Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
June 11, 1953
NUMBER 6, PAGE 1,8-13

The Lubbock Statement Reviewed

Roy E. Cogdill

Last week's issue of The Gospel Guardian carried a report on the German work by the elders of the Broadway Church in Lubbock. We were glad to print it and give our readers the privilege of examining it for themselves. The reason for the statement, though they do not specifically say so, is the March 19 issue of the Guardian in which we carried some of the letters written by Brother Dick Smith concerning Grove Avenue Church "recalling" him from Germany because he does not agree with them about the "Frankfurt School" which they are supporting or, the issue of "centralized control and oversight." Both Grove Avenue and Lubbock have issued statements about the Work and their replies were not only sent to us but to the Gospel Advocate as well as other journals perhaps. We want our readers to know that they did not need to send their replies to any other journal in order to get them printed. They know of course of the extreme prejudice of the Advocate and its editor and his policy of printing nothing contrary to his own beliefs. They also know that they can answer what we say through the Advocate without being answered through it. We have freely offered to them and all others involved in the discussion of these issues that we will be glad to print what they have to say. We are not unfair enough to criticize anyone or anything without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Neither are we unfair enough to want to answer something before an audience of readers who have not been given an opportunity of hearing what we are answering. The policy of the Advocate affords them a haven for propaganda and no criticism or reply will ever be made. We are glad that they were considerate enough to give us the opportunity of carrying their statement even though it has already been printed in the Advocate.

Since the Broadway elders imply that they are being misrepresented, we want you to read carefully their report and then examine it in the light of the facts printed in March 19, Gospel Guardian. In that issue we printed a letter by Brother Paul Sherrod for the Lubbock elders to the workers in Germany, not to just the three workers which they say they support and which are subject to them, but to many others, perhaps all of the others who are working in Germany. For fear you missed that letter in the previous issue we reprint it here:

BROADWAY CHURCH OF CHRIST M. Norvel Young, Minister Broadway at Avenue "T"

Lubbock, Texas September 4, 1952 Brother _______

Of course, you all know, the elders here have nothing to say about the congregational affairs of any of the congregations in Germany, even the ones in Frankfurt, but these matters are handled by the men of the church and the evangelists working with them. However there are some parts of the work being done in Germany that we do consider to be our responsibility, being the work of this church together with the cooperation of others that are helping supply the money. These projects include the operation of the Training School in Frankfurt, the radio program, printing of the monthly paper and tracts, the tents and equipment and any other projects that are financed with money that we receive from various churches in America. Since it is not practical for us to make the day-to-day decisions in regard to these matters, we choose to select a committee of the missionaries who will decide such details in regard to them. Previously we have had two committees, one for the Training School, and another for the other projects. However, we prefer to consolidate these and have only one committee to handle all the matters we are responsible for, and we hereby ask the following brethren to serve on this committee:

Otis Gatewood Weldon Bennett Richard Walker Any who are working in the school or any of the above-described projects are asked to cooperate with these brethren.

In Christian love, PAUL SHERROD For the Elders PS/tm We urge you to carefully analyze this letter about which these Broadway elders say nothing in their report and see if they have been misrepresented. They talk in their report about "unfounded accusations" recently made and about "correcting false impressions and statements that have been circulated." Well, the letter is the "foundation" of our accusations and impressions. Why didn't they discuss it? Why ignore it in their reply? Can they deny that they had it written? They have done the representing themselves: If they are not trying to exercise control over the money they send after it reaches Germany why did they write the workers in Germany such a letter? If they have the oversight of only the three workers they support themselves, why not confine such a letter to those three workers and leave the rest of them alone? Why ask the rest of the workers to cooperate with their "committee" appointed by them, representing them and making decisions for them about where the "tools" furnished out of the money sent "through" them are to be used and by whom and when?

The Control Exercised

We did not charge the Broadway elders with exercising absolute and direct control over all the workers and all the churches over there. Neither did we charge them with having anything to do directly with the "recall of any missionary from Germany." Their control is not exercised in this way. We pointed out in the previous article that they control the workers and the churches in Germany like the Baptist General Convention controls the Baptist churches of this country — by the disbursement of benefits from its funds — and through its prestige and influence. These Baptist churches either cooperate with the policy and work of the convention or they are not recognized, they are cut off, left out. The same thing the Broadway elders say about the German churches can be said of these Baptist churches. Here it is:

"Each of the congregations in Germany has its own business meetings, works out its budget, spends the funds from its collections, and handles all its own congregational affairs."

But the fact still remains that they must "cooperate" with the convention if they "participate" in using the "tools" which the convention furnishes and the benefits it distributes.

The fact of the whole matter is that these Broadway elders, whether they have intended to or not, put themselves in the position of examining the workers who wanted to go to Germany to see if they were sound enough to receive their endorsement and help in getting there. We give you a statement in one of their own books, published by them, "The Lubbock Lectures on Mission Work" page 86. These lectures were delivered at the Broadway church in 1946. The statement follows:

"Sherrod: We have forty minutes remaining for the Open Forum Discussion. Now for your questions, whatever you may want to ask. I want to make this further statement. We are asking all the people who propose to go with Otis to meet with the elders and deacons of this congregation at six-thirty. Others are invited to meet with us and we want to find out from you whether we think you are qualified, whether we think you are sound. If you are we will stand behind you and defend you from unjust criticism. We think you are entitled to that. The brotherhood would be disappointed if we didn't ask that of you. We want to have only sound faithful Christians to proclaim the gospel to foreign fields."

They are to be commended, of course, for wanting only sound gospel preachers to go, but who appointed them an "examining" board for the "brotherhood." This "brotherhood elder" concept is the trouble with them and that is the issue that is troubling the whole church right now. These brethren, without trying to judge their motives or intentions, have actually by their own actions and utterances set themselves up as a medium for the brotherhood. They evidently consider themselves qualified to act in such capacity or their words are not to be taken for what they mean. Hear them again:

"Raising money to supply these buildings (in many cases), tracts, literature, tents, etc., has been undertaken by the Broadway church. For money not designated for a certain use, someone must decide how it is to be spent and for what purpose. When a group of elders undertakes any project, whether the funds are contributed solely by the local congregation or others participate also, such as an effort to establish a church in a neighboring city and erect a building, conducting an orphan home, etc., certainly they assume the obligation of wisely supervising the expenditure of all funds contributed for such a project. Thus we have accepted the responsibility of forwarding funds — "

Thus they have promoted themselves into the task of not only raising money for the various church buildings in Germany, tracts, literature, tents, etc., but they have assumed the obligation of deciding how this money raised by them is to be spent. They are the "supervisors" of "all funds contributed" through them by their admission. This is all we have ever charged. They plead guilty in their own statement. Let them not come charging us again with "unfounded accusations."

This is the very point which many brethren tried to discuss with Brother Gatewood while he was in America. He was asked both publicly and privately, "Who will have charge of distributing these funds which you are raising and depositing to the credit of the Broadway elders?" He would not answer it except to say he didn't know. He did deny that the decisions about where the buildings would be built and how much would be spent on each one, etc., would be made by the Broadway elders through him and others of their agents. Too many witnessed these questions and answers for them to be denied. Many of the brethren have affirmed that Broadway did not seek to control these funds. They have been defended militantly and copiously by several writers who have asserted that they only wanted to gather up funds from many churches to "send" not to "spend" for them. Brother Cecil N. Wright in his volatile vituperative language stoutly affirmed: "But where are the instances of that thing happening? With all of its ability to discover error, we doubt very seriously that the Guardian actually, knows of any such cases." Even Brother Wright knows of one now if he has looked. His credulity must have had a rather rude awakening.

According to a recent announcement these same Broadway elders have undertaken the project of raising money for an orphan home and are willing to accept the obligation of taking care of orphan children for the brotherhood at large. It is their willingness to accept the responsibility of other elders and spend the money of other churches that is the subject of criticism. There is no scriptural precedent for such a disposition or authority for such a position. They are just too willing. They even seem to think that the whole set up is justifiable because they have some special arrangement with the bank for forwarding these funds in what they consider to be the most efficient manner. Do they have a monopoly on such an arrangement? Are they the only eldership in the brotherhood able to affect such an arrangement? If not, then what is their advantage and why send through them at all?

Delegated Responsibility Their statement says that they have "accepted the responsibility" of forwarding funds that are "earmarked" and using funds that are not earmarked. This is interesting. From whom have they accepted such responsibility? Someone must have delegated it to them to accept. They are acting as agents for someone. What right does one group of elders have to delegate their responsibility to another group of elders? If they have the right to delegate a part of their responsibility cannot they delegate it all and would not a diocesan eldership be the result? If the oversight of a part of their work can be delegated rightfully to another eldership certainly they could delegate the oversight of all their work for the same reason and on the same basis. If the Lubbock eldership can accept the responsibility of overseeing the spending of funds sent by another eldership to them for foreign work, why cannot they on the same principle accept the responsibility of overseeing the spending of funds for their work at home also? Then again, If Lubbock can direct and oversee the expenditure of funds from some of the churches, why would it not be just as right scripturally for them to oversee the funds of all the churches? Evidently it does not matter to the Lubbock eldership whether the funds are to be sent abroad to preach the gospel or to be spent here at home taking care of the orphans, they think it perfectly scriptural and proper for them to take over the work in either instance and accept the responsibility of the eldership of other congregations in spending the money and doing the work. In this they are at least consistent but we contend that if they can carry on a program of foreign evangelism and spend the money of other churches under their oversight, they can carry on a program of evangelism here at home and spend the money and exercise the oversight belonging to other elders. And if they can do this, there isn't anything they can't do for these other elders, hence they can oversee many congregations or all of them for that matter and they are therefore diocesan elders and could be elders of the church universal when they get influential and big enough. Do not say that is far fetched — it has happened and it could happen again. To disavow such intentions does not mean that it cannot develop and it seems to have much more of a start than any of us had known.

Oversight Of Funds And Therefore Of Work

By their own admissions we learn that the funds of a "larger number" of churches are contributed through them than to all the rest of the work or at least their statement says so. These churches release their funds to the Broadway elders, whether "earmarked" or not, and with the releasing of their funds they release control over the work done with their funds. These funds are centralized in the hands of the Broadway elders. The Broadway elders say, at least through their committee, when, where, and what these funds will be used for and by whom. Thus the control over all the funds contributed by this "larger number of churches" is exercised by Broadway and therefore the control over the work being done by all these contributing is delegated to and "accepted" by them. If this isn't "centralized control and oversight" by their own admission, what is it and what would constitute such control and oversight? Let them not talk any more about "unfounded accusations" and "false statements." They admit in their statement everything of which they have been accused and if the full facts were known the probability is that they have not been accused of half of what they have been doing.

They have never told anyone how many churches are contributing through them or how much money is being thus contributed. This alone governs the extent of their control and it would be interesting information. Why are they not forthright enough to give it in some of their reports?

Funds that are not "earmarked," that is, not specified by the contributor to be used for a definite purpose, are used entirely according to the judgment of the Lubbock elders. Over these funds they exercise complete control by their own admission. Not one dime of all the money sent through them can be used by any church in Germany according to their own judgment. What is the matter with these German brethren? Are they intellectually incapable or are they deficient in honesty? Cannot they be trusted with a little of it anyway? Of course the only difference between the "earmarked" and the funds that are not "earmarked" is the degree of control exercised. Look at another statement they make:

"When funds are not earmarked, but are given to be used where they are the most needed in Germany we have accepted the responsibility of using them in supplying the tools for the workers as listed above."

Again we ask whose responsibility? These Broadway elders have accepted entirely too much responsibility. Where did the Lord ever give the eldership of one church the responsibility of deciding where the funds of another church were needed most and where they should be used? These Broadway elders should not just presume that such is right and expect us to accept their word about the matter. We are not under their "control" and we want and demand the scriptures for such procedure and until they produce it we shall continue to denounce it as "unscriptural and anti-scriptural."

Our Illustration Is Right

Hear them again:

"In our supervision of these things for the use of the workers, we do not decide such details as who will use a tent that has been provided on a given date, what tract will be printed, how many or what printer will do the work."

They admit "supervision" over what is provided by the money sent through or spent by them. These "tools" provided by such funds "for the use of all the workers in Germany" who will "cooperate" are controlled by them through their committee. Someone must decide such things and since they have "accepted the responsibility" for such decisions they must exercise it in some way, so they have set up a committee. They did have two, now they have just one central committee to make all decisions. This is their own statement.

"We have asked some of the brethren over there to make the decisions about details in providing these things which are made available to every worker in Germany."

Of course they will find it rather difficult to persuade us to believe that any of the workers who will not "cooperate" will receive much consideration. We have seen in the case of Richard Smith and Max Watson what happens to those who will not cooperate. They try to soften this committee arrangement by telling us that some of the committee may move and it is only temporary, etc., but what difference does that make in the principle? The Broadway elders are the general board of control over all the funds of all the contributing churches sending through them and they exercise their control through their committee — an executive committee commissioned with the responsibility of carrying out their instructions. We insist that our illustration carried in the article of March 19 is a true and correct picture of the whole set-up. Look at it again and you will see that it is exactly according to their own admissions and statements. We give their own testimony as proof. The fact is that the only part they do not control is the part they do not get their hands on. This is their own admission.

They may not believe in a "committee receiving and disbursing funds" but if that committee is serving under their appointment they can decide the details of how it shall be done and it will be all right. That is a mere technicality and dodge. They receive all the funds they can get and disburse them through the supervision and by the decisions of that committee which they have appointed. This again is their own admission. If any worker or church in Germany participates in one dollar's benefit from the Lubbock fund — they do so under the control and supervision of the Lubbock elders through their committee. That makes cooperation with that committee important doesn't it?

Responsibility Accepted Or Sought?

These Lubbock elders would have us think that they have "accepted" a lot of responsibility that has been thrust upon them. This isn't exactly the case. They like all other sponsoring churches have pretty largely promoted themselves into the position they occupy and have sought the responsibility they have. They cannot deny it. They are even now seeking still more and they are making efforts now to "accept the responsibility" of caring for orphan children for the whole brotherhood — or as much of it as will let them do their work for them. We are not questioning their intentions, we do not know about that, but the facts speak for themselves. These facts, blunt and severe in their implications are plain enough to see. While we cannot judge the motives of any man's heart, we can judge by the fruits borne by what he does.

Instances Of Control

Just a few inquiries forthrightly answered would be helpful in seeing just how much control these Lubbock elders exercise.

1. Who decided that $200,000 were needed to build the church buildings in Germany?

2. Who decided where these buildings were needed and where they would be built?

3. Who decided for Brother Gatewood to come back and try to raise this money among the churches?

4. Who received the money he raised and to whose credit was it deposited?

5. Who issued the money as it was spent?

6. Who decided how much of it should be spent and where?

7. Who is responsible for spending $190,000 on the West End building in Frankfurt alone?

8. To whom does this West End property belong? In whose name is it held? If in the name of the Lubbock elders, when, if ever, will it become the property of the congregation meeting there?

9. Since Brother Gatewood says that he raised only $120,000 is the other $70,000 represented in this building a debt contracted? If so, who owes it?

10. Who is right in the figures given as to how much money has been raised for buildings in Germany, Brother Gatewood when he says $120,000 or Paul Sherrod and J. C. Moore when they say $280,000?

11. If the correct amount is $280,000, where is the rest of the money — viz., $90,000, has it been spent or do you still have it?

12. If it has been spent, where was it spent?

13. If you still have it, what are you going to do with it, where will you spend it?

14. If you still have it, why are you asking for more at the present time?

Someone may say that this is none of our business but they are not thinking straight. This is "brotherhood business" solicited from churches all over the land. Their statement from time to time is a report to the "brotherhood" and there are some things that they have not reported that need to be known, that the "brotherhood" has a right to know. If these elders are to be "brotherhood" elders and run the "brotherhood's business," they should not withhold facts.

Responsibility To Elders

They raise the question in their statement, "What should be the relationship between an evangelist and his elders?" That is a pertinent question. We would say in general that an evangelist should sustain the same relationship to elders that any other member of the church should sustain. There are some considerations involved that need to be thought about. For instance, where is Brother Gatewood a member? Is he a member of the Broadway church or the church at Frankfurt? If he is a member of the church at Frankfurt, is he amenable to the Broadway elders? If so, are the other members of the Frankfurt church subject to the elders at Broadway also? If not why not? If Brother Gatewood is not a member of the Frankfurt church, to what extent does he have a right to participate in its work aside from worshipping with and teaching them? Does he sit in their business meetings? Does he help them work out their budget and their plans? Did he or they plan for the $190,000 building at West End in Frankfurt?

If Brother Gatewood is a member at Broadway then is it not possible for any Christian to live for years in one place and "hold membership somewhere else? Is a man subject to the eldership of a congregation simply because they support him? If so, does each contributing church have its pro-rata of its authority over the preacher they help to support? Would not a sponsoring church in the event be obligated to call a convention of all the elders of all the churches that contribute through it in order to reach a decision and know how to tell the evangelist what to do? Would each eldership be given a voice according to the amount contributed? Don't brush these questions aside. They are pertinent.

If an evangelist is subject to an eldership because he receives his support from them, would it not be impossible for an evangelist to work with, and be a part of a congregation that did not have elders while receiving his support from a congregation that did have? Can an evangelist have membership in more than one congregation at a time?

Do the elders of the church have the right to determine for the church what the truth is on any point? If so, then are we not in the same position as the Catholics, that is must we not go to the church and let it interpret the Bible for us instead of studying it for ourselves? In that case would not the elders need to be endowed with infallibility? Truth is settled in Heaven. Elders have no legislative authority and have not the right to determine the truth for anyone but themselves. The apostles of Christ are seated upon the thrones judging spiritual Israel. Elders are not their successors. A false concept of the power and authority of elders is one of our major problems. If we could learn the truth about that many of the elders who have expanded their oversight into an arbitrary control of work that God has never given them would shrink up to normal size and subject themselves to the instruction of the Lord and His authority.

What the Lubbock elders need to do and a lot of other "sponsoring elders" with them is to show us one congregation in the New Testament day that sustained to any work the relationship that they sustain to the work they are doing. Just what church in the New Testament received funds from many churches to be disbursed anywhere as the Lubbock elders are doing? In the contribution made to the Jerusalem church — not through the Jerusalem church to something else — which contribution was necessitated by an emergency in the work of the Jerusalem church — many churches participated and sent their funds through individual disciples to Jerusalem where the work was being done — but which church sustained to the Jerusalem work the relationship that the Broadway church in Lubbock sustains to the work in Germany? Why don't they deal with the issue and give us the New Testament authority if they have any for what they are doing? We know how they did the work in the New Testament. The idea that there is no New Testament pattern is fallacious. Other churches contributed to Paul at Corinth but which was his sponsoring church? Other churches cooperated in helping Jerusalem but which one was the sponsoring church? They sent direct to Paul and direct to Jerusalem and if we follow their example we will send direct to Germany and let the Lubbock elders tend to the "flock which is among" them and leave the business of other congregations alone.

What more can the elders of any church do than simply cease to support an evangelist if he will not accept and work according to their judgment? Do the elders at Broadway sustain the same relationship to the church in Frankfurt that they do to the church at Broadway? Does Brother Gatewood sustain the same relation to the Broadway elders that he would if he were in Lubbock preaching for the Broadway church and a member of that congregation? They have the complete direction of the work at Broadway. Surely they do not have the same direction of the work in Frankfurt. If not, how could the relation of Brother Gatewood be the same at Frankfurt as it would be in Lubbock? There is bound to be quite a difference in their oversight unless they completely dominate the Frankfurt work. It is our contention that Grove Avenue did not have the same oversight of Richard Smith as he worked with the Karlsruhe congregation that they have of A. H. Maner as he works with the Grove Avenue congregation. The Grove Avenue work is their complete responsibility therefore everything A. H. Maner does in connection with it must be done under their supervision and by their approval. But the work at Karlsruhe is not their work. There is a congregation there, independent and free under Christ, therefore they cannot direct the work of Brother Smith in that congregation. They can support him or not as they see fit but he does not bear the relation to them that they have sought to establish over him. Surely even "sponsoring" elders can see that.

If Dick Smith is teaching something that is a departure from the truth and makes him unworthy of fellowship, what is it? Do these Lubbock elders consider that Grove Avenue elders have the right of "recall" as they express it in the sense that they can demand that he leave the German field or even the work at Karlsruhe? Aren't the brethren there to be considered? Do these elders believe that differences that exist at the present time over "centralized control" and the "schools" should be made a test of fellowship? Are these congregations in Germany, West End at Frankfurt and Karlsruhe and others free, independent congregations subject only to the authority of Christ? If the Frankfurt congregation should determine that they did not wish to have anything further to do with the Frankfurt "Seminary" or preacher training school which you operate, would you continue to help and fellowship them? If they should decide that they did not any longer want Brother Gatewood to work with them, would they have the right to request him to leave? What control do they have over the church property built for them? Could you and would you expel them from that property if they differed from you on the matter of operating the school, how money should be sent to do mission work, etc., unless they paid you for it? Is the seminary at West End the work of the West End church or is it your work? These are important issues that have been raised because of the way this work has been promoted and controlled. They need to be answered.

Relationship Between Churches

In their report the Broadway elders have given us a list of the German churches and the American church that sponsors each one. This raises some more considerations for our study. Are these German congregations free and independent congregations in every sense? If they are, why do they need a sponsoring congregation? If they are, did they select their own preacher or worker? Can they change evangelists if they wish? Where in the New Testament do you find such a sponsoring church arrangement? It is true that Jerusalem sent workers to help at Antioch and perhaps in other instances but where is the indication that they did any more than simply send such a worker for a time? There is evidently a relationship existing between churches in this set-up that no one learned from the New Testament. There is not one shred of evidence in the New Testament that any church ever took another church under its wing in any such way. It gives one congregation too much control over the work of another church through its finances and would tend to discourage a congregation from becoming self-supporting.

Attitude Toward The School

They have not given us sufficient information concerning the school they operate within the church at Frankfurt for us to know too much definitely about its operation. Some of the workers in Germany are opposed to it and we take for granted that they know of something connected with its operation that they cannot conscientiously endorse and approve. We also take for granted that their reasons are worthy of being heard and investigated and this the Grove Avenue elders were not willing to do with Brother Richard Smith.

The Lubbock elders talk in their statement about the school question being "settled years ago by those who answered Daniel Sommer's arguments." Well they should know that in more modern times the school question and particularly the matter of whether or not the schools should be church institutions and supported out of the treasury of the churches has been quite an unsettled issue. They cannot so subtly ignore it and this would be a good time for them to tell us whether or not they believe schools like Abilene Christian College are church institutions and should be supported by the churches. If they have ever let their attitude be known on this matter we do not remember them doing so. Brother Gatewood, if we are informed correctly, in the discussions with the brethren during his money raising tour seemed very much inclined to defend the idea of the church supporting a school in which secular subjects are taught along with the Word of God.

They seem to put the school at Frankfurt on a par with a Bible School on Sunday morning or a Bible training program within the congregation and its activities. If that is what they have, we want to know what congregation over there is directing it? Then too notice another statement in their report on this matter:

"One or two have not only opposed these Bible training classes, but in order to be consistent have recently come out in opposition to Christian Colleges as they exist in the States."

This is a peculiar statement. They state in the paragraph just before the one in which the above statement is found that:

"It is not a college in the sense of our Christian colleges in this country."

Well if it isn't why would consistency demand that those who oppose the one should oppose the other? That doesn't make good sense.

Their Perversions Of Scriptures

By far the most serious thing in this statement by the Broadway elders is their references to the scriptures and the misapplication and perversion of what the Bible teaches. We are surprised at them in this matter. Hear their own statements:

"We have always maintained that money can be sent directly to a field, or sent through some church."

That is rather subtle. It does not state the issue at all. We, too have always maintained that the individual Christian can either send his money direct or through some church. But we have always likewise maintained that no church ever sent their funds to any work through another church. But again:

"But let us consider what it can lead to "require" or "demand" that all money be sent direct. In the first place it is unscriptural to "require" or "demand" that all funds must be sent directly to an individual in the field, since we have examples in the New Testament of funds being sent in other ways."

Here is another very subtle statement. Look at it carefully. Who has contended that all money must be sent direct to an individual in the field. We have seen no on so contending. That is a clear misrepresentation of the thing we have been contending for. Either these elders have entirely missed the point or they are not fairly representing the issue. Here is what we have contended for:

1. Either a church or a Christian individual can send direct to a worker on the field and we have New Testament authority and example for both.

Phil. 4:14-16 — Philippi sent direct to Paul. "Howbeit ye did well that ye had fellowship with my affliction. 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."

1 Cor. 16:17-18 — Individuals contributed to the work of Paul. "And I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achicus: for that which was lacking on your part they supplied. For they refreshed my spirit and yours:"

2. Either a Christian individual or a church can send directly to a church in its need for help in its own work.

1 Cor. 16:1-2 — The church at Corinth urged to make up its afore promised bounty for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Acts 11:29-30 — The disciples sent relief to the churches of Judea.

But we have contended and still contend that nowhere in the New Testament did, one church ever send its contribution to any work through another church. They contributed to another church in an emergency when it needed help but never through another church to anything. Individuals were the messengers of the churches in bearing these contributions of the churches in Macedonia, Achaia, and possibly Galatia to the church in Jerusalem. But they were sent direct to the church in Jerusalem to help it care for its own poor saints. They did not send through the church at Antioch that the funds might be forwarded or supervised by them in the work at Jerusalem. We challenge the Lubbock elders to substantiate their statement that,

"We have examples in the New Testament of funds being sent in other ways."

We emphatically and positively deny that and for it we "demand" the proof. Let them produce it or let it be branded as a perversion and misrepresentation of the word of God. We predict they will make no effort to produce the examples. They have not. They will not. They cannot.

Thought For Things Honorable

"In the second place it is unwise for any one man to be responsible for large sums of money, to spend as he desires, without supervision or consultation (the Lord knew best in setting a plurality of elders over a church)."

The implication of this statement is misleading. No one is contending that any one man should be responsible for large sums of money to spend as he desires. That isn't necessary in any sense. If $10,000 is needed for a building in Germany — we will say at Karlsruhe, since there is a congregation at Karlsruhe, why cannot the money be sent direct to the congregation at Karlsruhe. If Max Watson and Richard Smith are to work at Karlsruhe with the brethren there, why cannot the money be sent to support them either to the church at Karlsruhe or to them as individuals. We have Bible example and authority for this. All of us could have a part in it this way. When it is done through a sponsoring set-up many of us cannot conscientiously go along. Why are not these brethren willing to dispense with this arrangement that is disturbing the brotherhood and dividing the church? They could accomplish the same purpose, avoid responsibility the Lord did not intend for them to have and stay within New Testament authority. We contend that God has shown us how this work should be done. If we had no New Testament examples we might have to leave it to expediency but when the New Testament furnishes us the example we cannot alter it without departing from New Testament authority. That is what these brethren are doing just as certainly as the digressives did many years ago in their missionary societies and instrumental music and they make the same arguments and approach it from the same attitude. We have plead with them to abandon it while there is yet time and while a general disruption of fellowship can be avoided. Just as certainly as God was wise enough to put a plurality of elders over the affairs of the church, so was He wise enough to put one eldership over the affairs, to handle the money of, just one church. Whenever any eldership undertakes to set themselves up over the work of more than one church, they are wrong. We believe with all of our hearts in respecting God-fearing, scriptural elders and have done so always, but we do not believe elders are infallible, nor have we ever seen a group of elders that we thought wise enough or smart enough to run the affairs and spend the money of the whole "brotherhood." The local church is the unit of work in the Lord's plan and everything that God wants the church to do can be done through it to God's honor and glory. We should be content to leave it as God has arranged it and all our troubles over it will cease.