Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 22
October 1, 1970
NUMBER 21, PAGE 4-5a

A Melancholy Truth

Editorial

Readers of this page know that we often, though with reluctance and regret, find it necessary to differ, sometimes sharply, with our brother editor of the Firm Foundation. But in his opening paragraphs of an editorial in the August 25 issue of that journal, Brother Lemmons states some simple truths which are so obvious (and so sad) that we think they need repeating here for emphasis. Wrote he:

All Christians will agree that prevailing conditions in the brotherhood present a sinfully divided state that is shameful to us and devastating to the growth of the kingdom of God. If we believe that the Bible is God's final and authoritative will for men, then there must be a common ground or a common denominator on which brethren of divergent views can unite without sacrificing truth or conscience.

Of course, our trouble is — and has always been — that the various factions have insisted on preaching their opinions and interpretations, rather than what the Bible teaches. If we granted that all in every faction are sincere and conscientious, we must still admit that the Bible does not teach all the various views promoted among us. If we tried to preach what the Book says and stop when the Book stops, all our divisions would melt away. Our difficulty lies in our interpretations of how to apply what the Book says.

Some Cases In Point

As one meditates on the melancholy state of affairs among God's people, the profound truth of the above paragraphs becomes ever more apparent. Consider a few examples:

1. The Missionary Society. When the missionary societies began to be formed more than a hundred years ago, it was freely admitted that the New Testament made no provision at all for such cooperational arrangements.

Moses E. Lard, ardent champion of the societies, wrote: "That Missionary Societies are unknown in the New Testament, and therefore unprovided for by it, is what no one acquainted with its teachings will deny." (Quarterly, Volume II, page 134).

What then, was wrong with the Missionary Society?

The thing that made it wrong and sinful was precisely what Brother Lemmons pointed out - brethren began to preach "their opinions" rather than what the Book said. Not only did they preach them, they forced them on others. Being "weak in the faith" (see our editorial of last week) they tried to compel other brethren to accept and work through their societies; and by putting the societies "in the budget" of the churches they left faithful brethren no choice but to worship in other congregations. We can conceive it to be quite possible that a brother might be fully convinced in his own mind that the Society was right, and if he were willing to follow Paul's instruction ("Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.") and keep his "faith" to himself alone, continue for a lifetime in full fellowship with a faithful church.

2. Instrumental music. That the New Testament is silent on this subject is too well established to need argument. But some brethren held the "opinion" that the use of such instruments was in the realm of things permissible. Were they content to "have this 'faith' to themselves before God"? If so, peace and harmony would have prevailed, the churches would not have been divided, and these brethren of 'weak faith' would have been accorded full fellowship as sincere and devoted Christians. But they were not content to keep this "opinion" to themselves, but insisted on forcing their opinion on the churches. The result was division, heartache, and spiritual chaos. Through forty years of preaching we have found many, many brethren who, in their own minds, were convinced that instrumental music in the worship was a matter of indifference, and who could have worshipped with it "in all good conscience." But they did not try to force their opinion on the churches; and they were indeed "received" in the congregations with love and respect.

3. Sponsoring church cooperatives. That the New Testament is utterly silent as to any arrangement by which many congregations may pool their resources, both spiritual and material, under a single eldership to accomplish some work which is deemed worthy, and to which all the congregations, both the "supporting" and the "sponsoring," are equally related is no longer seriously debated. Twenty years of debate and controversy have not produced a single passage giving (a) express commandment, (b) approved example, or (c) necessary inference justifying any such centralization of authority and power. Indeed, we have yet to see any argument better than to say that it is justified by "principle eternal" as set forth by Brother Ernest Harper in the Lufkin debate so many years ago.

Now, if brethren who believe such "centralized cooperatives" are right and proper had only been willing to "have that 'faith' to themselves before God," how happy and glorious would have been the history of these last two decades! But, alas, such was not the case. But with the highest of motives, and in all sincerity, these brethren felt they could best serve God by forcing their opinion on others, and thus compelling other brethren to violate their conscience by supporting the arrangement — or else leave the congregation (which all too often they had built by their own dedicated work and sacrifice) and go elsewhere to worship.

The Remedy?

The remedy is in Brother Lemmons' own works: "If we tried to preach what the Book says, and stop when the Book stops, all our divisions would melt away." We can all see this as it is applicable to instrumental music and the missionary societies; why is it so difficult to make application to the centralized cooperative?

This brings up another point: If we can "fellowship" the man who believes in instrumental music and the societies in congregations which do not use such things, why can we not fellowship an entire congregation which believes in and uses such additions to the worship and organization of the church? The answer is (or ought to be) rather obvious. The single individual in a faithful congregation who because of his "weak faith" believes in these two things (a) is not teaching them, (b) is not practicing them, (c) is not forcing his opinion on others. He is doing exactly what Paul said he should do — "having his 'faith' to himself before God." But if he is a member of a congregation which accepts the society and the instrument, he is (a) teaching his opinion on these items, (b) practicing it, and (c) forcing all others who desire to worship with him to accept his opinion.

There is where the difference lies!

— F. Y. T.