George And John
George talked about Faith and Expediency — said faith is law; expediency, any way you want to do it. He said the church cannot do its work without an institution, other than the church itself, whether it be an orphan home or a private home — that a private home is a separate institution. He illustrated: the law says go and preach the gospel, sing, baptize, do benevolent work (do good to all men, especially to the household of faith), but that it does not matter how you go, how you sing, how you baptize, or how you do good to all men, especially the household of faith — that the how is a matter of expediency — that the church can do it any way it thinks best. He made every action mentioned specific, and parallel. That makes George say the church cannot go and preach the gospel without an institution. The missionary society is an institution through which some preach, and George says we must have an institution through which to do the work of the church — that it cannot do anything without an institution.
And, John stood by while George slew his brethren. (I could not tell whether John held George's raiment).
It was evident George was somewhat confused. He made Go, Sing, Take up a collection, and "take care of" all generic. Or, was he confused? Did he know that go and make music are generic, and sing is specific, just as wood is generic and pine is specific? Or, did he think his audience would not know the difference? This is the dodge usually used by the hobby riding institutional brethren in their efforts to get the consent of the church to let them have what they want. The old digressive brethren said, "We want it, and we don't care, we are going to have it." I have been told by sectarians, "I don't care what the Bible says, I am going to be a Baptist." Is this the same spirit of some of our brethren?
And, John Stood By And Listened.
George said baptize is the law, how you do it is a matter of expediency — whether in a creek, pool or river. Does he not know the difference between an expedient and an incidental? We would think so — maybe not. If he does not, he should not speak so freely, but follow the teaching, "let him that is ignorant be ignorant." If he really does know the difference, honesty demands that he point out the difference and cease to use such a method to confuse brethren.
And, John Stood By While He Spoke.
George called our attention to Paul's statement: "Do good to all men, and especially to them who are of the household of faith." He said the law is do good; but the Bible does not teach how — that is a matter of expediency — that the church is in the business of doing good any way it wants to do good. According to his logic (?) George should give my non-member neighbor a good Ford or Chevy, but he should do good especially to me, his brother, by giving me a good Cadillac. A thing so absurd is to be wrong!
And, John Stood By And Consented.
Again, we are taught to "grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is an obligation of the church. But, George would say how to grow in knowledge is a matter of expediency. The church could spread knowledge in any way it wants to, or gain thereby — do it any way it thinks best. According to such logic (?) the church should send funds from its treasury to support all the schools and colleges which help Christians to grow in knowledge. No wonder some think the college should be put in the church budget. One elder said, "I do not see why we cannot preach the gospel through Blankety Blank Bible School as well as any other way." Guess they have been hearing George preach.
And, John Stood Near.
The church members must be taught to maintain honest occupations. The church must do it — that is faith, the law; but the how is a matter of expediency. Then, the church should help brethren maintain their institutions of farming, banking, and other honest enterprises. And, some of the institutional brethren think what the individual can do as a Christian the church is obligated to do.
John Was There.
George did not point out that matters of expediency are subject to matters of faith and modified by the law. He used the old argument that the New Testament teaches to take up the collection, but not how — the law is do it, but the how, any way. But he did not say, "any way which does not violate a principle of faith", or, if done "decently and in order" no law or principle of faith is violated. He did not say, "Anything that is a matter of expediency, left to the judgment of the brethren, is left to their judgment only when it does not violate a principle of faith." That is the way George used to say it. And, this is where the hobby riding institutional brethren (wedded to their idols) always jump the track.
John Was Present.
George got one thing straight — Pay The Preacher! Suddenly there resounded a multitude of near angelic voices saying, "Glory, Hallelujah! Thanks to the promoting brethren! We never had it so good. We are really on the march" — (away from the New Testament).