Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
March 3, 1955
NUMBER 42, PAGE 8-9a

A Review Of Brother Banister's Article No. 3

R. Ervin Driskill, Birmingham, Alabama

This article is a review of an article in the Gospel Advocate, January 5, 1955, and I would be glad if those reading this would read the Advocate article. Brother Banister is obviously sincere in the things he says but I, just as sincerely, believe he is wrong in what he says and the spirit in which he says it. He mentions four dangers facing the church, to which we shall give first consideration. They are: (1) The danger of apostasy. He says, "There is the danger, indeed of 'going too far' and doing mission work in an unscriptural way!" I am glad Brother Banister recognizes this danger but I fail to see how his warning could avail much when, in my judgment, his preceding articles (regarding the Way and means of doing mission work) definitely advocates doing the very thing he warns against namely: "congregations losing their autonomy; elders surrendering their congregational authority; small congregations turning their mission work over to a few large and prominent congregations and allowing them to become the unofficial directors and promoters of brotherhood mission activities."

How Brother Banister can endorse the "Lubbock Plan" and the "Herald of Truth" and then warn against "large congregations becoming unofficial directors and promoters of brotherhood mission activities" I do not understand. He further says, "we should not allow controversy and criticism to diminish our zeal and enthusiasm for such work." Well, the controversy and criticism has been over cooperative efforts that destroy church autonomy, eldership authority and big, prominent congregations, promoting and directing brotherhood mission activity. He first warns against this monster and then says we must not pay any attention to the criticism and controversy regarding it. If some of our "profound" thinking brethren had not already said it, I would say, "I'm confused" or, "brethren, I am disgusted." (2) The danger of reaction. Brother Banister says, "We may indeed, `go too far' in some phases of mission activity, but it is just as unscriptural to 'fall short' and fail to do such work." I do not know what congregations are 'falling short'. (maybe Brother Banister does) but I'm sure I know some that have 'gone too far.'

On the surface it would seem that Brother Banister is neither pro nor con in this controversy; just not for either side in this discussion but trying to keep the 'going too far' brethren from not going too far and the 'falling short' brethren from falling short. However, upon closer study it is evident that he is throwing some "digs" at the "critics" whom he accuses of "falling short" and commending the "criticized," whom the "critics" regard as going "too far." This is Brother Banister's "nice" way of showing where ALL OF HIS SYMPATHIES lie. He also says, "Some churches seem so fearful of being criticized and 'written up' in the papers that they prefer to sacrifice their God-given duty to do mission work rather than risk the displeasure and censure of their critics." Brother Banister, do you know, FOR A FACT, any churches that have "sacrificed their God-given duty to do mission work rather than risk being 'written up' in the papers and risk the censure of their critics"? If you do, give us the evidence; if you don't, then the statement was made solely for the "critics." In either case, I fail to see that this would prove or justify the cooperative efforts that are being criticized. Brother Banister should know that the cooperative efforts being "criticized by the critics" are not RIGHT just because they are NO MORE WRONG than something else. None of the "critics" that I know, believes NO mission work, or LITTLE mission work, is RIGHT if a church can do more, so Brother Banister is doing a lot of useless talking. Brother Banister then says, "No congregation can consistently criticize the missionary society of the Christian Church as being unscriptural, when that congregation is doing little or no mission work itself. Nor can such churches consistently criticize the mission work being done by brethren, if they do none themselves."

Brother Banister, do you mean by this, that those who criticize are doing NO MISSION WORK and therefore have no business criticizing? I'm calling on you to prove that the critics are doing NO MISSION WORK. I'm perfectly willing to test the work done by the critics, with your work and Skillman Avenue (in proportion to their resources). Unless you produce PROOF that the "critics" are doing little or no mission work, thoughtful brethren will know that you are just "smarting under the criticism." But, suppose you proved it — such would be poor proof of the scripturalness of the cooperative efforts. Brother Banister, did you say something, in your article, about "the spirit of PHARISEEISM among us? ?

It is clear that, in his article, Brother Banister is trying to justify the cooperative efforts of certain brethren. In doing his he does so on the ground that it is no more wrong than the "critics" not doing any mission work. But in doing this he shows that his sympathies are on the side of the "cooperative efforts" under question. But, on the same basis that he argues for the "cooperative efforts" he argues for the missionary society, of the Christian Church, — that is — the "critics" should not criticize the work done by certain brethren or, that done by the missionary society, when they are doing no mission work themselves. Thus, Brother Banister even sides with the Christian Church against his "critical brethren." Of course he did not intend to do this but when brethren try to justify an unscriptural course they may fall into most any error, through human reasoning. Human reasoning cannot make error stand.

In the next paragraph Brother Banister tells us the way to expose missionary societies (showing he did not intend to defend them above) and ALL OTHER UNSCRIPTURAL METHODS OF DOING MISSION WORK. This may be done by standing by the principles of the New Testament, for doing this work, so says Brother Banister. To this I agree but, he fails to point out any of the OTHER UNSCRIPTURAL METHODS. What, Brother Banister, other than the missionary society, do you regard unscriptural for doing mission work? The only methods known to me, are the LOCAL CHURCH handling its own funds and program; the "cooperative efforts" of some brethren, and the missionary society. What OTHER UNSCRIPTURAL METHODS, other than the MISSIONARY SOCIETY, should be exposed??? Brother Banister is not fond of his "critics criticism" for he says that ". . . . a more ambitious and far-reaching program evangelism etc . . . will do more to solve our problems, and settle our controversies, than all our arguing and wrangling!!" Brother Banister knows that even the "critics" are FOR an ambitious program so, .. . he finds ANOTHER opportunity to "dig" the "critics" for what he calls WRANGLING.

(3) The danger of retrogression. What Brother Banister says here is true but why leave the impression the "current critics" want and encourage churches to be "stingy, selfish and reactionary to carry the gospel to others"? ? It is a wicked insinuation. Did you say "PHARISEEISM," Brother Banister?

(4) "Another danger . . . is the development of the spirit of Phariseeism among us." "Most of us," he says, "pay lip service to mission work and do none." If Brother Banister is doing this, he ought to start doing some mission work. Of course John is not "criticizing" for, he is against that; it smacks too much at PHARISEEISM! Again, "We have little praise and encouragement for churches which plan great mission projects but plenty of criticism and scorn for them." I do not quite understand; what criticism and scorn has Brother Banister had for "WHAT GREAT MISSION PROJECT"?? I didn't know he had been doing this; I thought he was "fur" all of it, since as he says later, in his article, that brethren have "a great deal of latitude in the realm of method . . . ." No one that I know objects to churches planning "great mission projects" if said church can do it. But, if all the churches "planned great mission projects" (knowing they could not carry them out) things would be in a bad fix. Let the churches "plan great mission projects" but let them quit planning more than they know they can do and then calling on other churches to turn their resources to them to carry their project out. Brother Banister knows none of the "critics" are scorning and criticizing churches for "planning great mission projects." His article is a mis-representation of FACTS, all the way through, and in the words of Brother Harper, "a judgment awaits us." Maybe Brother Banister can satisfy our curiosity and give us the scripture that justifies a church "planning a great mission project" (larger than it can carry out) and calling on other congregations to pay the bill. Brother Banister says, "We preachers (of course one can see that he means YOU and not WE) are in danger of developing a self-righteous attitude toward ourselves and a severely critical one toward all brethren who disagree with us on missionary methods." Does anyone think John is warning John because John is about to become self-righteous? Brother Banister, I shall just let the Lord judge my motives and attitude and at the same time pray that you may not become any more self-righteous than your article indicates to me.

Brother Banister now says, "We preachers do not know all the answers, nor do we have a solution for all the problems facing us in mission work." Brother Banister, do you not have a New Testament? Mine says it "furnishes us COMPLETELY unto every good work." The New Testament is the solution. Read it; it tells of the complete independency of the local church and says nothing of the kind of cooperative efforts you think we should show so much charity toward. If "we" preachers don't know the answer to the problems, under controversy, it is because we haven't read God's word or, are blind to what it says. I maintain that the Bible is the solution; that it DOES tell us the method, followed by the early church, in carrying out the great commission and I DENY "brethren have ANY latitude, in the realm of method" when the Bible has spoken. Brother Banister seems to have the same conception held by Brother Gatewood . . . . "let us be concerned with getting the job done; let us not be concerned about HOW it is done." Shades of the Christian Church!! Finally, Brother Banister offers a solution to the problem troubling us. It is, in substance; just love all the brethren too much to take issue with them on these matters, and let's have peace. The whole church would have gone Digressive, seventy-five years ago, if all the brethren had taken this course. Brethren, we just cannot do it; it is asking too much — it is too big a price to pay. Peace with God means more than peace with some brethren, as desirable as that might be.