In the process of refreshing some older material for an upcoming series on the Quest for Undenominational Christianity, I came across this reference from an article I wrote a half-century ago.

“I presume to say that it has not escaped the notice of the careful reader of our religious periodicals, that there is, among our brethren, an increasing tendency to mercilessly criticize each other for any supposed error that they may harbor… Our religious papers are full of such controversies. One brother sets forth his views upon a certain subject, in all good conscience. Another objects to the reasoning and proof, and severely flogs him for advocating an absurd position. The first brother, finding his logic assailed, and even his motives sometimes impugned, is incensed and replies accordingly. ‘Like begets like,’ and so the controversy continues, increasing in virulence, abounding in sarcastic thrusts and personal allusions, until the ‘brother’ is lost sight of in the ‘antagonist.’ But little attention is paid now to the original matter of difference, but the greater portion of the replies are occupied in discussing ‘false issues,’ ‘exposing fallacies,’ ‘exposing non sequiturs,’ correcting ‘false impressions,’ etc.”

Observations:

(1) It has not escaped the notice of careful readers that this phenomenon is not limited these days to religious periodicals, but often is featured in social-media disputes and other venues regarding sports, politics, health issues, entertainment, and nearly any other topic one can name.

(2) Even when “another objects to the reasoning and proof” but, rather than “severely flogging” the “antagonist” for his “absurd position,” merely offers a reasoned dissent from the original, the discussion often devolves into a melee when the original proponent is the one who begets the flogging of “absurdities” which oppose her/his viewpoint. Others then join the fray.

(3) It is possible to speak truth in an unseemly, and ungracious manner which may deter some from seeing the truths thus disguised or obscured. It is also possible to lead some astray with a winsome, seemingly gracious manner that disguises the ugly truths of an unbiblical message.

(4) Historically, James H. Garrison was a “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road” voice in the late 19th-century division which produced the Disciples of Christ in the controversy over instrumental music, missionary/evangelistic societies, and other emerging denominational agencies. As “moderate” as he may have been, Garrison served as a bridge to ever more radical views and positions in the next generation of younger preachers and scholars – including his own son, W.E Garrison, a religious modernist who was long associated with the Disciples Divinity House at the University of Chicago, and helped produce the full-grown Disciples denomination.

James H. Garrison’s “moderate” views, expressed in the Christian-Evangelist, of which he was a founding editor, and his 1891 book, The Old Faith Re-Stated, attempted to convince readers that the leftward drift into modernist viewpoints of late-19th century Disciples were really no different from the positions of prior generations of believers, including Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and many others who left various denominations in their quest to become “Christians only.”

While James H. Garrison’s views may have seemed, to some, compatible with more “conservative” or Biblical views, in hindsight it becomes clear that his influence lay with those who walked a much more liberal/modernistic path back into some of the denominational structures which prior generations had left in their attempts to be independent of any denomination.