Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
June 30, 1960
NUMBER 9, PAGE 12a

Houser's "How"

Robert C. Welch, Birmingham, Alabama

From the articles in his bulletin, Charles L. Houser has come to Homewood church in Birmingham, to carry on the work of leading away disciples into institutionalism which was begun by Jack Meyer, Sr. He readily draws a schismatic line as he speaks of the "opposition group," or of those "who are NOT identified with the opposition group." This is in the issue of May 12, 1960. He lists three meetings in the area in progress; but says of them: "We look with more favor upon the meeting at Adamsville, because neither the local preacher nor the visiting evangelist is in opposition to orphan homes." Thus it is evident that he has come to Birmingham to do what A. C. Grider proved that he was set to do, as in a tract entitled, "Houser Draws Line," he reviewed a speech of Houser's which was made in Cave City, Kentucky last year.

Notice, too, that in the quotation above, he states his preference on the basis of lack of opposition to orphan homes. He is not concerned with the ability of the preacher nor his faithfully preaching the gospel. He is only concerned about their not opposing a man-made institution. He draws the line over that which he himself places in the realm of opinion; as we shall see later in a quotation. He is set on his opinion and will have his way if he splits the church into pro-group and "opposition group," as he is wont to classify brethren.

Claims To Hold The Pattern

He attended a meeting one evening and heard Cecil Douthitt preaching at North Birmingham. Douthitt made a very pointed observation about brethren who have been taken over by the liberal and institutional craze being able no longer to preach on the New Testament; stating that it is now popular with them to preach on subjects such as, "Where There Is No Pattern." He was not intending to preach an entire sermon on the pattern of church work and organization, hence carried the matter no further. Houser got the point, but he could not graciously acknowledge, touch. He went home and pulled out the old "How" quibble to try to build up his case as he wrote in his bulletin. It reminds one of the little boy who got a licking and said that it didn't hurt at all, but when he got away from the bystanders he burst forth in pitiful tears. Here are his words: "The above mentioned evangelist. (Douthitt was not named in the article. — R. C. W.) implied that those of us who support orphan homes which are conducted by Christians, have left the pattern which shows HOW the New Testament Church cared for orphans. Since the Bible does not tell HOW orphans are to be cared for by the Church, how could a congregation's supporting an orphan home conducted by Christians represent a departure from the pattern?"

Now is that not a dilly of an argument? His argument would permit this: Since the Bible does not tell how the congregation is to keep in tune in singing, then how could a congregation's singing with an instrument represent a departure from the pattern? Or this: Since the New Testament does not tell how the messengers who gave the church's contribution to the preacher are to be chosen, how could a congregation's supporting a missionary society represent a departure from the pattern? This Is the argument of the digressives, and Houser's argument is exactly the same.

Departure In Organization

The departure from the New Testament pattern is in the building and supporting of a human institution. We are not talking about the care of orphans; we are talking of the support of a human organization which proposes among other things to care for orphans. The church is sufficient organization to care for all the needy toward which it has an obligation.

The quibble that the church is not an orphan home is essentially the argument that the church by its own organization is not capable of caring for them. And to contend that it cannot legally do so is to say that we must obey men rather than God, if God has said for the church to do so. The argument is either as deceptive or as ignorant as that of the digressive that he cannot sing without an instrument. It is nothing but bald assumption and baleful presumption to say that the church must do any of its work through a human organization.

Where Is The Authority

Some mockingly want all the details specified for the churches care of its needy and especially the orphans. One might as well ask for the specific command to sing bass or alto. Since these details for the congregation's doing it are included in the more general precepts, they suppose that this justifies the forming of a separate organization outside the church. If that be correct, then, since the details for the parts in singing are not specified, they could with equal right suppose that it justifies an additional instrument. When Houser has been able to settle on the primary question of whether the church can do her work or whether she has the right to support a separate institution and thereby be relieved of her responsibility, we will then be able to go on to the minor details; and perhaps will have no difficulty in working in harmony in encouraging the church with her own organization to do the work required.

Will brother Houser defend in honorable formal discussion that which he teaches on this matter? Will he affirm that it is scriptural for churches to support and contribute to separate institutions built by men?