A Gem Of Logic
The March 3, 1980 issue of the Gospel Advocate set before us a "gem" of logic (so called) that should cause all of us to feel genuine alarm at the ridiculous extents to which brethren will go in an effort to find support for their unscriptural practices and unlawful institutions. Here is the little "jewel":
"Who Am I?"
"I am not the church.
I am a home.
Because I am a home, I was set up, established, instituted.
I am, therefore, an institution.
I am supported by "the church as such."
I Am The Preacher's Home."
— The Disputer The unstated but implied conclusion in this line of thought is that it is right for a congregation to support a human institution. It strikes at the New Testament principle that the only institution which a congregation may support is another congregation when that congregation is in need or distress.
A preacher's home (house), provided by the church, is not an "institution." It stands in the same place as a church building, class-room annex, baptistry or preacher's "study" — all are expedients — expediting the commands to teach, to worship, to assemble and to baptize. None of these expedients constitutes an "institution."
The Lord commanded the church to support preachers of the gospel. "Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel" (I Cor. 9:14). It matters not whether a church itself provides the necessary things to sustain a preacher or pays him a salary and allows him to purchase that which is necessary for sustenance. In either case he is "living of the gospel." A church often supports or pays a preacher enough to rent a house in which to live. It often supports or pays him enough to provide the necessary things to make a house livable — furnishings. However, it is sometimes regarded as expedient for a church to provide living quarters, even with furnishings, for its preacher. Preachers have many times lived under the same roof that the church meets under. In which case he was "living of the gospel." A congregation may sometime save part of the Lord's money by purchasing a "preacher's home" rather than renting it for him or paying him enough to make it possible for him to rent it for himself. If so, he is still "living of the gospel." But in neither case is the place of residence legitimately regarded as an institution. It is merely a building. Certainly, such can not be regarded as a body politic, or an organizational entity. A building as such can never fall into the same category as does the "home" or "family." Neither can an institution, a body politic, a benevolent society, fall into the same category as a "house" or dwelling whether it be provided for a ward of the church (benevolence) or provided for a preacher of the gospel as part of his support or pay (evangelism).
The "home" or "family", divinely instituted, inheres in relationship. It embodies the husband-wife relationship, the parent-child relationship, and the child-child relationship. Duties and responsibilities grow out of these relationships and are determined by them. These duties and responsibilities do not inhere in the "home" as an organizational entity. These duties fall upon the individual in his particular or peculiar place in these relationships and services are performed by the individual and not the "home" as an organizational entity or body politic. It is the responsibility of the father to provide food, clothing, shelter, care, supervision and training for his family but the providing of these things does not constitute a "home." If these things do constitute a "home" then the army, a penitentiary or a reformatory constitute a "home" for each provides these things. But what boy in the service thinks he is at "home"?
A preacher's "home" (house) is not "supported" by the church. The preacher is "supported". The house or dwelling which the church provides constitutes a part of his "support". It is the same as pay or salary. The church purchases the dwelling as an "expedient" to preaching the gospel. When a preacher lives in it he is "living of the gospel."
"The Disputer" says that the dwelling of a preacher is "a home." This is true — but only in the sense of being a "house" in which to live. But he errs gravely when his "'logic" leads to the conclusion that the preacher's house is an "institution." A mere building does not constitute an "institution." It is ludicrous to contend that a preacher's house or dwelling is an "institution" that is "supported by 'the church as such'."
Brethren need to give more thought to the meaning of the words "institution" and "home." When this is done it will become evident that the little "gem" of logic proffered by the Gospel Advocate is nothing but "paste" and not even a good imitation of the real thing at that.