Chpt. 5 - Hardshell Extremism

Hardshell "historians," C. B. and Sylvester Hassell, frankly and candidly make the following admission concerning those first Hardshells:

“It seemed lamentable that the old soldiers of the cross, instead of preaching Jesus and the resurrection all the time, did take up a good portion of their time in defending the faith and denouncing those who had brought in these heresies” (page 748).

"Instead of preaching Jesus!" Well, that is a significant admission! He implies that their negative preaching "against" those old Mission and progressive-minded Baptists was NOT "preaching Jesus!" This is a true statement. And from experience I can testify that their "children" are no better than their parents. Today's Hardshells spend, in my opinion, at least half of their teaching time being "negative" and this accounts for the stigmatism that they have of being strictly "anti."

They quit being positive in their preaching and became opposers of almost everything imaginable. They unfairly accused many of ill motives, when in fact, only the Lord can judge the motives of the heart. "To his own master" every servant "stands or falls."

All of this negative ("anti") preaching has clearly had its adverse effects, as Hassell testifies and many present-day Hardshells themselves confess.

There is no doubt that many of the Mission Baptists went to extremes themselves. But that doesn't concern me in this writing; the extremism of the Hardshell party does, however.

The areas where the Hardshells are willing to admit of becoming extremists, and are experiencing those “adverse consequences,” are "Christian giving," "ministerial support," "evangelism," "meeting times," "special meetings," "systematic Bible teaching," "Bible classes," "ministerial education" and a host of other areas.

Many Hardshell elders have admitted to me that they agree that the Hardshells have developed a "complex" of mind that says that "we will do and be whatever the Missionaries are not." I have heard Dad and other Hardshell preachers say publicly that the attitude has become such that many Hardshells would “refuse to wear shoes simply because the Missionaries wear them”! This desire to be any thing that the "Arminians" are not has been a "shackle" around the necks of the Hardshells.

If you check old Hardshell association records, you will see that those Hardshells were often found combating the very "extremism" that they created! This child has surely turned on its parents and has just about rent the denomination asunder.

The Hardshells, in opposing "salaried ministers," dote over the fact that their ministers, like the seventy whom the Lord sent out "two-by-two," also go "without script or purse" and "work with their own hands." But now they have found it like "pulling eye-teeth" to ever get them to give much of anything!

Countless sermons have been preached by present-day Hardshells in an attempt to stimulate the giving of the people to the care of their ministers and of other such needs. They have preached for so long against "begging for money" and for the idea that the "church can get along without money" that today's Hardshells give very little in proportion to their abilities.

You know by now how strenuously the Hardshells have preached against "money based institutions." Recall the "resolution" of "old mother Kehukee" in denying a place among them for anyone to come and solicit money for “any institution whatsoever.” And yet, we find them later continuing to solicit money from the churches for their beloved associations. Is this not an "institution?" Is the "Church" not an "institution?"

You also recall how the old Hardshells have falsely accused the Missionaries of "covetousness," "greed," "avarice" and of being followers of the god "mammon." But it is the Hardshells who have "fallen in love" with their money. For I have seen in many of the Hardshell churches a large number of "well-to-do" parishioners who, as some Hardshells admit, "squeeze the dollar so hard that the eagle screams!" These folks, who would rather hold on to their wealth than to give it for the help of the kingdom of God, are the ones, in my opinion, who are guilty of covetousness.

They have so long preached that money has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the kingdom and church of God, that they are now "eating those words" and "suffering the consequences!"

Things have changed a good bit, however, thanks to a return to preaching the truth on these things. Today we find Elders like Lassere Bradley, an import from the Missionaries, who frequently "solicit contributions" for a host of things, such as "radio ministries," "book publishing," "video and TV production," "singing schools," etc. Elder Tolley himself is frequently asking (begging?) for money. I don't say, like their Hardshell forefathers, that such earnest solicitation is evil. I know that Elder Tolley and others have legitimate requests and they are "worthy of their hire." I just say these things to remind them that they created this mess themselves.

According to the "resolution" of the old Kehukee, Bradley and Tolley would not be welcome in their midst! Oh! how things have changed!

The next area where there has been grave "extremism" is in ministerial education. Looking negatively upon the efforts at education among the early Baptists, and in opposing "theological schools," "Church Schools," "classroom training," "Bible classes," and such like, the Hardshells glorified "ignorance."

They are constantly feeling the necessity of cautioning people "not to think that they are opposed to education." Why the need of saying this? Why the caution? Is it a "false alarm?" Is there real danger?

The same holds true in other areas as well. After they preach so long against missionaries, they feel obligated to say, "But this does not mean that we oppose preaching the gospel." Why say this? Why the "word of warning?" Isn't it due to the fact that they know that the "average person" would think that they were so opposed?

The truth is, Hardshells are indeed against preaching the gospel and offering Christ and the gospel to the world at large. They ridicule that! They denounce it as "evil" and "sinful" - the very "mystery of iniquity!" Now honestly, who is "Anti-Christ?"

Many Hardshells "cloak" their sins. They oppose every effort (except their own) to "spread the gospel." They simply have to "cloak" this sometimes by giving some kind of "lip service" to "spreading the gospel."

It is also true concerning their "preaching against" such decent things as "Sunday Schools," "Seminaries," "Tract Societies," "Protracted" or "Revival Meetings," "Bible Societies," "Temperance Societies," "Mite Societies," "Benevolent Societies," "Special Programs for the Youth," "Salaried Ministry," "Tithing," "Musical Instruments," "Choirs," "Special Singing," "Orphan homes," etc.

In "preaching against" all this, they must always be careful to say, "But this does not mean that we oppose education, preaching the gospel, the young, drunkenness, helping the poor and homeless or the orphans and widows, or music. No, we are all for these things," the Hardshell cautions!

It is no wonder that Hardshells have historically been known as "do-nothings," "anti-effort" Baptists, "antinomians," and such like.

They call this "persecution," and this is another evidence of them being a "cult." They develop the "cult mentality" of viewing themselves as the "hated" and "persecuted ones," and all this "for righteousness sake!"

But those accusations are anything but "persecution." They are just what "the average unbiased person" would imagine was the case upon listening to Hardshells "preach against" those things. The need for "appearing to be otherwise" is quite evident. It speaks also of "hidden motives" and of a "secret agenda."

Such is also a sign of a "cult." Actually, there is some good degree of secrecy among the Hardshells. But more of that later also.

Back to our subject at hand. To give you some idea of the Hardshell teachings on ministerial education, let me quote from Elder Griffin again. First, he says on page 160 of his history:

“We cannot fellowship your theological schools . . . We want God to send them and not man.”

Well, who said that those churches that have schools are opposed to God's sending preachers? Hardshells "misrepresent" those who promote theological training, create “straw men” and “red herrings”!

This is one of the Hardshell "tactics." Charge more on your "opponent" than that of which he is actually teaching. Paint him and his beliefs in a bad light. Build a "Straw Man" and fight with it while at the same time leaving me doubt as to who is the proverbial "Straw Man!" Attack the "motives" of those who promote "theological schools" and "missions."

This is what Griffin has done. Just because Baptists promote "preacher-training and education" does not mean that they don't covet God-sent men! Hardshell Griffin knows that! How can he "sit in judgment" on his brethren? Did not James say, "He that speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge . . ." (James 4:11).

This "impugning the motives" of those Christian Baptists who promote "ministerial education," is evidence that you are "not doers."

But how did those first Old Baptists of Griffin's own state of Mississippi feel about the matter? Let us see.

In the 1817 "session" of the "Mississippi Association," a "resolution" was unanimously adopted, which read as follows:

“That this Association recommend and support a plan for raising a fund, for the special purpose of promoting the proper education of pious men called to the great and important work of the gospel ministry” (pg. 85, Griffin's History).

Notice that this was a "unanimous" vote. Where were the Hardshells? Asleep? Were the "Old Baptists" there?

Did those 1817 Baptists believe that they were "robbing God" of the right and privilege of sending preachers simply because they sought means to improve the education of those that they perceived had been "called" to preach? Were they usurping the authority of God? You Hardshells cruelly and unjustly accuse those Old Baptists!

Hardshells often argue that all theological education should come "before" a person's "call to preach," but never "after" it! Here's what Griffin says:

“If HE (God) wants a learned Moses, or a Saul of Tarsus, HE will have him qualified BEFORE HE calls them to HIS work” (page 160).

We find the same line of argument in Hassell's "history." But what does this "argument" say? Well, it indicates that the Hardshells have very few, if any, learned Pauls or skilled leaders like Moses!

Can you imagine such a crazy idea? What ignorance! Religious and ministerial training must always come "before" a man's call or else such education is "evil?" It seems to me that those who argue this "baloney" need some of that "ministerial education!"

Personally, I believe that, were Paul or Moses here today, they would more than likely be very unpopular among the Hardshells.

I also can testify of personal witness of the prevalence of ignorance among the Hardshell clergy. I'll try to give some evidence of that, which I, of course, attribute to their "going to extremes" in the area of "preacher education."

I have noticed that several of their more learned and eloquent of preachers (i.e. Bradley, Pyles, Darity, Bryant, etc.), in introducing the Hardshell denomination to would-be members, will invariably tell them that their old preachers may "butcher the king's English," but that they nevertheless preach ably, soundly, and with great success and popularity. Why the need for such an apology? To save some embarrassment? I think so. Do I believe that incorrect English keeps one from preaching Jesus? Of course not. But to "grow" and "improve" in the ministerial "calling," an improvement in grammar is essential.

The other evidence of widespread ignorance in the Hardshell ministry is seen in their wild and fanciful "interpretation" of various scripture passages. Already you see that ignorance in the "origin of Satan" issue that I wrote about earlier. Let me enlarge a little upon that as an evidence of that "lack of knowledge."

Hardshell Elder, S. N. Redford, said:

“A brother asked me to write and tell where the devil originated. Well, of all questions! I answer, I don't know. In fact, I have never been interested in the subject. If I have ever been called to preach, it was to preach Jesus, and not the devil. I don't think he is ever more happy than when God's people are talking about his origin or his personality. I could tell you what I have heard some Old Baptists preachers say about the matter [of course he could tell someone that! S.G.] Some say he was a fallen angel; others say God made him good and he turned to a devil. But all this is speculation, and is not worth the paper it is written on. The Bible is silent on the subject and so I expect to be, too. This I do know, that the Bible teaches God is the only self-existent being. Let us be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Reader, can you not see the ignorance, willful and otherwise, in this? This type of ignorance is common among the Hardshell ministry and denomination.

Elder Ralph Harris, present-day Hardshell editor of the “ADVOCATE & MESSENGER” periodical, says this of the question as to Satan's origin:

“He says that it is a "foolish and unlearned question" that "genders strife" and that he never intends to deal with it” (April 1990 issue).

What ignorance! Does he mean to tell me that it is "foolishness" to honestly inquire into a scriptural answer to the origin and being of the Church's chief enemy? If I had a pastor who said that to me, I would feel hurt, degraded and offended. I certainly would feel reluctance to ask any more questions! I also might shy from any serious investigation of many important things to know. I know that many Hardshells feel embarrassed by such things and would like to, as Elder Griffin stated, "hide" such things in "oblivion!"

Recall also, as an example of ministerial ignorance among the Hardshells, the case with their "interpretation" of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" and of their considering it to be so vital as to make it a "test of fellowship."

Needless to say, I could give many more such examples of ministerial ignorance, but this is enough. Remember that the Lord said that "his people were destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6).

Not only have the Hardshells gone overboard in ministerial support and education, but also in "times of meeting" and in the instruction of the people in general.

Some early American Baptists, because of a lack of preachers and because of the harshness of travel, mostly met only once each month. A preacher would often have a "circuit" and therefore preached at a different church each week along his "circuit." But when it happened that these hindrances were no longer present, many Hardshells, rather than meeting more often, continued to meet only once each month, holding their "tradition."

They also didn't favor meeting much more than that. They opposed "protracted" and "revival" meetings. Like Hassell said, those churches that meet "twice on Sunday" and have a "mid-week" service, are those "loose city churches!" Many of these one Sunday-a-month Hardshells think that meeting more often is just following the "Arminians" and "Missionaries!"

Opposing Sunday Schools has also had a devastating effect on the Hardshells. They not only have prevalent ignorance among the ministry, but also among the young and old within the general membership. Listen to present day Hardshell Elder, E. D. McCutcheon, and his comments about this ignorance and its effects:

“It becomes more apparent every day that a better system of teaching young children in the Primitive Baptist Church must be put into practice if we expect to keep a reasonable number in the church after they are grown . . . Sunday Schools are definitely not the answer, although such training could be helpful if we had enough Biblically qualified instructors to do the teaching. However, the stigma that has been placed on Sunday Schools because of the misuse by others precludes such use by Primitive Baptists. There has to be another way, a proper scriptural way to overcome the neglect of many years” (Glad Tidings Publication).

This is a Hardshell witness. It demonstrates again the damage done by the "extremism" that has historically characterized the Hardshells. Examples could be multiplied! Needless to say, it is self-evident that the Hardshells are "cultists" and "extremists" and "reaping what they have sown."

If you would like to have further information on the merits of Sunday Schools in defence against the "anti-Sunday Schoolers," write brother Ross for a copy of his editorial on the subject from years ago.