"The Limits Of Expediency"
An editorial under the above heading appeared in the Firm Foundation of Sept. 9, 1958. There are some statements made in the outset of the article in which I concur. They are: "There are some things that are right. They are right because God's word says they are right. It would be impossible to determine right from wrong if God had not established by his very word the rightness of some things and the wrongness of others. The things that are right should be done at all costs". And "There are other things that are wrong. They are wrong, not because human wisdom says they are wrong, or because custom decrees it thus, but because God's word says they are wrong. They would not be wrong if God had not thus labeled them. These things must be abstained from at all costs".
In the last statement, I concur with the exception of the part that says, "They would not be wrong if God had not thus labeled them". When it comes to the application of what is right and wrong in the work of the church, a specific statement that a thing is wrong is unnecessary to establish the wrongness of a thing. The innovators put the mechanical instrument into the worship on the ground that it was not specifically prohibited by the word of God. The Bible does not say not to use it. Let Brother Lemmons try to prohibit its use with the arguments he made in his editorial. The only argument he could make would be that it is not expedient. He could not argue that it is unauthorized because, if he did, his editorial is blown to "smitherines". Instrumental music would fall in that "great in-between field" that he referred to in his editorial. It is at this "great in-between field" that Brother Lemmons and I part company. When he accepts the teaching of the Bible in regard to the silence of the scriptures, he will have to discard his "great in-between field".
He says, "With the legalist things are either right or wrong and there is no in-between". He continues, "It is certainly true that both God's prohibitions and his imperatives must be respected. But it is erroneous to think that this covers the whole field of human action". Let us narrow this "field" down to church action because that is why the editorial was written in the first place. Now I may be looked upon as an "extreme legalist", but I affirm that either right or wrong does "COVER THE WHOLE FIELD" of church action. Anything which is not shown by the word of God to be RIGHT is unauthorized and therefore wrong. This is true in the "whole field" of church action. A thing which is unauthorized (not shown to be right) by the word of God, cannot be expedient. This is where Brother Lemmons entangled himself. In the realm of church action, a thing must be right before it can be expedient. But it cannot be right unless God's word teaches that it is right. Brother Lemmons, is a thing right when it is expedient? Or is a thing expedient when it is right? There is a difference in these two questions. The fact that expediency rests upon human judgment makes the difference. If the answer to the first question is yes, then that would make the rightness or wrongness of a thing rest upon human judgment. But a thing may be right and still not be expedient. For example, it would be right (scriptural) for a congregation to conduct twelve ten-day gospel meetings in a year but it might not be expedient to do so.
Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not". (I Cor. 10:23.) This scripture shows that things which are expedient fall only in the realm of things which are lawful. The New Testament law of God which governs church action authorizes all that God means for the church to do and the organization through which to do it. Expediency can be applied only to that which comes within the scope of things which have been authorized.
Brother Lemmons says, "The average man has little trouble with the shalts and shalt-nots. Churches do not divide over these". And I agree substantially with these statements. But when someone advances the theory that church action may depend on human judgment and be right in such action, then something has been introduced which can easily divide the church. This same expediency argument, advanced by Brother Lemmons, divided the church a century ago and bids fair to divide it again.
Hear what Brother Lemmons says further, "There are doubtless occasions where the church, for good and sufficient local reasons, might make a contribution to MOST ANY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE", (Caps mine E.F.S.). This sweeps away any vestige of doubt as to what Brother Lemmons is advocating. This throws the field wide open. If the church can contribute to Most Any Private Enterprise For Good and Sufficient Local Reasons, the only basis upon which a decision could be made as to when the reasons were good enough and sufficient enough would be HUMAN JUDGMENT. Let Brother Lemmons produce the scripture which authorizes the church to make a contribution to ANY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, unless you could call a poor saint an enterprise.
After making the astounding statements cited above, Brother Lemmons "shudders" at the consequence of his own reasoning. That at which he shudders is the idea of the church making a contribution to a college. But if the church can make a contribution to MOST ANY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, why not a college? According to Brother Lemmons, human judgment is the only thing to stop it. Brother Lemmons tried again to take the "middle of the road" and didn't find it. It just wasn't there.