Contending for the Faith
(A stand against the early progressive movement among the Primitive Baptists)

The article below gives the reader a glimpse of the start of the Progressive movement among the Primitive Baptists. There are several striking similarities between the leaders of the movement then and the leaders of today’s departures. Among the things they have in common are: Advocating the commandments commonly known as the great commission were given to the church, discarding traditional practices, and promoting evangelism in order to increase numbers. Please pay close attention to the manner in which Elder Walter Cash and others responded to the situation. They addressed the problem openly and forthright, the same manner that we should today. Especially notice the last part of the article where dropping of fellowship with the Salem association was being considered. Elder Cash fought for time to labor with the Salem association concerning their use of progressive preachers.  His desire to labor was not one that ignored the problem but one that addressed the problem. He labored for the Salem association to take active steps to remain in fellowship with the Yellow Creek Association. His statement to the Salem brethren indicates that although he was willing to labor, they must make a choice and show by their walk that they mean it:  “You must say now which way you are going. If you say you are going to stay with our churches and associations on the old line, and will show that you mean it, the correspondence will be continued; otherwise not.” We should take the same stand today with the leaders of the present day movement and all those that are willing to stay associated with them.  Elder Claude Mckee

Excerpt Copied from" Autobiography and Sermons by"  
Elder Walter Cash, 1925

  Along about the year 1900 a movement began in the Primitive Baptist ranks that culminated in much distress, and division in some localities, before it's close. The announced intention was to revive languishing churches and put new life into the cause by discarding traditional practices, and by means of more popular preaching and vigorous measures to build up the congregation, and as a result of this the churches would be built up. One of the chief leaders in this movement was Elder Harry Todd, of Indiana. He had been considered a sound and able preacher, and had the confidence generally of the Baptists where he went and preached.

 He wrote me about publishing in the columns of my paper articles that he might write, advocating a "full gospel." The meaning given to the expression "full Gospel" was to preach exhortation and practice, as well as salvation by grace. I had always been in favor of doing this, and it had been my course since the beginning of my ministry. But during our correspondence I drew out what Elder Todd considered to be the right course of our preachers. The position he took were, Our churches are not prosperous. They are not prosperous because they are not popular. The kind of preaching we have renders them unpopular. That the churches may become prosperous they must become more popular, and large congregations be built up, and this cannot be done while our preachers preach as they now do. He argued that it was the duty of all men to repent and believe on Jesus. Even though they could not do so until they were regenerated. He said if our preachers preached this obligation as the Arminians did it would not keep people from being born again, even though it did not cause them to be believers. But it would draw larger congregations, and consequently we would get more additions. 

He further argued that as preaching election and predestination did not change election and predestination, much of this kind of preaching should be dispensed with, and so remove the ground of objection of many people. I told him plainly that the columns of the Messenger of Peace could not be used to advocate such a change in the manner and matter of preaching, and that I would as soon advocate Arminianism in a direct manner as to teach it in an indirect manner, and I considered the kind of preaching he advocated was in a practical manner repudiating the truth and supporting Arminianism. 

He wrote me that if I would not allow them the use of the columns of the Messenger of Peace, they would start a new paper that would advocate the preaching of a "Full Gospel." I told him that he could just go ahead, as no such articles would be published by me. He then began the publication of the "Gospel Light", which was conducted in such a manner at first as to get the confidence of many good, sound Baptist. But in a little while after he had support enough that he thought he could continue, the true purpose of the paper became apparent to many. About this time Brother S. B. Luckett, of Crawfordsville, Ind., issued a pamphlet which pointed out many of the objectionable features and expressions with which the paper abounded, which helped many others to see that the paper was not in line with Primitive Baptist faith and order, which caused the paper to lose so much support that it was discontinued, and Elder Todd went to the Missionaries where he belonged. In connection with Todd and his paper were a number of preachers whose ambition to become popular was aroused, and they started out on the course advocated by Elder Todd. Among them were Elders J. V. and R. S. Kirkland. Elders R. S. Kirkland went into the evangelical work to get members into the churches, and he proceeded along lines which were closely akin to the Arminian revivalists, but in doctrine he preached what was considered sound by those that heard him. His meetings drew large crowds, and he held them with his power to interest, keeping his congregations either laughing or crying, or trying to keep up with the dramatic situation which he created. Many persons were received into the churches where his course was received with favor. 

In the year 1904 Elder J. V. Kirkland issued a book, the title of which was A Condensed History of the Church of God. Before any bound copies were ready to send out he wrote me in regard to it and asked me to make an announcement of his forthcoming book. I wrote him that I could not do this until I had seen the book, so that I might know whether I could endorse it, as I would not publish an advertisement of a book that I could not recommend. Almost all  the Primitive Baptist papers published his announcement, but I did not think it prudent to do so. When he sent me a copy of the book I found it to advocate a Federal government for the churches. I wrote him at once that I could not advertise it , and also tried to tell him what it meant to him to put the book out. It would bring him into trouble ,and if any Primitive Baptists tried to put his recommendations into practice it would mean division. I told him that it would be better for him to burn the whole issue and suffer loss than to put it forth. Later, an announcement was made for a meeting of Primitive Baptists in St. Louis during the time of the World's Fair in that city. I saw that the management of the meeting would be in the hands of those who were forwarding the revolutionary spirit in the churches , and was afraid of the result. So I determined not to attend, and was free to express my feelings to those who asked for my opinion. Some Baptists who desired to attend the fair, and who shared my fears about the outcome of the meeting, insisted that I arrange for a meeting separate from that for which Elders Kirkland were arranging, but I did not think it prudent to do so. Many attended the meeting and saw nothing wrong, but when the minutes came out they were surprised to find that they represented the meeting as endorsing the idea that the commission was given to the church as a body, and not as to individuals; also that there be a national paper under the immediate supervision of the churches. This uncovered the purpose of those who got up the minutes, for it was evident that they meant to make it appear that a representative gathering of Primitive Baptists from all parts of the country was favorable to the new ideas, and with this appearance of endorsement to try to move the churches in that direction. 

From all quarters came protests against the ideas set forth in the minutes of the St. Louis meeting, and of Elder J.V. Kirkland's book in which the Federal government was advocated. The friends of the movement now had no paper through which they could try to defend themselves and advocate their measures. They appealed to me, "For," they said, "you are not an extremist, and you are conservative and reasonable." They wanted a chance to get before the Baptists. Some of  Elder Kirkland’s close friends wrote me ,asking that Elder J. V. Kirkland's name be put on the editorial staff of the Messenger of Peace, and in return they would double my subscription list. Elder Kirkland himself wrote to me, making a proposition. It was an advertisement of his book, and gave notice of a second annual meeting of Primitive Baptists, the meeting at St. Louis to be considered the first. And that I should give his name a place on the editorial staff. He further stated that if I did not agree to his proposition he would start a paper.

 I wrote him that I would not grant such a request to any man in the world, and certainly not to him, knowing that what he would advocate was contrary to what I believed to be consistent with scriptural teaching and Primitive Baptist practice. I said in reply to his proposition that if I should publish an advertisement of his book, that having refused to do so when nearly every Primitive Baptist paper in the United States had done so, and some of the editors had recommended it, it was absurd to think that I would do so now, when it had been generally condemned. And as to announcing another meeting like the one held at St. Louis, I had not attended   that meeting, and had advised others to stay away, and was against the principles announced in the minutes, and I most certainly would not announce another. As for putting his name on the editorial staff of my paper, nothing could induce me to do so. It would at that time mean an endorsement of his ideas, which I had never done, and to try to hold up a man whose theories were generally condemned. As to his starting another paper the field was open as far as I was concerned. Elder Kirkland started his paper, but he could never convince Primitive Baptists that the "commission" to preach the gospel was given to the church as a body, or that there needed to be a body of higher authority than the church to regulate the affairs of the kingdom of Christ. The paper failed for lack of support and the Kirklands went to the missionaries. This movement led some churches out of the connection of the Primitive Baptists. They are known as "progressives."

 The Kirklands visited and preached in the churches in Boone County, Missouri, in the Salem association, and for a time it seemed they were leading the entire association. Two associations dropped correspondence with the Salem, and leading ministers tried to get the Yellow Creek association, of which I was moderator, to drop the Salem also. I had ceased to attend the Salem association during the time the Kirkland's were received, but I knew that large body of Baptists were really sound in the faith, and I had confidence in them that they would finally set themselves right. But I thought that if the Yellow Creek dropped correspondence this would practically cut them off from the Primitive Baptists of the state, and it would encourage the leaders in the "progressive" movement to double their energy to try to become the dominant power. So I stood out with all my influence against the Yellow Creek dropping the correspondence though some very influential ministers thought I was doing very wrong. 

In December, 1904, at the request of leading members in the Salem association, I visited some of the churches and arrived at an understanding with them that steps should be taken to stop "progressive" preachers from visiting the churches, and that the churches would take steps to let it be known where they intended to stand. To this end I was to attend the next session of the association, which I did. At this meeting I laid the matter before the brethren plainly, explaining the situation, and telling them of the purpose I had in view all along in not dropping the correspondence, but that I could go no farther unless they acted decisively. I said, "You must say now which way you are going. If you say your are going to stay with our churches and associations on the old line, and will show that you mean it , the correspondence will be continued; otherwise not."

 They said that they wanted to continue the correspondence and sent two messengers from each church to the next session of the Yellow Creek association, to ask that the correspondence be continued, and giving assurance that no further cause of friction would be given. The churches have kept their word, and correspondence has been renewed by all the surrounding associations. I wish to say in this connection that brethren sometimes act too hastily, and sever connection with  others  when a labor of love and charity would continue the fellowship and save from division. An old minister said to me, "As I look back on the actions of the churches when we had to meet questions which finally resulted in divisions, I can see that sometimes we acted hastily and lost members that a more deliberate and loving course would have saved."
End of excerpt

Editor: Elder Claude McKee

  Email this Article's Link to someone