"A Change Of Viewpoint", Reviewed
In the July 24, 1958 issue of the Gospel Advocate Brother Charles E. Crouch utilized the space on the editorial page of that paper which has been reserved lately for those who wish to make confession. If is altogether proper and right to admit changes in our convictions, and I do appreciate the courageous statement from Brother Crouch. However, there seems to be a growing tendency to make such a confessional in the Advocate a necessity, and a label of soundness. It is noteworthy that in each case the editor of that paper immediately recommends the confessor as a man of ability and soundness. The implication is that preachers can disagree with the editor about divorce and remarriage, about participation in war, about qualifications of elders, and many other things, and still be sound and faithful, but to get his endorsement, they must agree with the editor on the support of Orphan Homes and the Herald of Truth. Truly this smacks of dictatorship; of regimentation; of bondage.
About Cooperation
Brother Crouch says in his statement that he no longer believes there is a specific pattern for church cooperation. He says, "I believe that the New Testament gives a general pattern of cooperation . . . ." He says that so long as there is no loss of autonomy and so long as no inter-congregational organization is formed, one or more churches may help another church do the work of the Lord. Question: If the pattern is only general, how can we exclude inter-congregational organizations? By Brother Crouch's ideal, why would it be wrong for three churches in a given city to form an organization larger than one of them? I find no express statement in the New Testament saying that: "Each church shall be entirely independent and remain free from any combine larger than the local congregation." But if the pattern for cooperation is just general, then it surely does not forbid such inter-congregational ties. Furthermore, if the cooperation pattern is general, surely the pattern for church organization is also general.
Brother Crouch says the opponents of Herald of Truth type cooperation must take one of two steps: "(1) Either DENY that one church may 'send' anything to another church in order to help meet a SPIRITUAL NEED (in spite of Ac. 11:22-24; 15:22,23; and 2 Cor. 11:8); (2) OR DEFINE (by exclusive pattern) WHAT SIZE LIMIT the Bible places upon a spiritual need to which another church is authorized to contribute." But the scriptures cited above (Ac. 11;15 and 2 Cor. 11) are specific patterns of churches supporting and/or sending preachers to help in a work at another place. The only sense in which this pattern can be said to be general is that it authorizes a church to support the preacher of the gospel anywhere and everywhere. When one church sends a preacher to another church, the first church thus cooperates with thesecond in meeting the particular responsibility of the second. Significantly no New Testament pattern authorized one church to send funds to another church, so that the second church could support a preacher whom they would in turn send to a third church to help the third church meet its responsibility. The following illustration shows clearly the New Testament pattern for cooperation in evangelism: Phil. 4:15-18 — 2 Cor. 11:8
Chart Goes Here
The following illustrates how cooperation in evangelism is often done today, but for which there is no pattern or authority in the Bible:
Chart Goes Here
So actually the Herald Of Truth type cooperation is not remotely referred to in the passages Brother Crouch lists above. In the Herald of Truth set-up, many churches send to one church so that this last church can send its preacher (by way of radio and T. V.) back to the sending church. It is just exactly like this: Church "A" can't pay its preacher, so church "A" sends half his salary to church "B," and church "B" then supports a preacher for church "A". With regard to Herald of Truth, church "A" can't have a radio program like it wants, so it sends part of the cost to Highland church and Highland in turn puts on the program for church "A." The following illustrates how it is being done, but for which there is no Bible authority:
Chart Goes Here
Now we have another question: If the pattern for church cooperation is general, then by what rule do we assume that the pattern for the Lord's Supper (Ac. 20:7) is specific with regard to: (1) Necessity of taking it every week; and (2) Limiting us to taking it once a week ? I think it is high time that those who talk of general patterns tell us how we can contend for a specific pattern in Ac. 20:7. Actually there is one — yes just one — inevitable conclusion: If the pattern for church cooperation is general, so is the one for the time of taking the Lord's Supper. If not, why not? By what rule can we loose the one and bind the other? I, for one, believe they are both binding — that both are specific, not general. And, if these patterns are specific, then one church can still help another church by sending the preached word to it, with words of doctrine and exhortation (Ac. 15), and either in written or in vocal manner.
In view of the foregoing discussion, Brother Crouch expects me to set a limit upon what spiritual need one church can help another church meet. But the specific patterns we have noticed authorize a church to help another church in any need of that church. Surely no one will claim that the preaching of the gospel in Chicago is a peculiar need of Highland church in Abilene. If Highland church has ability, then Highland church has authority to preach the gospel in Chicago. However, such does not constitute Highland church as a needy church. If Highland church should become unable to preach to the people of the Fifth and Highland community, then she would be a needy church and other churches could help supply that need by sending the preached word there. This would not justify churches to supply Highland with funds to support two preachers, one to preach at Highland and another to preach at 16th and Vine. The Bible pattern is not hard to follow neither is it hard to determine the need of a particular church.
About Benevolence
First, Brother Crouch includes Jas. 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 in that which he says charges the church with responsibility for the needs of fatherless and widows. If he means the church in a collective sense, I would deny that these verses apply. Read the context in each case and notice that they are descriptions of responsibilities of Christians, not of churches. Next Brother Crouch asks, "Has God specified what type of management must characterize a home in which the needy must be kept, to which a church may contribute? But the New Testament authorized the church to make contributions for benevolence to only two places: (1) To needy saints — Acts 4:34,35; (2) To another church which was unable to care for its needy — Acts. 11:29,30. Brother Crouch says further: "If it be true that God has specified the local congregation as the only organization through which the church may do the work of providing for the needy, this either eliminates the private home or it does not. (1) If it does not then there is no specific pattern as to what type of management must characterize a home to which churches are authorized to contribute, (2) If it does, then a church may never use a private home in which to place its charges, and it can never make a contribution to a home which the local church does not manage." No, a private home is not eliminated, for the collective church does not function for the actual care of the needy. The church provides for that care without the use of any organization other than the church, but the church does not perform the caretaking tasks. The church provides for the care which is performed in some private or public home. But the church does not contribute to some home, either private or public, so that such home may thus perform. So a church may "use a private home in which to place one of its charges," by hiring the services of that home or by making a contribution to a needy saint kept in that home. Likewise, if a needy saint is sick, the church may provide for his care by paying the hospital bill or by furnishing the necessities for care in a private home, but the church cannot make a contribution to the hospital nor to some private home which wants to go into care-taking work itself.
Brother Crouch says that there are similarities between the orphan home and the Missionary Society, but that "similarity does not prove identity." But no one claims they are identical. They are parallel in that both are human organizations to which the church is not authorized to contribute. Finally Brother Crouch says, "when the opponents of the homes admit (1) that individuals may contribute to them; (2) and that churches may buy services from them; and (3) they may be supported by a box in the vestibule, they have clearly admitted that they are not parallel to the Society." This deserves clarification. First, I know of no one who says individuals may contribute to any organization which is parallel to the Missionary Society, or who says that a church may purchase services of such.
However, at any time that two or more people work together in a common task it is a society. Each may be a Christian, and each may make a contribution to the common task they perform, if it is a scriptural work. This could be in the printing of tracts (for evangelism) or in the making of bread for the hungry. In either case, if they so chose they could sell their product to churches, also. However, in either case if the "society" began to accept contributions from churches, it would then be parallel to the Missionary Society and could not be utilized, either by individuals or by churches.
Conclusion
No one is opposed to orphan homes. Many are opposed to benevolent societies commonly called Orphan Homes which ask for and receive contributions from churches, for which there is no authority in the New Testament. No one is opposed to church cooperation as it is "patterned" in the New Testament, but many are opposed to that cooperation which is not in harmony with revealed truth. Reason for such opposition is exactly the same reason that would be given in opposition to mechanical music in worship, bitter herbs on the Lord's Table, Thursday night communion, the college in the budget of the church, etc.