News And Views
News
Roy E. Gulley has moved from Reading, Penna., to Bakersfield, California, where he will work with the church. O. B. Proctor has moved to Del Rio, Texas from Abilene. He was with the North Park church in Abilene for several years. Hoyt. Houchen, who is now with the 4th and Grosbeck church in Lufkin, Texas, will move to Abilene in the near future to work with the North Park church. Denton M. Neal has moved from Overland, Mo., to labor with the church in Riverdale, Maryland I recently read somewhere the following supposedly unwritten saying of Jesus: "The world is a bridge; the wise man will still pass over it, but will not build his house upon it." It is a splendid thought. I have received letters from several readers of this column regarding a question I raised several weeks ago. The question had to do with the authority for and the responsibility of the church in teaching the Bible to children — those who are not accountable. I raised it for a point of study. I have been surprised at how many have given consideration to the same matter and have raised the question in their own mind of just where is the divine authorization for the church to spend thousands of dollars for facilities, literature and equipment to instruct un-accountable children in the Word of the Lord. The question has nothing to do with whether classes are authorized, but merely for whom the church has the right to have Bible classes. It is by no means related to the "Anti Sunday School" position. As of yet, I have had only two to seriously attempt to give the authority for the church teaching such children, and in both cases it was merely an appeal to the idea that the church is to teach the gospel and, therefore, can teach anyone, including children. This practice like several others which are generally accepted, needs serious study. Even with all the increasing efforts at teaching children from the earliest possible period; and even with all the visual aids, lesson helps, etc., we are still rearing a generation of children that actually and fundamentally know but little of real worth about God's word. More and more of the responsibility has been assumed by or "pushed off" on the churches, and they are struggling desperately trying to supply a need that may not really be the obligation of the churches in the first place! And the churches are accomplishing but very little in this direction with their well-organized and highly-geared Bible classes or Sunday Schools. The whole set-up and idea needs a reappraisal. There is no Question but that at least, the real burden along this line needs to be put back on the parents where it belongs. It is the same old story of "passing the buck" or shifting the responsibility. It seems that the philosophy of the day is to let the individual be absorbed in and by the group and make the church responsible for everything — teaching our children the Bible, educating them even in secular subjects, providing recreation, and other things. It is this same spirit that has churches building and/or providing "Bible Camps," Fellowship Halls, courtship and marriage clinics, schools and colleges, skating parties, Youth Forums, and on and on .... Yes, "the opposition" noted the question I raised and two or three tried to capitalize on it by saying it was proof we are with the "Anti Sunday School" group. But I have stopped worrying about what they will make out of any sincere effort to learn and practice the truth. They will make something out of nothing anyway, so I don't intend for them to frighten me from any effort to better understand God's will. If they can help me in obtaining such knowledge, well and good, for I am willing to learn from them also. There have been times when I have learned some valuable lessons, from, and have been helped by, those of opposing views, brethren and others alike. May the day never come when I refuse to learn truth even from an enemy...! It seems that we live in a day of "party crystallization" with everyone conforming and nearly everyone afraid to raise a question about any matter. Are we afraid to THINK and honestly investigate our teaching and practice in the light of God's word? Sometimes I wonder. Let us measure things by what God's word teaches and not by our former or present practice, by what the majority believe, or by so-called "educated" among us advocate. But enough of this for now.
Church Support Of College
From the bulletin (Jan. 25, 1960) of the Charlotte Avenue church in Nashville, Tennessee, the following is taken:
"Next Sunday Is The Day To Invest In The Future of God's Children.
"The entire contribution next Sunday, the "fifth Sunday" of January, will go to the cause of Christian education at David Lipscomb College.
"This special contribution was set aside by the elders of Charlotte Avenue on behalf of the college because it is felt that a sound Christian education for the boys and girls of today is necessary if the church is to grow and prosper in the years to come.
"One objective of Lipscomb is to hold up Christ as the example to follow in every field of activity — in elementary schools, in high school, in college, as well as in later life.
"Christian youth is worth the cost."
Let us notice a few things about the above. First, this contribution was given to "the cause of Christian education at DLC." Thus this human institution has "the cause of Christian education." This kind of talk is sickening. It is time that God's people learned to speak properly — use "sound words." Just what is meant by the frequently-used expression "Christian education?" The word "Christian," like the word "fellowship", is used so loosely today that it has almost lost its meaning. We have "Christian homes," "Christian schools," "Christian this" and "Christian that. The word never was used in the NT as an adjective, but always as a noun — the proper name for Gods children! Does one have to attend a school like DLC to get a "Christian education?" If one does not support some such institution does this mean he is "Anti Christian education"?
Second, and here we get a deeper insight into the matter, note that "this special contribution was set by the elders on behalf of the college (and note carefully the reason now given) because it is felt that a sound Christian education is necessary if the church is to grow and prosper in the years to come." Brethren, if this is not a statement that the church of the Lord is dependent upon such institutions as DLC in order "to grow and prosper in the years to come," I would not know how to frame one! May God pity their ignorance and blindness! These so-called elders are so wrapped-up in DLC that they feel it necessary to set aside the entire fifth Sunday contribution (and this is at least the second time for them) "on behalf of the college" to assure the future of the church. "If the church is to grow and prosper in the years to come" it must depend upon such institutions as DLC to provide the "Christian education" necessary for such. These institutions need money and more money and more money, so if the work of DLC is so vital and important to the future of the church, then Charlotte Avenue should give far more. There could be nothing more important than this. And, of course, if Charlotte Avenue should do this, then by all means all the churches should do the same. After all the church can not "grow and prosper in the years to come" as it should without such! Yet in the face of this brethren still would have us believe that there is no danger from "institutionalism". These schools, started by well-meaning people, have become veritable Frankenstein's to destroy their makers! May God pity us.
Now where are all these brethren who favor churches building and maintaining benevolent organizations, who a few years ago spoke so vehemently against church-support of colleges? Dare one of them raise his voice in protest to this increasing practice? Where are John D. Cox, G. K. Wallace, Guy N. Woods. Earl West, and the others. Speak up brethren! Let us hear from you. We have been trying to tell you for several years that sooner or later you will "gulp down" your "spiritual throats" the church-support of colleges, but you declared it would never be. We hear your "gasping" and can see you struggle to swallow, and down this practice is going. Not a one of them has the courage to "vomit" while there is yet time. If they do, it will bring up the whole thing. Their whole spiritual system is sick and while there is still enough feeling left to cause spiritual nausea, they will silently "stomach" this practice rather than empty themselves of the "poison." May God have mercy on their weak, spineless souls! (My language may be strong and graphic, but it is time for plain speech, as well as some positive action.)
A Profound Argument
All of us are acquainted with the line of reasoning offered in justification of church support of the so-called orphan homes, which goes after this fashion: "We have been doing it for nearly one hunderd years and no one until recently raised any objection; it is the common and accepted practice of the church."
Recently I ran across this same argument and line of reasoning used many years ago by Cicero (you didn't know I ever read such, did you?) in his Pro Caelio. Cicero was arguing for full liberty in sexual relations. Hear him:
"If there is anyone who thinks that young men should be absolutely forbidden the love of courtesans, he is extremely severe. I am not able to deny the principle that he states. But he is at variance, not only with the license of what our age allows, but also with the customs and concessions of our ancestors. When indeed was this not done? When did anyone ever find fault with it? When was such permission denied? When was it that which is now lawful was not lawful?"