Present Issues -- And A Suggested Solution (I)
In a recent letter to me Brother Reuel Lemmons says, "I am interested in doing everything within my power to alleviate the hard feelings that have arisen in the immediate past. The heat of controversy, I feel, has produced extremes as dangerous as any of the issues involved. It is high time for something constructive."
That concern over the present tension within the church is one that is shared by every faithful Christian. We are all of us, whether we like it or not, involved in the present situation, all affected by it, and will certainly all rejoice to see any improvement in the picture. Brother Lemmons' letter, in answer to a letter of inquiry I had addressed to him, expressed willingness to give consideration to three articles from me, "affirmative in nature," setting forth what I believe to be a scriptural way to solve the problem we face. This attitude on Brother Lemmons' part is entirely in keeping with the traditional policy and past history of the Firm Foundation. I have recently been immersed (and still am) in the writing of a biography of my father, J. D. Tant, and have had occasion to read extensively in the back issues of the Firm Foundation from the time of its beginning in 1884 right on through 1941, the year in which my father died. From the day of A. McGary and Elijah Hansborough right on through the long tenure of G. H. P. Showalter, this journal has furnished a medium for the study and discussion of brotherhood problems. I rejoice, therefore, to contribute these articles, for whatever they may be worth, through its pages.
Two Basic Concepts
There are two basic concepts, accepted by every faithful Christian on earth, which safeguard the Lord's church against any and every division over doctrinal questions. These concepts are peculiar to the church of Christ; one or the other of them is lacking in every denomination on earth, and usually both. That does not mean that doctrinal questions will not arise, for they have done that from the very first years of the church (witness the controversy over circumcision and the keeping of the law), but it does mean they will not divide. The two basic convictions, faithfully held, make division impossible.
And What Are These Two Fundamental Concepts?
First: An unyielding, unquestioning acceptance of the authority of the Scriptures. For generations faithful Christians have pointed out that the real difference between the church of Christ and our denominational friends usually boils down to a question of authority. We are not so much divided over what the Bible actually sets forth as we are over the authority to be attached to its pronouncements. Christians have insisted on a strict and permanent application of such teaching as that contained in the statements of Jesus, "All authority bath been given unto me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18); "and the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35); "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 10:48).
Nothing can be practiced save that which is authorized. God's silence as well as his utterance must be respected. Since he has given us an "all-sufficient" revelation "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work," it is a sin of presumption to "go beyond the things which are written." So if a thing is not written (i.e. "authorized by precept or statement, approved example, or necessary inference") the Christians have refused to practice it. It is on this principle that they have rejected instrumental music in the worship, the burning of incense, and many, many other commonly accepted denominational practices; on the same ground they have faithfully practiced the observance of the Lord's Supper on each first day of the week, the rule of each congregation by a presbyterial (not majority vote) form of government, the gathering of money by a "first day of the week contribution," and other authorized practices. If a thing is not "authorized," it is not to be practiced.
Second: A Certain Conviction That The Bible Can Be Understood Insofar As It Affects Our Obedience Unto God. Our Friends In The Denominational World Have Long Since Abandoned This Idea, Insisting That "We Cannot See It Alike." The Catholics, Many Centuries Ago, Came To The Conclusion That The Bible Can Be Understood Only When It Is Officially Interpreted "By The Church" — Meaning The Catholic Church. But Simple Christians Base Their Hope For Heaven On The Belief That The Book Can Be Understood.
When Differences Arise
With these two firm anchors to hold them, Christians are able to weather any storm that may arise, doctrinally speaking. For any time a dispute or difference arises, all the brethren immediately respond to it by saying, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" There follows then a close, careful, diligent, and reverent study of God's word. One thing is supreme in the mind of every disciple — a fierce desire to learn exactly what God's will is. In order to secure this knowledge every word in the text is subjected to such a study, examination, and analysis as no other book on earth has ever known. Whole volumes may be written to analyze the exact shade of meaning of a single word in a particular century (as for example, psallo), or to give the etymology of a word (like bapto), or the grammatical construction of a clause (like "for the remission of sins"), or the historical setting of a statement (such as, "by reason of the distress that is upon us").
This exact formula was followed in the great meeting at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15. A dispute had arisen among the brethren as to the relation of the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. It was a controversy that was threatening the peace of the churches. Paul and Barnabas with certain others from Antioch went up to Jerusalem "about this question." There was "much questioning," and finally by revelation of the Holy Spirit the full truth was brought out. That settled the question.
This procedure in modern times was followed seventy years ago in the "rebaptism" controversy. For some years it seemed more than likely that there might be an irreparable division within the brotherhood over the problem. Tension was high, and debates were acrimonious. My own father was in the very thick of that fray, and he claimed that he and A. McGary were about ready to have a fight themselves to see which one would be "top man" in pushing the contention of the "re-baptizers." Yet, at the very height of the controversy, Brother David Lipscomb asked my father to become Field Editor of the Gospel Advocate, which was as far on one extreme as father was on the other!
Instead of the explosion that some expected from these two contrary minds working on the same journal, the very opposite happened. They debated the issue hot and furiously for twenty years or more. James A. Harding invited my father to come to the Nashville Bible School and discuss the question with him before the students, particularly the preacher boys. Father went. Then David Lipscomb invited both Tant and Harding to repeat the discussion in written form so that he might run it in the Gospel Advocate. This was done. It was also published simultaneously in the Firm Foundation.
The result? There was no division in the church. Brethren of both points of view gradually came to an understanding and general agreement as to Bible teaching — and that settled the matter! This unity was brought about because (1) both groups respected Bible authority; (2) both believed that the Bible could be understood, and were willing to study it long enough and carefully enough to bring about an understanding of it; and (3) they loved one another and respected one another as brethren.
The Present Issue
There is much discussion at present over "congregational cooperation" and "benevolence." Actually, as I see the picture, both of these are simply different facets or aspects of the same basic problem — the problem of congregational relationships. This is a battle which has been waged almost from the beginning of the church. It is summed up in one simple question: Is the "church universal" a functional unit?
All the arguments made now about whether, one church can help another or not, whether a thing is right in an emergency but wrong in the absence of an emergency, whether Philippi was a sponsoring church for Paul in Corinth, or whether Jerusalem was a sponsoring church for the distribution of relief to the other churches of Judea revolve around this one central problem. Unexpressed usually, and unrealized for the most part, the shadowy specter of this problem is always in the back-ground.
Historically, this has been the rock on which the church has foundered all through the centuries. The Roman Catholic Church came into existence through four or five centuries as a "modus operandi," a way, method, organization to activate the "church universal." It was not deliberately planned and promoted with that in mind, but that was the certain inevitable direction of its growth. When the Protestant Reformation came along and rejected the pope, the denominations simply changed one centralized authority (the pope) for another (their denominational governing organizations). They still were under the erroneous idea of the "church universal" as a functioning unit; they believed that some way, means, method was necessary to centralize their influence, resources, and power.
Alexander Campbell and his co-workers broke loose from this idea for a while (though Campbell never did fully surrender the idea of some sort of association or organization), but gradually came to the point of trying to devise some sort of plan or arrangement through which the "church universal" might function. They brought forth the Missionary Society. It was conceived of purely as a tool or instrument of the churches; its originators and planners were positive and outspoken in their belief that it should never, NEVER be allowed to exercise even the slightest authority over the churches, or to interfere in any way with the self determination or autonomy of any congregation.
Church historians have little doubt that W. K. Pendleton saved the Missionary Society from almost certain extinction by his great speech at the convention in 1866. He argued (as had Campbell before him) that God had committed to the "church universal" the mandate to evangelize the world; that he had not provided any organization or systematic arrangement by which this could be accomplished; and that, therefore, the churches were free to make whatever plans, organizations, or arrangements they might think wise in order to accomplish the task God had given them to do. On this premise he felt perfectly consistent in asking the churches to form missionary societies, contribute to Bethany College, set up a publication society, benevolence societies, and do anything else necessary "to get the job done."
David Lipscomb wrestled with this problem most earnestly. He answered Pendleton by denying that God had committed to the "church universal" any kind of work or task — he had committed the job to individuals and to congregations. The church universal was simply a relationship, and was never intended as a functional unit at all. If God had given the church universal as a functional unit, he would have provided it with an organization, officers, specific duties, etc., to equip it. He has provided the congregation as the only organization; hence it is a perversion of his will to try to make any sort of plan, arrangement, association, or society which would centralize the resources and power of many churches in the hands of one group of men to direct the work for those congregations.
In Texas following the Civil War brethren became quite enthusiastic in their support of the "State Meetings," first introduced into the West by Dr. Carroll Kendrick who had come from Kentucky in 1851. These annual meetings developed the practice of selecting one eldership to act as "a receiving, managing, and disbursing evangelistic committee," to use a descriptive phrase of Kendrick's, and this "receiving and disbursing" eldership would then employ a "state evangelist," overseeing his work, receiving funds for his support from as many churches as were willing to cooperate.
David Lipscomb vigorously opposed this type of cooperation. For twenty years or more he wrote strong editorials against it, warning that this was nothing more nor less than a first step toward activating the church universal; and that the "receiving, managing, and disbursing" eldership was simply an embryonic missionary society. Lipscomb argued that the only kind of "cooperative action" set forth in the New Testament was that engaged in when each church carried out its own work to the full limit of its ability, and then sent assistance to a sister church when, and only when, the sister church was in need or distress and an object of charity.
As I see our present situation, the kind of cooperative work now being urged and accepted among us is very closely akin to the "receiving, managing, and disbursing" eldership of the 1880's, and which was finally generally (though never entirely) abandoned by the churches.
With these general observations as a background, in my next article I want to deal more specifically with this matter, of congregational relationships as we now find it in certain benevolent work of the churches, particularly the orphan homes, old folks' homes, and similar institutions.