Where There Is No Pattern
Brother Athens Clay Pullias presents the public with a twelve page tract on the above subject. He says some good things, but to my mind, he says some things that are not so good.
He wrote: "Where there is a divine pattern in any particular area of work and worship, the loyal Christian will follow that pattern without variation." To this, I say, "Amen." He then asks, "What are God's people to do when there is no specific pattern?" Well, if they can't do better than Brother Pullias has in his efforts to justify human institutions to do the work of the church in caring for the destitute "in a realm of human judgment," they would be a wonderful failure.
He answers his question thusly: "Certain principles must always be kept in mind in the glorious task of restoring New Testament Christianity." Yes, and the same is true in keeping it restored. If this is not done, that which was restored will be destroyed. He then gives us his first principle: "First, There is a realm of faith, where the specific pattern has been given. When God has spoken on any subject through the pages of the Bible, what he has said is definite in the realm of faith." That is true. Pullias then introduces the example of Noah's building of the ark to illustrate this point. But he seems to overlook the fact that Noah was restricted to building one ark, just as Brother Pullias is limited to building one organization for church work — the local congregation. This is the only organization through which the Lord's people are to work in accomplishing the work God has authorized his church to do. This excludes every other organization for the work and worship of the church. When anyone builds any organization other than the congregation through which to do church work, he goes beyond God's authority. He has left the realm of faith, and is operating in the realm of opinion. There was as much authority for Noah to build a second ark to take care of a part of his family as there is for Brother Pullias to organize a second institution to do the church's work of caring for its needy. There is no authority for either. When any one leaves the realm of faith, and operates in the realm of opinion and human judgment, he raises the flood-gate that will let all other human organizations pass through. There is no stopping place.
Here is Brother Pullias' second principle: "The second principle is this: There is a realm of human judgment." Under this "realm of human judgment" he attempts to justify his human organizations to arrange for the care of the church's needy. But he ignores the fact that nothing at all can be done "in a realm of human judgment" which is not first lawful, or scriptural. Since God has not authorized any man, or set of men, to organize any kind of institution to do his work except local congregations, no one can promote such other organizations either "in a realm of faith" or "in a realm of human judgment" and meet with God's approval. It is just as necessary for a thing to be lawful in the realm of human judgment as it is for it to be lawful in a realm of faith. If not, why not?
Our brother goes on to say: "Digression from the truth always takes place when men value their opinions above God's will." That is true. It is also true that "digression from the truth always takes place when men value their human judgments above God's will." That is why there is contention in the brotherhood over Brother Pullias' human organizations to provide care for the church's destitute. He writes: "Those who have sought to introduce unscriptural practices or organizations into the work of God's people have been steadfastly and properly opposed. Those who love the Lord will continue to oppose these things." That is correct, Brother Pullias, and that is precisely the reason that "those who love the Lord have steadfastly and properly opposed" and will continue to oppose your human organizations set up "in a realm of human judgment" to care for the church's destitute.
The little tract further states: "Apparently, there are some who would re-write the old testament, 'We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent'. They would make the proverb say, 'We speak where the Bible speaks; and where God has given no pattern, we will make one for you'." But our Brother Pullias would re-write the old adage, and word it like this: 'I speak where the Bible speaks; and when God gives no pattern, I will use my human judgment and organize a few charitable institutions to help the church care for its needy."
Speaking of world evangelism, our brother declares:
"It would be unscriptural for any agency other than the local congregation to undertake this work." Then why is it not also unscriptural for any "agency other than the local congregation" to make arrangements for feeding and clothing the destitute widows and orphans who are properly the church's responsibility? If the former is unscriptural, why is not the latter?
On page 12 of the tract under review our brother writes: "The brotherhood of Christ must not be split into endless factions and parties over these matters of judgment." And on page 8, speaking of the care of orphan children and widows, he declares: "There is no New Testament pattern as to how this care shall be provided. The how is in the realm of human judgment." If it is wrong for the brotherhood to be split into endless factions and parties, then why does Brother Pullias lay the foundation for such a split, and make it inevitable, by insisting that the churches support his human organizations for caring for the church's needy? If any split comes, the responsibility of it must be laid squarely upon those who thus insist on following their human judgment.
What is the difference between an "example" and a "pattern"? Is not an example just as binding on God's people as a "pattern"? If not, why not? Do we have an example of the church's feeding widows in the New Testament? I think so. Here our brother made a great error in his tract. He failed to recognize any example in his teaching or practice. Consider this passage:
"And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude . . ." (Acts 6:1-5.)
The only "business" before them was to supply the wants of these Grecian widows. If the seven men had turned this "business" over to some outside organization, they would have been doing that which they were not appointed to do: they would have failed in their duty. This work was accomplished as directed by the apostles. There was no organization connected with the work other than the local congregation. Here is a divine example of HOW widows were to be cared for by the church. The congregation was the only organization in the picture.
The church acted independently of all human organizations, just as it should do now.
In the fourth item of Brother Pullias' "restrictive clause in the deed", published in the Gospel Advocate, October 2, 1958, he says: "The support of such organizations as care for orphans, destitute children, and aged and sick, shall not be opposed or forbidden." In the "Life and Works of C. M. Pullias", page 577, that eminent gospel preacher declared: "A great apostasy, may be, is being planned unawares in the various things the local churches are doing under the eldership. Institutionalism is dangerous because it is a departure from the apostolic way. Human societies to do missionary work are wrong, but no more so than human organizations to take care of the orphans or old people, or even the young folks." Brother Clay Pullias, if you and your venerable uncle were members of a congregation where your proposed restrictive clause was made a part of the deed, would you not have to either disfellowship your aged uncle, or else repudiate the restrictive clause?
Then, too, for the same reason, you would have to disfellowship David Lipscomb, for he wrote: 'No Sunday School or missionary or charitable organization outside of his church has ever been authorized. No Christian has a right to work in any of these human organizations." (Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb, page 80.) Brother Pullias, why do not you and Brother Goodpasture try to write a restrictive clause and arrange it so that you won't have to disfellowship such old heroes as David Lipscomb and C. M. Pullias? It would be a pitiful sight indeed to see these old soldiers of the cross walking the street of heaven with a Gospel Advocate tag of quarantine tied to their coat tails!