A Needy Church - A Man -- And Money
One of the arguments used to defend the Herald of Truth type of co-operative church evangelism is the subject of this article. The debaters who have permitted their efforts to be printed have not made use of it. Others, who for some reason or other remain on the fringe, think that it is irrefutable. Perhaps it originated with Thomas Warren, since he has become the champion of logical sophistry in connection with the present issues troubling the churches. My first personal encounter with it was through Pat Hardeman; then others of his admirers have fervently promulgated it. Do not think that I have said that all those who make the argument are seeking to justify the Herald of Truth. Some of them say that they are not; that they oppose it for other reasons. Actually, however, they are arguing for that type of operation. In this they are taking a parallel course with Earl West; but have started from the opposite end of the line. In his Gospel Advocate confessional he maintains that his arguments against Herald of Truth were sound; but that he excludes it from his arguments. They contend that their arguments for such are sound; but that they are opposed to that specific case.
The argument, stated in simple terms, runs in this fashion:
1. The sending of money from one church to another church which is in need is authorized in the Bible.
2. The sending of a man to preach from one church to another is authorized in the Bible.
3. From these it is concluded that one church may send a man to do charity work in the church which is in need.
4. From this it is concluded that one church may send money to another church to pay the man to preach.
In nearly every instance of such personal discussions they have not attempted to establish the third point. Usually it is stated in the form of a question, to get the other person to admit that this is scriptural. Then they say that, if a man of the second statement can be substituted for the money in the first to establish the third, it is equally as logical to reason that the money of the first statement can be substituted for the man of the second statement to establish the fourth. It is nothing but the most common of sophistry. They want an agreement on their first conclusion without considering the reasons for such a conclusion. They make no attempt to prove it. Then they hastily form the next conclusion on the basis of the former one, without any scriptural proof of its being correct, without any proof that it necessarily follows from the former; and demand that we prove that it is not correct. The thing they need to understand is that, though an assertion or group of assertions is not shown to be incorrect, they are still under obligation to prove that it is correct. Assertion is not argument. Assumption is neither logical nor scriptural conclusion. As long as they only assume the third point to be correct then their fourth point is assumption only. And, even if the third is proved to be correct, the fourth will need to be proved. To prove that one car will move forward does not prove that another will move in reverse.
The Fallacy Illustrated
Notice the following points and compare them with the theory under discussion:
1. Support from a person who has prospered to a destitute relative is required in the Scriptures. (1 Tim. 5:8).
2. Support from a person who has prospered to the church treasury is authorized in the Bible. (1 Cor. 16:2)
3. From these it is concluded that the person may withhold some of his prosperity from the church treasury in supporting the destitute relative.
4. From this it is concluded that the person may withhold from the destitute relative in contributing to the church treasury.
Now, granting that the third statement is correct, the fourth is not proved to be correct. Yet, that is the kind of reasoning in the other theory under discussion. In each case the reasoning proceeds in the following manner: if that in the second can be placed in the first to make the third, why cannot that which is in the first be placed in the second to make the fourth? This is the kind of reasoning which was done by the Pharisees. The Lord condemned their doctrine. (See Matt. 15:1-9). Their conclusion was a violation of God's law.
Violation Of Autonomy
The fourth statement of their argument is a violation of the teaching of the Scriptures on congregational autonomy. That, in New Testament example or precept, any church ever sent a man to another church in her physical distress, except as a messenger, is yet to be proved by them. But granting that this is scriptural; the sending of help from one church to another for her physical needs does not invade their autonomy, or organic independency. They do not have equal or identical connections and obligations in the case. On the other hand, every church has the obligation of fellowship in the furtherance of the gospel. Independency is violated when one church fulfills her obligation through another; and this is what she does when she channels her fellowship through another congregation. A man, the preacher, may be sent out by a congregation to preach, and he may preach to another congregation. But when he does so he is amenable to the other congregation and its overseers as an individual Christian and not as a representative of the church which originally sent him. That is the difference between sending the man and sending the money. One church is not working through another when the preacher goes; but one church is functioning through the other when the resources are surrendered to another for work which is an equal obligation of each of them.
There is no connection between the cases of benevolence and of evangelism. Each of them is to be done because each is authorized in the Scriptures. Each of them is to be done in the manner which is prescribed in the Scriptures for each of them. To transpose the conditions from one to the other action is to do violence to the Scriptures. Such wresting of the Scriptures is no better than that of the affusionist who transposes the sprinkling of the heart into the action of baptism.
If, in their minds, their fourth statement is substantiated, it is only a matter of judgment to them as to how much one church can send to the other church for preaching. If a congregation judges it wise to spend all her resources in sending to another church for evangelism, there is nothing which would stop her; and nothing which could stop all churches from doing the same thing. It will justify Herald of Truth; and those who espouse the theory herein discussed have no real reason why they should not accept it. As it stands, they have the unenviable and uncommendable position of contending for a thing in principle while opposing it on personal grounds only.