Church Cooperation - II.
IV. Questions Answered
In compliance with a divine injunction Christians must stand in readiness to answer questions concerning the hope that is in them. (I Peter 3:15.) People in error always have seemed to have great difficulty in understanding why we object to some things which they think are of great value to the soul, even though such things are not authorized by the scriptures. They claim they just can't understand why any person would object to a beautiful Easter service, or a special Christmas church-program, including the tree, or beautiful and soul-stirring pipe organ music in worship, or a missionary society that sends preachers out to preach the gospel to a lost and dying world. They think the objectors to their innovations are strange, hyper-critical, antis, non-progressives, born in the objective case and the kickative mood, opposed to every good work and just plain cantankerous.
In recent years some of the outstanding leaders in this third great apostasy in churches of Christ have inaugurated some projects in which they seem to have great faith, but for which they have no scriptural authority. They assume the same attitude toward their brethren who call for scriptural authority, and they ask the same questions that were asked by the ringleaders in the apostasy of the nineteenth century. They just can't understand why anyone in his right mind would object to a Church Of Christ Boy Scout Troop, or a kitchen in the meeting house for church of Christ parties and other forms of entertainment, or a church of Christ ball team, or a church of Christ benevolent society to care for all the poor every where, or a church of Christ Gospel Press Of Dallas Society, or a church of Christ youth camp and many, many other things. They call their brethren who oppose these things by the same names that the digressives of the second great apostasy called the faithful.
Here I should like to answer some of the questions most frequently asked by the leaders of this present digression.
1. Since so many little children are converted to Christ, and all their physical needs supplied in the Orphan Home, how can you object to church donations to such institutions?
Answer:
This doctrine that the end justifies the means has led many astray. Many now living can remember that the advocates of the missionary society in the apostasy of the preceding century argued that the society preached the gospel to millions, that thousands of lost souls were saved, and some of them accused those who objected to church donations to the society of being against preaching the gospel to the lost. Convincing them that their claims did not justify the unauthorized removal of the oversight of church funds from the elders of local churches to a centralized agency was very difficult. They have never been able to prove that their missionary society saves more souls or is better in any way than the divine plan of every local church's managing its own evangelistic activities.
Something is seriously wrong with every man's faculties of perception, who cannot see that every argument against the surrender of church work and funds to the control of a human organization in the field of evangelization applies with equal force and logic against the surrender of church work and funds to the oversight of a human organization in the field of benevolence. God's organization, the local church, is better in every way than any human organization for doing the work which God has assigned to it, whether that work be benevolent or evangelistic.
2. Is it not true that the "church is its own missionary society but not its own benevolent society"?
Answer:
The ridiculous contention that the "church is its own missionary society but not its own benevolent society", is like a drowning man grabbing at a straw. No man has ever named one need that the board of directors of an orphan home can supply to those under their charge that the elders of a local church cannot supply for those under their charge. God has assigned four fields of work to the local church: evangelism, benevolence, edification, worship. To say that all that the church can do in caring for its own poor is to surrender its funds to the control of some other institution in which the poor have been placed is as erroneously absurd as to say that the church is not its own edification society or its own worship society and all the local church can do in the field of edification or worship is to surrender its funds to the control of some human institution and let that institution do the edifying and worshipping for the church.
The workers in local churches (such as the seven appointed benevolent work in the Jerusalem church, Acts 6: 1-6; Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, Rom. 16: 1-2; the widows on the pay-roll of local churches described in I Tim. 5: 9-10; and many other workers, both men and women) listed in the New Testament, ought to make it clear to every person with an open mind that the local church, through the labors of such workers, under the oversight of the elders, is able to do every thing for its own poor that any benevolent society can do for its inmates.
If churches of Christ are not the best institutions on earth for doing the work assigned to them, then one of two things is true: (1) Jesus would have established the best organizations on earth for doing the work assigned, but could not; or (2) Jesus could have established the best organizations on earth for doing the work assigned, but would not. The first is an impeachment of the power of the Lord; the second is a contradiction of everything the New Testament says about the greatness of the church which he purchased with his blood.
3. If church donations to the Judean churches were not fraught with all the dangers of Romanism, why would church donations to a "sponsoring church" for brotherhood projects, such as Herald Of Truth and Children's Home Of Lubbock, be fraught with the dangers of centralized control?
Answer:
In the Judean work, the indispensable prerequisites and design under which one church may donate funds unto another constitute a divinely appointed stopping place. Under the "sponsoring church" system there is no stopping place short of a "Mother Church" or an earthly "Headquarters" for all the churches.
The prerequisites and design for baptism serve as a good illustration. Faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. Remission of sin is the design. In every case of valid baptism faith and repentance must precede it, and remission of sins must be the purpose. As already stated, the two indispensable prerequisites in church donations of funds to a church are: (1) The receiving church must be in want; (2) it must be unable to supply the temporal needs of its own members - it must be an object of charity. The design must be to supply that want.
The reason for these God-given prerequisite and designs in both baptism and contributions from church treasuries to a church are as clear as the noon-day sun. Without these prerequisites to baptism, the command to believe and repent would be made void. Without the prerequisites divinely given in the Judean charity work, the control of all work and resources under one earthly head is inevitable.
observed, there could be no infant baptism, and there could be no Roman Hierarchy.
If these prerequisites and design are not respected to the letter, then the flood gates are thrown wide open to centralized control of church resources by any group of elders who, through either ignorance or egotism, may want to manage more than God ever assigned to any one eldership. And he who cannot see that this is true has never studied the history of the "falling away" in the first great aposasy of the church to any profit at all.
4. If it is wrong for churches to cooperate in donations to a "legal home" ("restored home", Orphan Home) which is an institution other than the church, why would it not be wrong also for churches to contribute to a needy private home (family) which is also an institution than the church?
Answer:
Church contributions for the support of a needy family are not analogous to church donations to the support of a benevolent institution, such as an orphan home. When elders use money from the church treasury for the needs of a family, they do not surrender the oversight of the spending of that money. They see to it that the things that the members of that family need are bought with that money. To turn over money from the church to the head of a family, giving him the privilege to use that money as he pleases (to buy a truck in which to haul his wife and children all over the country to beg from everything and everybody from whom they think they can panhandle a dime, or to buy bonds, or to donate the money to some other institution, or to loan it to a church in Little Rock to build a meeting house) would be as bad as contributing it to any benevolent society.
This question was posed by Gus Nichols in the Gospel Advocate of October 1, 1959. If a church's supplying the wants of a needy family is analogous to donations to an Orphan Home, then Gus Nichols and all other liberals are compelled to endorse church contributions to all Catholic, Masonic, and denominational Orphan Homes. They all believe, as far as I know, that both individuals and churches may contribute funds to a needy family, though the head of that family may teach Catholicism or Masonry or Methodism or any other ism to every member in it. But they say that neither an individual nor a church can contribute righteously to a Catholic orphan home that teaches Catholicism. This shows that even they can CAP the difference between church support of a family and church support to their so-called "restored home" the society.
5. Since a benevolent organization, such as the orphan home, is only a method of "visiting", are you not making "method" a law, and thereby legislating where God has not?
Answer:
This question begins with a false assumption. Organizations are not methods of "visiting". They select and employ methods. After a church, one organization, surrenders its funds to a benevolent society, another organization, the receiving organization still must select and employ methods of doing the work. The organization is not the method.
To say that a benevolent institution is a method of "visiting" the fatherless and widows is as erroneous as the digressive claim that the missionary society is only a method of "going".
Chart Goes Here
| "visit" food clothing shelter medicine other needs | go | Wood | "organization" |
| walk ride Fly sail | pine oak gopher cedar | church orphan home Red Cross U. C. M. S. |
fig. I fig. 2 fig. 3 fig. 4
In fig. 1, "visit" is the thing required. Supplying food, clothing medicine or anything else needed is "visiting." These things are "ways" of visiting. They are specific of the generic, "visit". An organization is not a specific of the generic, "visit". A church, the Red Cross, and an orphan home are organizations that employ methods of "visiting". When one organization turns over its funds to another organization the giving organization is not employing a method of "visiting". After the receiving organization gets the funds it still must select and employ methods of "visiting."
Churches and individuals are commanded to go and preach the gospel. "Going" is commanded. Walking, riding, running, flying and sailing are ways or methods of "Going". The Lord has not named any method of "going" to the exclusion of other methods. Therefore, any or all methods of travel may be employed. To demand that all travel in "going" to preach the gospel be restricted to one given "method" is to legislate where God has not. The digressive claim that the missionary society is only a "method" of "going" is erroneous. Organizations are not methods of travel. After one organization has surrendered control of its funds to another organization, the receiving organization yet must select and use some method of "going".
In fig. 3, "wood" is a generic term, and all the different kinds of wood are specific of the generic "wood". God commanded Noah to build the ark of "wood". But he did not stop there. He ordered Noah to make the ark of gopher wood. God named a specific; he specified gopher, thereby excluding all other kinds of wood for the ark.
The law of faith is a law of exclusion. (Rom. 3:27.) Under the New Covenant, when the Lord names only one specific of a generic, and remains silent on all other specifics of that generic, then all other specifics are excluded.
In fig. 4, "organization" is a "generic", a general term. Church, orphan home, Red Cross, the United Christian Missionary Society, The Gospel Press Of Dallas, and all other missionary societies are kinds of organizations. In the work of benevolence and evangelism God named the organization that is to oversee the work, select and employ the methods used, and manage the resources, as specifically and definitely as he specified the kind of wood that Noah used in building the ark. He specified the ark. He specified the local church itself as his organization for benevolence and evangelism, as clearly set forth in Acts 6: 1-6; I Tim. 5: 15; Phil. 1: 5; I Thess. 1: 8; I Tim. 3: 15; Eph. 3: 10; and many other passages. Many passages teach that a Christian in his work as an individual may select his means and methods of his own work; but there is not even the remotest indication that it is God's will for his divinely organization, the local church, to surrender the oversight of its work and resources to another kind of organization. To do such a thing is to violate the will of God in exactly the same way and to the same degree that Noah would have violated it, if he had used oak in building the ark, or had built something other than, or in addition to, the ark.
6. We do not have any scriptures for lights, meeting houses, Bible classes, song books; why must we have scripture for the benevolent society and the missionary society?
The frequency with which this question is asked is proof within itself that many preachers, elders and churches are in the throes of another great apostasy. The poor victims of the apostasy of the 19th century hurled this question so frequently that all members of churches of Christ should be ashamed to imitate them. They would say, "We have no scripture for song books, individual cups, Bible classes, tuning forks, meeting houses, seats, lights and a hundred other things. Why do we need scripture for the missionary society, instrumental music in worship" and many other things that they had introduced into the work and worship of the church. Of course, the result of such procedure is the conclusion that no scripture is needed for anything.
If we have no scriptural authority for lights, meetings houses, song books and Bible classes, then the churches would be compelled to refrain from using such as surely as they are forbidden from engaging in an Easter service, using mechanical music in worship and surrendering their funds to missionary and benevolent societies.
That everything necessary to the obedience of any command is included in the command itself, is generally known by Bible students.
Chart Goes Here
| "light" | "possession" | "student" | |
| windows, electric. gas lamp. torch. | oral permit. franchise. written lease. deed. | memory, book | individual. group or class, Gen. public |
fig. 5 fig. 6 fig. 7 fig. 8
Fig. 5. The command to worship necessitates light. Reading the Bible and doing other things would be impossible without light. There are many kinds of light-sunlight through windows, electric lights, lamps and torches. The Lord has not specified the kind of light to the exclusion of other kinds; therefore worshippers have scriptural authority for any kind they may choose to use.
Fig. 6. In order to assemble and worship God the worshippers must have or possess a place. Wherever they met, they possessed that place at least for the time they occupied it. A place may be possessed by oral permit, or franchise, or lease, or by deed or by some other way by which people may have or hold a place. The Lord does not mention any method of holding a meeting place to the exclusion of all other methods. Therefore, worshippers may possess the property by any method that does not violate any other New Testament principle.
Fig. 7. True worshippers are commanded to sing. They cannot sing without a song. Whether the song is memorized or read from a book is optional. The Lord has not legislated as to which; therefore the song book is not excluded by the law of faith, the law of exclusion, and therefore, is scriptural.
Fig. 8. The word of God must be taught. There can be no teaching without students or learners. One individual student; a class or group of people are students, learners; the general public may be the students. With apostolic approval and precedent all three of these classification of students were taught. Then teachers are in perfect accord with divine revelation whether teaching one person, or a class, or the public in general. But fig. 4, reveals clearly that God has specified the organization that must control and oversee the work of a church to the exclusion of all other organizations. He named the church!
I wish I had time to answer more questions, but the time allotted to me has expired and I must close.