"All Things Decently And In Order"
The above caption will serve as well as any other under which to say a few things that I want to say just now. There is a story told which might also serve to convey to the minds of many the absurdity involved in the writings of some who are supposed to be well informed in the Bible. It is related that G. P. Bowser, one very able gospel preacher, of the negro race, was engaged in a debate with one of his own race, who engaged to affirm: "The Freewill Baptist Church is Scriptural." The preacher found a passage in the Bible that mentioned the word "Church"; then he located another passage that mentioned "freewill". He arbitrarily combined these words. Then he went to another passage that contained the word "Baptist"; he put that word in arbitrarily, and exulted. He had found the "Freewell Baptist Church" in the Bible ! ! ! ! It is related that Bowser showed, by following that same method of handling the word of God that his opponent's conclusions were not altogether happy. Bowser went to Mark 16:16 where he found the expression "shall be damned", and he added that to what his opponent had developed and it read "Freewill Baptist Church Shall Be Damned".
A tract was published by a College President a year or so ago under the title "Where There Is No Pattern". The whole purpose of the author of the tract seems to be to create the impression that the issues troubling the church today, are solely about methods. He argues that God has given many commands requiring the doing of many things, when he has not told us HOW to do these things. Hence, the idea of "where there is no pattern. But he argues that I Cor. 14:40 "Let all things be done decently and in order" applies in all cases where God has not told us "how" to do the things commanded. First of all, I must insist, that the passage in I Cor. 14:40 was not written for that purpose. The Holy Spirit gave a full discussion of the use of Spiritual Gifts in the 12th, 13th and 14th chapters of the First Corinthian Letter. He shows how those Gifts were to be exercised. He shows that those who possessed the Gifts were not to be exercising them all at the same time. And he shows that it was proper for one who had the "Gift of tongues" to be exercising that Gift, if there was none present to interpret, provided the language he might be speaking were not understand by the audience. And he concluded his discussion on the proper exercise of Spiritual Gifts with the admonition "Let all things be done decently and in order". Certainly, it ought to be evident to any one who is partially used to the expressions in the Bible, that there are limitations to the "all things" as here used. It most certainly does not mean that a man should murder his mother-in-law "decently and in order"!!!!
But, granting that God has commanded the doing of some things and that this passage applies to the HOW. In that case, Has God defined decently and in order"? Has He informed us what is meant by these terms? In II Thessalonians 3:6 the Holy Spirit admonishes that the saints "withdraws from those who walk disorderly, and not after "the traditions received from" the apostles. To walk "disorderly then is to walk not after the truth divinely delivered. Surely God would not instruct christians to "withdraw" from others on a charge of "disorderly" conduct, and leave the matter of disorderliness to the whims and caprice of men !!!!!
Thus there is strong presumptive proof that God has told us what is "disorderly" and decently" in all cases as he has in I Cor. 12, 13, and 14. And it is to these matters solely that I Cor. 14:40 applies. Then, if in other cases, God has told us what is "decently and in order", that explains the "HOW" things shall be done, and there is nothing commanded in which we are not told "how to do it." And that is the divine pattern. So, the very idea of "Where There Is No Pattern" is an idea that is totally foreign to the Book of God.
In the tract, the author discusses the care of orphan children in a manner to indicate that the whole issue is about "methods" of caring for them. On page 9 he mentions some methods churches and individuals have used and still use in caring for orphans, methods that no one objects to; and then he says: "orphan homes organized by brethren for the care of homeless children, operating under a board of directors and supported by congregations and individuals". Thus, he endeavors to create the impression that such an organization is no organization at all - only a "method" of caring for homeless children. He belittles the idea that this "board of directors" is any way comparable to missionary society. Yet, the very fact that he does so clearly indicates that he knows what the issue is. That "board of directors" is nothing more nor less than a BENEVOLENT SOCIETY, and its charter shows that it is a corporate body organized as a benevolent body. Churches send funds to that benevolent society and the society cares for orphans. Suppose — the "board of directors" amend their charter so as engage in evangelistic work, and proceed to select and send out preachers to preach? Would the churches be doing any more wrong to turn over the work of preaching to that "board of directors" than they are when they turn their work of benevolence to them? Let us have a straight and honest answer to this question. But, the author of the tract "Where There Is No Pattern", after clearly showing that he does know what the issue is, says on page 10: "The local congregation is its own "missionary society". The local congregation is not its own orphan's home". Who ever intimated or hint, even in a remote sort of manner that the church is an "orphan's home?" What is the reason he used that sort of language? Many faithful brethren have argued that the "local church is its own missionary society, and the local church is also its own benevolence society." Will that author substitute "benevolence society" for "orphan's home", and thus make it clear that he thinks the church as God gave it is not adequate to do the benevolence works that God intended her to do, without organizing a human society through which to do that work? No, he will not do it. He has already mentioned "methods" the church can employ and at the same time stay clear of all these human institutions men have invented.
But why did he say "Orphan home instead of "Benevolence Society" in that comparison? Was he trying to create a false impression upon the minds of his readers? It seems so. Had he wanted to be open and above-board, and deal frankly and honestly with the issue, it seems that he could have avoided denying that the church is its own orphan's home, when no one at any time or place has ever intimated that the church is an orphan's home.
But to endeavor to create a false impression for the purpose of deceiving — well, I have a name for that, which I will not spell out right now.