters that it cannot well be denied with respect to teaching services. For a man to use his judgment in carrying out fifty commands, and then deny it a legitimate place in one, is to set himself in an odd light, and yet this is exactly what the one-cup man and the anti-class man do. Get on the Bible class question and hear them decry human wisdom, just as if God had not commanded the teaching, and as if the very methods had not been used by Christ and his apostles.
Third Reason: Perverting the Scriptures
My third reason for changing is the fact that we had been perverting such passages as Deut. 31:11-13. We argued that their teachers were to teach “all Israel” in one group, and concluded that it was wrong to teach in classes. It would be difficult to get one who argues this to state his connection between the fact and the conclusion. It is really no argument, but we thought it was, and we were wrong. To meet this argument (if it is an argument), is to meet the ones that they make on all such passages—Josh. 8:34-35, Neh. 8:1-3. And this we now do.
- The idea that teaching a large assembly excludes teaching a small one is a false idea. All schools have what they call “assembly,” and many times go directly from it to their classes. All churches that employ the class method of teaching also have large assemblies in which they preach. Thus the argument is built on a false premise.
- Moses at the very time that he gave the command to teach all Israel was not teaching “all Israel,” but a class of priests and elders whom he was telling to teach the nation. When I saw this, it silenced my mouth forever on this argument, for it appeared plainly to be a perversion. Honesty demanded a change.
- The synagogue was organized and perpetuated by the Jews under the law to teach “all Israel.” In it they did not gather the whole nation in one “undivided assembly,” but conducted a school and public worship. The school had two classes of boys, those from about seven to thirteen years were instructed under one teacher, and those from fourteen to twenty in another room under a different teacher. If a class reached as many as forty, they were divided, and another teacher was given to a part of them. In such a school Paul was brought up, and after becoming a Christian he tells us that it was after “the perfect manner of the law” (Acts 22:3). Paul forever settles this question. Let us quit perverting the passage.
We built another misapprehension around Deut. 32:2: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain.” This we said forbade class teaching, for the teaching was to fall like the rain undivided. Then we got to asking, “If a man teaches his family group, does the doctrine drop as the rain?” They answered, “Yes.” Then we wanted to know if we can teach one small group and the doctrine drop as the rain, why not many small groups and it still drop as the rain? Besides, does the rain always come as a universal downpour, or does it shower in different places, and sometimes simultaneously? Such observations led me inevitably out of this error.
We even interpreted Luke 4:16-19 as teaching that Bible classes are wrong. We saw Jesus in public worship, and being ignorant of the fact that they had in the synagogues teaching done in classes, concluded that all teaching was done in one large assembly. The fact that Jesus asked and answered questions in the temple, one of their centers for teaching, failed somehow to indicate to us that they had schools and that they taught the Bible in them, and that by school methods.
This could go on indefinitely showing how we either misconstrued or misapplied the Bible, but time forbids.
Fourth Reason: No Stonewall Argument
The fourth thing that drove me from my former position is the fact that I could not build one stonewall argument in its favor, nor one that would stand up. This is why the anti-class debaters hedge around on technicalities and dodge from one position to another, so that to argue with them is to run all over creation. When I began to doubt my position and called on their leading minds for help, many of them stated facts and admitted the difficulties. Others depended so much on dodges, enuendos, and personal questions that they convinced me that their strength lay in such tactics. Who can have faith in a position which demands such things?
Exactly What Do They Oppose?
Since changing, I have been asking them what it is that they find wrong with class teaching. (1) Is it arrangements? (2) Is it who makes them? (3) Is it the method used in the classes? (4) Is it the fact that another class is in progress at the same time that makes a class wrong? (5) Is it separating the groups that is wrong? (6) Is it who does the teaching? (7) Is it the day on which it is done?
These questions have not been answered; no one has even undertaken the task. At one time it seems to be the method that they oppose, then it seems to be women teachers, but they allow both the method and women teachers. And all the while they do not make one argument that will stand the test of a close examination. Watch it and see.
On the first page of Teaching the Word, the author attacks the “method” of teaching in class twice. On the next page he condemns it again. Just what is he condemning? A “method of teaching.” But it is not a method that he is op posing, although that is exactly what he argues from Deut. 31 and Neh. 8, etc. At the bottom of page 2 he says that there is no difference over methods of teaching in homes, but that it is not right for the church to use that method.
Again, they argue against women teachers long and loud, but are they really opposed to women teachers? Not long ago a sister who opposes classes got several of us preachers together just after preaching and tried to teach us that it is wrong for a woman to teach. Had we invited her back into one of the class rooms to teach us that lesson, she would have rebelled. But what would have been the difference? (At the end of this speech, not one but three women tried to do the same thing. One of them told me that she taught her daughter every night, and that was her answer to Titus 2. We wonder if they think that this is all that is embraced in that command).
An Interesting Study of Bible Methods
Not long ago Brother Lamoine Lemley, of Kress, Texas, read the first four books of the New Testament to see just what methods were used. He made three columns under the heading of PREACH, TEACH, and CONVERSATION. He found where Jesus preached 27 times, where it is said that he taught 70 times, and where he engaged in conversation 86 times. (See last page). Let it be remembered that the conversation method, the dialogue method, is the one generally used in class teaching, and the one argued against by the anti-class preachers. We do not claim that the list is complete; if Jesus used a way 86 times, I would not be afraid for the church to arrange to use it.
Although we are branded as “Moderns” for teaching the Bible in classes, it remains a fact that none of the basic methods of teaching are modern. The Egyptians heralded out news to the people in the times of Joseph (Gen. 41:43). In the days of Esther and Daniel the Babylonians used criers to announce their messages (Esther 6:11, Dan. 3:4). When Jesus began his preaching, John the Baptist had preceded him in this. Nor did Jesus invent the dialogue method, for Socrates had made it famous 400 years before Christ. What Jesus did was not to invent, but to adapt and use the methods he found in vogue at his coming.
Much of the teaching and training given to the apostles by Jesus was by taking them aside from the multitude, and frequently this teaching was given by the question and answer method (Matt. 16:13-18, 20:17, Mark 9:9-14). This is in principle the procedure used in Bible classes today. Anyone who knows that they had school in their synagogues and that they both taught and lectured will see in Matt. 4:23 a distinction in preaching and teaching, for it is said that Jesus did both. If I say that some brother teaches and preaches at a certain college, those who know what college is will understand me.
Not the Method but Something Else
But if it be not the method that they oppose but the use of it by the church, it would then appear that all we have to do to make the Sunday morning Bible school right is to take the arrangements of it out of the hands of the elders and put them in the hands of some women! Brother Bonneau says that, “If a sister teaches a group, where the church has not convened it, nor called a plurality of classes in session, she is within her rights.” According to this it is lawful for me to get me a class, for you to get one, for everybody but the church. But the responsibility for teaching the gospel to the world is on the church (Eph. 3:10, 4:16, I Tim. 3:15). Strange, is it not?
The anti-class defenders, failing to make their arguments stand up, shift from one to another. They do it so artfully that they are seldom detected at it. It reminds me of our bringing a man into court charging him as an outlaw. The judge would require a specific charge, so we accuse that he has no driver’s license. No sooner does he produce it than we charge him of driving on the wrong side of the street. He immediately brings up witnesses who testify that he drove exactly where we did, but before the judge can render a decision or dismiss the case, we accuse the man of stealing a tire. What would the court say? This fairly illustrates the way the anti-class man argues against the class teaching and the women teachers. It is first the silence question. By the time we get that answered he condemns us for not having all the disciples together in one great assembly and have all the teaching done by men. Then he requires that the expedient be stated in the law, then an example that walks on all fours, then comes the “all Israel” argument, or the doctrine dropping as the rain argument, etc., until time runs out. They never stand on an argument long enough for it to be tested out. If they did they would lose it. I lost mine, and I changed.
Let Us Teach Under Law
The idea in the mind of Jesus was “They shall be all taught of God” (John 6:45). Nor did he exclude any known method of teaching. He lectured to the people; he conversed with them, asking and answering questions, and he left an example as an object lesson. Shall we follow his example and use the same methods that he did? Then let us quit arguing against one of them.
When Paul was among the Jews he became as a Jew; a Roman when among the Romans; when among those without law, as without law. But he tells us that he was all the while under the law to Christ (I Cor. 9:20-21). He shaved his head when among the Jews, and conformed to the customs of the other people when with them, just so long as such custom did not run counter to the law of Christ. In this is illustrated liberty under law. These things were lawful to him, and when they were expedient, he took advantage of them. All this our brethren can see until it comes to teaching the Bible. Then they will say that if the church divides over a thing that it is not an expedient. To which we reply that when they divide, it is generally over an expedient. They should not divide over these things, but they frequently do. The trouble is they make laws where God has not, and try to bind them on others. When they quit this we will get along. I saw it, and I quit it, and from here on I expect to teach the Bible as opportunity affords, on the mountain, by the sea side, in the synagogue, in the pulpit,—“Being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.”
Examples of Teaching Methods
| Preach | Teach | Conversation |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew 4:17 4:23 9:35 10:17 11:1 11:7 13:1 22:1 Mark Luke John |
Matthew 4:23, 5:1 7:28, 9:35 11:1, 13:54 21:23, 26:55 28:20 Mark Luke John |
Matthew 8:18-21, 9:1-8, 12-13 9:14, 10:7, 11:2, 12:1 12:9, 12:25; 38 13:10, 36-52, 15:1 15:12, 16:1, 5 16:13, 17:24, 1 18:1, 21, 19:2, 16 19:23, 20:1, 17, 19 22:17, 23, 34, 41 24:3 Mark Luke John |