Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
NEED_DATE
NUMBER 36, PAGE 8b-9

Is There A Difference?

John T. Lewis

I believe any good work may be hindered by its friends' taking extreme positions. This is true of the church; it is true of Bible colleges, or any work that Christians may engage in.

In the Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1932, Brother Batsell Baxter had an article, headed; "Individuals Giving to Colleges." I hope neither the editor nor Brother Baxter will think I am seeking a discussion or fighting Bible colleges when I take issue with Brother Baxter on some things he said in that article. Brother Baxter's article was a kind of medley — he said some good things, he was not clear in others, he missed the point in some, and he took some extreme positions.

Brother Baxter was not clear in his argument about individuals giving and the church giving. He asked: "Where is there any New Testament authority for a Christian to give to any good work in any other way than as an individual through the church?" Does Brother Baxter mean through the treasury of the 'church'? When we contribute on the first day of the week, and our contribution goes into "the church treasury," it ceases to be an individual matter and becomes the church's business. Jesus Christ said: "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise lose his reward." (Matt. 10:42.) I know Jesus Christ did not mean for us to put a cup of cold water into "the church treasury"; therefore, I conclude that it is Scriptural for an individual to give without putting it in "the church treasury." I know when Paul said, "Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper," he did not mean for us to contribute all we have. Therefore, when I contribute, as I have been prospered, upon the first day of the week, that contribution ceases to be mine and becomes the church's; but what I have left is absolutely mine; and if I want to give all, or any part of it, to a Bible college, a religious paper, or to any other good work, that is my business, and I don't consider it any part of anybody else's business to object. This cannot be said about the Lord's-day contribution.

Brother Baxter says: "Any good Christian who feels it in his heart to do so can start a school in which a Christian environment shall be thrown around the teaching of the truths of secular subjects. He can employ Christian teachers who will teach these secular subjects without throwing in hurtful or atheistic speculations. He can teach the Bible as the chief text in this school." Exactly so; but this is not the point of attack. The most rabid anti-Bible-college fellow would not object to the above. So far, this has been an individual enterprise. Now the question is, has this "good Christian" the right to go in debt several hundred thousand dollars putting up buildings in which to teach his school, and then call upon the churches to pay for the buildings? It does not help a proposition to evade the issue when you are arguing the question.

"But some one is ready to say: 'There is no mention of a special gift to help a college.' No, neither is there any mention of a special collection to pay an evangelist for 'protracted meeting' or 'revival service,' or to pay a song leader, or to build a meetinghouse, or to buy songbooks, or to do a multitude of other things for which the Christian today gives money. We are left in this to learn the principles of apostolic teaching in the matter of our giving and apply these principles." This is a very unfortunate paragraph in Brother Baxter's article. It is the very argument the hobby riders make when they don't want to give to anything. It is also the argument the digressive brethren make to justify their missionary societies, etc. But I do not think it would take a Solomon to see the fallacy in this argument (?).

For instance, Paul says: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Eph. 3:10,11.) Again: "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim 3:14,15.) If a "protracted meeting" or "revival service" is making known the manifold wisdom of God," it is carrying out the church's duty to support the truth. Can Brother Baxter say this about a Bible College? This is not a question of "a special collection to pay an evangelist for a 'protracted meeting' of 'revival service"'; it is the imperative duty of the church to carry the gospel to the world, and it does not make any difference whether the collection is "special" or "regular," just so it is from God's People.

"And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need." (Phil. 4:15,16.) Here we have an example of the church carrying out "God's eternal purpose," but nothing said about a 'special' or "regular collection," so no place here for a hobby rider. Paul stayed in the city of Corinth for "a year and six months," and established the church of God there. He was at Ephesus for three years. "Wherefore teach ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears." (Acts 20:31.) Two years of the time Paul was in Ephesus he taught, or reasoned, in the school of Tyrannus. "But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus, And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19:9,10.) I am sure Tyrannus was "a good Christian," or Paul would not have taught in his school. He did just what Brother Baxter says "any good Christian" has a right to do. He started a school, and called in others to help him — at least, he had Paul with him for two years; but he did not call upon the churches to contribute to his school.

I am sure no teacher ever accomplished more good in two years' teaching than Paul did in the school of Tyrannus. Later, Paul made a speech to the elders of the church at Ephesus and urged them to "feed the church of the Lord"; he also wrote a letter to the church at Ephesus, teaching them their Christian duty. He wrote two letters to the church at Corinth. In these letters he urged the churches to take collections for the saints. (See I Cor. 16:1,2.) He also urged them to have the gospel preached in parts beyond them. (See II Cor. 10:14, 16.) But not one time did he ask them to send a collection, either "special" or "regular," to the school of Tyrannus. Why? There can be but one answer. Teaching school is a private affair — an individual matter. Carrying the gospel to the world, feeding and clothing the poor, is the duty of the church.

Teach parents that it is their imperative duty, and to the eternal interest of their children, to educate them in Christian schools, away from the blighting influence of infidelity that is taught in all other schools of our country, and it will be easy to get them to see it is their duty to furnish the means to make these schools possible. But, for Heaven's sake, quit arguing that building schools is on-a par with preaching the gospel. The argument (?) about building meetinghouses needs no answer. The command to meet carries the obligation to furnish the place of meeting. The same is true about singing and songbooks. To say that we have no command to take a "special" collection to build meetinghouses or to buy songbooks is a subterfuge, offered as an excuse for doing something that God has not authorized, either by precept, example, or necessary inference.

Whatever good I have accomplished in the world as a gospel preacher, I owe it to the eight years' training I received in the old "Nashville Bible School" at the feet of David Lipscomb, J.A. Harding and other "good Christian" men. So I know I am a friend of Bible schools — they have got to be "colleges" since I finished — but I am not a friend to illogical and unscriptural arguments made to defend them. It is not hard for me to understand that it may be the duty of Christians to build colleges to educate their children, but not the duty of churches. Every Scripture Brother Baxter quoted is fine, but not one of them was written to teach the churches to build colleges. Christian schools are almost a necessity today, and if put on their own merits they need no defense.