Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 3
January 3, 1952
NUMBER 34, PAGE 8-9

What Does "Absolute" Mean?

D. Ellis Walker, Jacksonville, Florida

(Editor's Note: Brother Walker, feeling that Guardian readers who did not see his original article in the Gospel Advocate might not be able to place the "correct estimate" on it, sends us the following material. In a desire to be absolutely fair to him, we give space to it, although we think he misses the point completely. We said there was an "absolute, deadly, and undeniable parallel" between the thing brother Douthitt wanted to defend (a benevolent society) and the thing we knew he would oppose (a missionary society). A "parallel" is there—"conformity in many particulars or in all essential points; similarity"; but parallel does not mean identity. We publish brother Walker's article, realizing that if our positions were reversed, and some Guardian contributor felt the Advocate had been unfair to him, there would be no possibility at all of the editor of that journal opening the paper to the Guardian writer. But brother Walker's request for space was a reasonable one, and we are glad to comply.)

—O—

Reader, is it true that brother Tant, in reply to I. A. Douthitt's proposition for discussion (Gospel Guardian, July 12, 1951), countered with three propositions of his own? Is it true that in the Gospel Guardian, August 23rd, 1951, brother Tant said that he offered his third proposition to brother Douthitt, "only to highlight and emphasize the absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel between what you wanted to defend and what I knew you would oppose"? Did brother Douthitt offer to defend the right of both the elders of a church of Christ and the individual Christian to support a Christian school (such as David Lipscomb College) and an orphan home (such as Spring Hill, Tennessee Home)? Is it true that brother Tant knew that brother Douthitt would deny the right of either the church or the individual to support a missionary society (such as Tennessee Christian Missionary Assembly Incorporated)? Why did brother Tant offer the third proposition? Did he offer it as an "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" to what he knew brother Douthitt "wanted to defend"?

Reader, what does absolute mean? Does it mean, "free from limit, restriction, or qualification"?

Reader, since brother Tant says concerning my article, "he misapprehends our position," and brother Welch says in one instance, "Surely he knows the difference, for he quoted the two statements which specifically show the difference. Such mishandling of quotations looks vicious to me." Should you, before making up your mind, read and weigh my article for yourself? As for brother Welch's personal opinion of me, let's commit that "to him that judgeth righteously." "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right"? Brother Welch must be a sincere, Christian gentleman for he is laboring for a church, one among the best, which has an excellent record for having good preachers.

When you come to the second parallel in my article please keep in mind that I have followed the axiomatic truth that if equals are subtracted from equals the remainders are equal. If brother Tant is right in his statement on absolute parallels, then whatever is subtracted from an orphan home in order to put it under the elders of a local church can also be subtracted from a Christian College and a missionary society and they also can be put under the elders of a local congregation. Here is the article:

Brother Tant On Support For Colleges

"This second concept of the church recognizes that there are many activities which are right (or 'righteous') in which the individual Christian may engage, but which are not the work of the church. Individual Christians may establish schools for the education of their children. These schools may teach every branch of learning: agriculture, art, chemistry, electronics, botany, metallurgy, history, astronomy, medicine, literature, or any other desired. Such schools, owned and operated by Christian men, will certainly make some provision for the teaching of the Bible—in exactly the same sense as a Christian farmer will use whatever opportunities he has, or can make, for teaching the Bible to the men who work on his farm. But this is the work of individual Christians, acting as Christians; and the building and support of a college does not fall within the scope of the mission of the church. However, 'righteous' may be the cause, it is simply not the work of the church to undertake it." (Gospel Guardian, May 24, 1951.)

"Readers of the Gospel Guardian are aware of our deep and sincere conviction that it is a violation of New Testament principles for churches as such to found and operate secular schools, such as David Lipscomb College, Abilene Christian College, etc. We firmly and fervently support such schools as private institutions, completely separate from the work of the church. The operation of such institutions does not fall within the scope of the church's mission; they are to be built and supported as private institutions, receiving their support from individuals and not from the churches. A fierce battle has been waged over this question here in the states the past few years; the issues have been clearly defined, and the Guardian is fully committed to the belief that church support of the schools is wrong." (Gospel Guardian, June 7, 1951.)

Ira A. Douthitt's Proposition

"The elders of a church of Christ, as God's stewards have the same right to use the money of the church to support a Christian school (such as David Lipscomb College) and an orphan home (such as Spring Hill, Tennessee, Home) as individual Christian has to use his money to support these same institutions." (Gospel Guardian, July 12, 1951.)

Brother Tant's Counter Propositions

"RESOLVED: That the work of a school such as Abilene Christian College and David Lipscomb College, in which the Bible is taught along with secular subjects, is a part of the mission of the Lord's church, and is, therefore to be supported out of the treasuries of the congregation.

"RESOLVED: That it is scripturally right for the churches to do their benevolent work through an organization (such as Tennessee Orphan Home, or Childhaven) controlled and operated by a board of directors made up of members from various contributing churches.

"RESOLVED: That it is scripturally right for the churches to do their evangelistic work through an organization (such as Tennessee Christian Missionary Assembly Incorporated) controlled and operated by a board of directors made up of members from various contributing congregations." (Gospel Guardian, July 12, 1951.)

Brother Tant's Reason For This Third Counter Proposition

"Since the editorial and article appeared, I have had two or three letters objecting to my asking you to defend the Missionary Societies. Those who wrote seemed to think I should not have asked you to defend that which I know you did not believe in. I recognize the merit of their suggestions. Really, I had no thought of trying to force you into a defense of the Societies. I included that proposition only to highlight and emphasize the absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel between what you wanted to defend and what I knew you would oppose." (Gospel Guardian, August 23, 1951.)

A Study In Definitions

"Absolute: Free from limit, restriction, or qualification; as an absolute monarch, veto, or gift." (Webster.)

"Deadly: Likely to cause death; capable of causing death, as, a deadly disease." (Webster.)

"Undeniable: Incapable of denial; indisputable, incontestable." (Webster.)

Comment

Please note that brother Tant offered his third proposition "to highlight and emphasize the absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" between what brother Douthitt wanted to defend and what brother Tant knew he would oppose. May I repeat that brother Tant's third proposition was offered as "the absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" to brother Douthitt's proposal to defend contributions to schools and orphan homes by either churches or individuals?

Now, brother Tant does have a position on the college question as you noted above. Briefly it is this: "church support of the schools is wrong" but individual support of the schools is right. Now, if brother Tant is right in his contention on college support and if he has presented to us an "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" then his position on the orphan homes and missionary societies has to be the same as his position on the college question. In order to maintain his "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel," brother Tant must give up his position on church supported orphan homes and he must endorse individual support for missionary societies. Please note brother Tant's "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" as it is drawn below:

"The Absolute, Deadly And Undeniably Parallel"

"Colleges: Church support is wrong; individual support is right.

"Orphan Homes: Church support is wrong, individual support is right.

"Missionary Societies: Church support is wrong, individual support is right."

Another "Deadly Parallel"

Brother Tant has a position on the orphan homes. He said, "we did endorse, and do endorse, the principle set forth in brother Wallace's articles, i.e., the eldership of the congregation is the only organization God has for doing any work he has laid upon the church to do. Whatever 'home' the elders of a church may provide for caring for those orphan children who are their charge can rightly be regarded as nothing more nor less than "the church at work." (Gospel Guardian, August 30, 1951.) Now if there actually exists an "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" on college, orphan home and missionary questions and if brother Tant were wholly right on the orphan home question we would have the following "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel":

"Orphan Homes: Support is right if it is done by local congregations under supervision of their elders.

"Colleges: Support is right if it is done by local congregations under supervision of their elders.

"Missionary Societies: Support is right if it is done by local congregations under supervision of their elders."

This particular "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" puts the church in the business of teaching the very branches of learning which brother Tant vigorously denounces, and sets up missionary societies in the local congregations.

Another "Deadly Parallel"

Brother Tant is opposed to either churches or individuals supporting missionary societies. Now, this being true, and it also being true that there exists an "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" on these questions (the reader must keep in mind that brother Tant offered his "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" in order to highlight what brother Douthitt wanted to defend and what he knew he would oppose) then brother Tant's "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" is as follows:

"Missionary Societies: Opposed to support by either churches or individuals.

"Colleges: Opposed to support by either churches or individuals.

"Orphan Homes: Opposed to support by either churches or individuals."

This "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" would force brother Tant to give up his individual support of the colleges and his local congregational support of the orphan homes.

Too many brethren have been saying they had just as soon see the church support a missionary society as a college or an orphan home, such as Tennessee Orphan Home. The "absolute, deadly and undeniably parallel" may exist in their imagination, but it does not exist either in fact or in their conduct.

Deadly

"Deadly applies to anything that is certain or extremely likely to cause death." (Webster.)