Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
June 5, 1958
NUMBER 6, PAGE 2-3b

Concerning Brother Tant's Second Article

Reuel Lemmons

Elsewhere in this issue appears the second in a series of three articles by Brother Yater Tant. The first appeared last week, and the last will appear next week. Brother Tant requested space for these articles, and we are glad to furnish it. He and I are good friends, and after looking over his three articles, I am persuaded that we are much closer in our views than one might think. In fact, we believe that the reader will agree after perusing the three articles that the only difference between us is the result of Brother Tant's overworked imagination. We will show in this article and the next that he advocates, endorses and recommends every ill he thinks he sees of every scheme that is being practiced among us today. We must repeat our amazement at the weakness of his position. There certainly isn't anything about it worthy of all the strife, conTantion, and division among churches that it has stirred up. And we plead with him and others to recognize the fact, repent of the strife they have caused, and give it up like men. We make this plea earnestly and sincerely.

We have never cherished the idea of controversy with any of our brethren. By nature we are inclined to seek peace rather than wage war. It is the hope of showing the utter lack of any ground for division over "present issues" that we engage in this discussion.

Brother Tant gives two arguments in this second article which we will discuss in the third review, because he further discusses them there. They are the scope of eldership authority, and the form and function of an orphan home.

Briefly concerning our position, we have maintained: The church in the first century was in the widow-care business (Acts 6). This was done by the local church. James 1:27 demands orphan care as well as widow care. It would be illogical to argue that the church can do one but not the other.

Of three positions stated, Brother Tant says he holds number two, "except for this on additional provision": It must be a "congregational home" rather than a "brotherhood home." Will all writers and speakers who like so well to use the term, "human benevolent institution" please note, and include Brother Tant's "human benevolent institution" in your next speech or article? And, note further that if a "congregational home" operated a dairy, hatched chickens, or leased its land for oil, it would have every ill he condemns in either of the other two. If he feels duty bound to attack this practice, let him attack it only as an abuse of the principle. We are not here concerned with abuses of principle; we are concerned with the principle itself. Even if these practices were objectionable and should be stopped, the question of these homes being scriptural is not involved in a discussion of these practices.

Brother Tant says in effect that number two does not violate his conscience until it takes a child, or a contribution, from another congregation. At that point, cooperation would have set in. Really, the only objection he offers to number two is church cooperation.

And in this connection, again arises the "activating the church universal bugaboo." Any effort in the world in which two or more congregations pool their funds, talents, or efforts poses every threat posed by the homes of No. 2.

The only other possible alternative is complete and total anti-cooperation. As long as voluntary cooperation is maintained, some congregations do some cooperating. And, under such a set-up, the church never could, under any circumstances, be activated without the consent of every congregation, and every Christian in every congregation, in the whole brotherhood. Seeing this ghost has scared some into doing the church terrible harm.

Regarding the fourth objection: This objection has nothing whatever to do with the scripturalness of the existence of a home under elders, but deals only with what Brother Tant himself alone opines as an abuse of one of its functions — money raising. May we suggest that if his "congregational home" ran a dairy for the children, he would have to register the same objections. If a church could buy milk for its orphan, it could surely buy the cow. If it can buy the milk, it can surely buy the milk plant without sinning. Incidentally, we suppose a church could run a dairy for milk for its orphans as scripturally as it could rent the preacher's home out or lease its grounds for oil. And furthermore, if Brother Tant's "congregational home" for old folks accepted fifteen dollars per month from some old person and supplied all the rest of his care, would it be in the rental business? The church has, in effect, rented the old person quarters and keep at a price he can pay. So, you see, all the evils Brother Tant finds in homes as they are, are also in the very homes he proposes.

Then note further: When a "congregational home" becomes a greater burden than the congregation can bear, others are to step in and "relieve the need." The teaching "is as clear as the noonday sun." Presto! Brother Tant's "congregational home" becomes a "brotherhood home" because other churches support it. Then, it has all the dangers of activating the church universal that any other cooperative arrangement has.

Let us apply 2 Cor. 8:13-15 to this problem. Congregation A has an orphan and "needs" care for it. Congregation B has a home but "needs" assistance in caring for the orphan. A sends the assistance that B "needs" and B provides the care that A "needs," and there is equality. "The significance of 'at this present time' " is that it would cover any time when the "need" might exist. We are fully agreed that if and when the "want" ever ceases to exist, contributions should cease.

Congregations sent to other congregations where there was a NEED — not "Distress." There is a vast difference in the two. To interpret or translate "Need" as "Distress" or an "emergency" is to wrest the scriptures. Certainly, cooperation is mentioned in connection with a need. That is where you would expect to find it. Certainly, you would not expect to find congregations cooperating for the sake of cooperating. You find them cooperating for the sake of filling a need. If there were no need, there would be no cooperation. If Brother Tant wants to define every congregation that "needs" as an "object of charity," then everyone of them is an object of charity. As to when a church is and when it isn't in need Brother Tant has his OPINION and expresses it; but, he has only an opinion. Who in the church has a right to decide which congregations are in need and which are not? Talk about popery!

When you get someone in the church to decide this for all the churches, you will have popery.

Brother Tant wishes to restrict cooperation to his own conception of "need" — distress — and he wants to define that. But God did not define either term, and we will not allow Brother Tant to define it for us. That right we reserve for ourselves lest we find ourselves straining our religious concepts through another's mind.

Brother Tant, why don't you leave this matter of congregational cooperation where God put it, in the realm of faith, and leave the working of it in the realm of human opinion? Those two principles from article one would work right well here: Respect the Word of God as all sufficient, and we can see IT alike.