Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
October 16, 1958
NUMBER 24, PAGE 1,12-13b

Expedients

Ernest A. Finley, Wichita Falls, Texas

A failure to recognize that there are two kinds of authority in the Word of God has caused many errors to creep into our reasoning. Some commands are specific; others are generic. The command to preach the "gospel" is specific. (Mk. 16:16.) The message being specific, all other matters, philosophies and doctrines are excluded. The command to "teach" is generic. (Matt. 18:19.) By this we mean simply that the "how" is not specifically authorized. We are to teach, but we may do this in many ways: by radio, television, word of mouth, sermons in public assembly, private teaching, Bible classes, by letter, etc., ad infinitum. It should be understood that the above mentioned tools, instruments, or mediums are simply expedients. They do not constitute something in addition to what the Lord has authorized but are within the scope of the generic command to teach. However, it is well to bear in mind that the church is God's missionary society, functioning in its local congregational capacity, and that there is no justification for, need for, or authority for a human organization, a human or man-made missionary society, usurping the function of the church or being made an adjunct of the church or super-imposing itself over the church. Bear in mind that the church is responsible for the accomplishment of its work in the field of evangelism. The generic command to the church to teach does not constitute authority for creating something other than the church to do the work the Lord gave the church to do.

One of our religious periodicals of some influence and prestige ran an article some time ago in which a writer, endeavoring to justify human benevolent organizations being made adjuncts of the church, contended that we have for a long time been using a human institution in the accomplishment of the work of the church, alluding to our Bible classes. His line of reasoning seemed to be: you have been doing a thing a long time in Bible teaching for which there is no authority. Why object to our use of a benevolent society for which there is no authority? So, in effect, our brother apparently admitted that he could not justify that for which he was contending but took a "so what" attitude on the ground that we can not justify our practices by the Word of God either.

But in this he grievously erred. His error grew out of the fact that he failed to recognize that there is generic authority as well as specific authority in the Word. Do we have authority, either generic or specific, for a missionary society? No, emphatically not. Many brethren recognize this fact. Do we have authority, either generic or specific, for a benevolent society to accomplish the work of the church? Again the answer is no, emphatically not! Our scribe seemed to admit as much in his writing. Is there any authority in the Scripture for Bible classes? There is no specific authority. But there is generic authority! The brother erred when he indicated that we have been conducting Bible classes without Bible authority. He was wrong when he wrote that we have been using a human institution in the work of the Lord, alluding to Bible classes. Our Bible class arrangement is not a human institution if it is conducted as it should be. If our Bible classes are conducted by teachers selected by the elders of the church, and the activity is carried on under the oversight of the elders of the church, and no officers are selected to function in the Bible class arrangement, and Bible classes do not usurp the authority which belongs to the elders of the church by conceiving projects and programs of activity or contributing money to some program of activity elsewhere or some preacher in the field, then the Bible classes are actually no more than a function of the church. The elders are directing a work within the church for the accomplishment of the mission of the church. It is the church, pure and simple, accomplishing its work. It is the church functioning within the scope of the generic authority which the Lord gave it to "teach" the will of the Lord.

So, friends, there is authority for Bible classes. The authority is in the generic command to "teach." Now, our scribe should either find scriptural authority, either generic or specific, for his benevolent society or give it up. We note with regret that our scribe is virtually ready to take the position that there need be no authority for what we do in religion. Whether he actually acknowledges this or not his practice in effect drives him to this position.

Our denominational friends often evidence their lack of understanding in the fields of authority and expedients. When we protest the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of God on the ground that there is no authority for them, they reply that we should not bother ourselves with objecting to their un-authorized practices when we do many things in worship for which there is no authority. "Where," they ask, "do you find authority for a song book or a song director in worship?" Further, they ask, "Where do you find authority for a collection plate?" They ask likewise for scriptural authority for benches, churches buildings and electric lights.

Is there authority for a song book or a song director? Our denominational friends say, "No." But in this matter they err. Their error grows out of a failure to recognize that there are certain expedients which may be used in the execution of even a specific command. The command is to "sing" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16,17). Whenever one uses a song book in his worship is he doing something in addition to that which the Lord authorized? No, he is doing simply what He commanded, just singing. Whether a song book or a song director is used or not does not change the fact that the congregation is doing only, simply, and no more than, that which the Lord authorized. The fact that a man is standing before the congregation directing the singing does not take the action out of the realm of the Lord's authorized act of worship, singing. It is not some other kind of music. It is not something in addition to what the Lord commanded for the director is just singing. He thus serves to expedite the Lord's command. But observe that the Lord's command is specific. He did not command that we simply make music. If He had given such a generic command then the individual would be at liberty to make any kind of music in worship whether vocal or mechanical. When an individual plays a piano he is not doing an act which the Lord has authorized, as is true when one simply sings, but has left the area of the specific kind of music that is authorized, simply singing, and has gone into an area of generic music-making where the Lord has given us no authority to act.

An expedient must serve in the actual accomplishment of the very act which the Lord authorized. When a song book or a song director is utilized, something in addition to what the Lord authorized is not being done. Singing, that which the Lord authorized, is all that is being done that the Lord did not command. The specific command is ignored and the kind of music offered is taken out of the realm of the specific and placed in the realm of the generic. In this, man assumes authority which the Lord has not delegated to him.

What of church buildings, benches and lights? Is there any scriptural justification for a church building? Does it fall into the same category with mechanical instruments of music used in worship or the missionary society or a human benevolent society which is made an adjunct of the church? Absolutely not. The church building, benches and lights are defensible on the ground of expediency. These facilities all serve to expedite a command. The church building, class rooms, benches, tables, chairs, black hoards all serve to expedite the generic command to teach. (Matt. 28:19.20.) In utilizing these facilities the church is not doing something in addition to that which the Lord authorized but is doing simply that which the Lord commanded, teaching. A church building expedites the command to assemble. (Heb. 10:25.) If there is to be an assembly there must be a place to assemble. The church may assemble in a rented hall, under a brush arbor, in a private house, under the shade of a tree, or in a building which the church owns. It is not imperative that the church have a church building in which to assemble but certainly it may do so, and that by the Lord's own authority. The above mentioned facilities simply serve to expedite the command to assemble. Thus the church, in using whatever facilities she may find at hand or purchase for the purpose of assembling, is not doing something for which there is no authority but doing that simply which the Lord commanded — assembling. (Heb. 10:25.)

Elders have been delegated authority by the Lord. This authority is seen in Heb. 13:17: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief; for this were unprofitable for you." However, their authority is not expressed in legislation or, to put it another way, they do not have the right of decision in matters of faith. They can only accept the utterances of Christ and must rule in accord with His law. Yet there is an area in which they have the right or authority to make decisions. This is in the realm of expediency.

Certainly, an eldership does not have the right to say that baptism is no longer binding. This is a matter of faith. Christ has commanded baptism. (Matt. 28:19.) But they are at liberty to make decisions in the realm of expediency regarding baptism. They may determine whether the church shall provide baptismal garments for those wishing to be baptized or whether the water should be warmed or not or whether a baptismal suit shall be provided for those who are to administer baptism. Surely, the elders would be at liberty to decide against a request of a member of the church to make use of the baptistry or baptismal garments or baptismal suit in some way other than the intent for which they were secured. If they decided against such, they would not be legislating or making laws where Christ has made no law. They would simply be exercising their authority in the realm where the Lord gave them authority to act — in matters of expediency. Surely, the elders would be at liberty to decide against a request of a member of the church to make use of the church building in some way other than the intent for which it was secured. Suppose I wanted to have a talent show there and asked to use the building. Would the elders have the right to say, "no"? Most assuredly. Would they be making a law where Christ made none? Most assuredly not. They would be simply rendering a decision in the field of expediency where they have the authority to render decisions. One who regards the office of an elder and respects the authority of the eldership would not seek to overthrow the decision of the eldership even though he might personally think that the thing he proposed is permissible.

Christ makes the laws in matters of faith. Elders can make no such laws. Elders and all others must submit to His will. But in matters of expediency, elders have been granted authority. A failure to recognize that elders have authority in the field of expediency can lead to grievous errors. However, another extreme is seen when it is asserted that any utterance of the eldership must be respected' whether in the realm of expediency or faith. If elders prescribe contrary to "the faith" or the will of the Lord then their action, being contrary to the Lord's will, is not to be respected but contrariwise must be resisted and an effort should be made to correct them. Elders are to hold fast "to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers." (Tit. 1:9.)