Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
February 15, 1951

We Accept


Some weeks ago brother Showalter wrote an editorial in which he cited the fact of the Judean elders receiving help from other congregations as "an example in the Bible" for the kind of work being done by the Broadway church in Lubbock in their efforts in behalf of the evangelization of Germany.

We took exception to brother Showalter's parallel on the grounds that the Broadway elders do not at all sustain the same relationship to the German work that the Judean elders sustained to the Judean field. We asked brother Showalter to affirm, if he actually believed it, that the Broadway elders sustain the same relation to the Christians in Germany that the Judean elders sustained to the brethren in Judea.

In the January 30 issue of the Firm Foundation, our brother editor brushes aside our proposition with the statement that it "does not discuss the issue," and counters with a proposition of his own. He affirms again that the Judean elders furnish "an example in the Bible" for what the Lubbock brethren are doing.

We Accept

It is going to come as a surprise to brother Showalter, but we are going to accept his proposition, stating it so as to clarify and sharpen the issue! The proposition for debate as suggested by our brother editor is:

"Resolved, That it is unscriptural for one congregation to receive, spend, or administer funds that have been contributed by members of other congregations."

Brother Showalter is no novice at these discussions. He is aware, of course, that he has followed the old sectarian and digressive trick of asking us to affirm a negative proposition. Is it necessary to resort to trickery in these matters? Was his statement of that proposition deliberate, or merely a slip of the pen?

Be that as it may, we are ready to accept his proposition, once it is properly cast as an affirmative declaration of scripture teaching, and in a way that really states the issue between us. Here is the proposition that we will deny:

"Resolved, That it is scriptural for the elders of a local church to function in a general administration of funds received from many churches in evangelizing the world."

This is the point of issue. It is a question of congregational relationships; that has been the real bone of contention in all our long controversy over these matters. Brother Showalter either knows that is so, or he does not know it.

If he knows it, then he deliberately and willfully obscured and avoided the real issue in the proposition he submitted.

If after these long months of articles, pro and con, and the thousands of words his own paper has carried on the subject—if after all that he does not really know what the issue is, then, we say it kindly but emphatically, he simply isn't competent to discuss the matter!

Congregational Relationships

If one church can spend and administer the funds of another church IN A WORK TO WHICH BOTH CHURCHES ARE EQUALLY RELATED, then that one church can spend and administer the funds of every church on earth in such a work. Thus the only reason why Lubbock should not receive all the missionary funds from all the congregations would be a matter of expediency, and not because of any violation of principle. Does brother Showalter think there would be no violation of scripture principles if every congregation sent all its funds for foreign missions to Broadway, and let the Broadway brethren "administer" the fund as they saw fit?

— F. Y. T.


Does Lubbock Agree?

We are well enough acquainted with some of the Lubbock brethren, particularly some of the old timers, to sense that there is likely no small embarrassment among them at the wild statements and arguments some of their self-appointed champions and defenders are making.

Brother Showalter

For example, do the Lubbock elders agree with brother Showalter's position that they are related to the German work in precisely the same way the Judean elders were related to the work in Judea? Do they believe that the case of the Judean elders receiving help from other churches to meet an emergency among their own members furnishes "an example in the Bible" for their evangelistic work in Germany?

Our guess is we'd get a ringing "NO" from these Lubbock brethren if they should express themselves. For in the very paper that carried brother Showalter's comparison, the Lubbock brethren said with emphasis: "In no sense are we elders of a church in Germany." It has been the constant claim of these brethren that they were NOT "administering" and "spending" the funds of other churches for them, but were only acting in the capacity of "forwarding" the funds. Have the Lubbock brethren changed their position in this respect, and do they now agree with brother Showalter that they have the scriptural right not only to "send" money for a sister congregation but also to "spend" it for her IN A WORK TO WHICH ALL THE CONGREGATIONS ARE EQUALLY RELATED?

Brother Bales

Brother Bales' "logic" must have been particularly galling and embarrassing to those older brethren whose memories go back to the days when the digressives were trying so desperately to prove that colleges, publishing houses, and Missionary Societies, were all parallel institutions and were on exactly the same basis. Is there a single elder in the Broadway church who agrees with brother Bales that the Broadway Church of Christ and the Roy E. Cogdill Publishing Company are parallel institutions, existing on the same basis and for the same purpose; and that "contributing" to the latter by buying its products is precisely the same as making a contribution to the former?

This reminds us of the woeful lament and prayer of the American dough-boys in all the wars in which they get close support from their artillery, "Lord, save us from our own artillery!" We wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some pretty fervent prayers have gone up from the Lubbock brethren that they may be preserved from the "logic" of their friends! — F. Y. T.


HOW TO ANNOY THE PREACHER AND DISTURB THE WORSHIP Cecil B. Douthitt, Brownwood, Texas 1. WHISPER to the person next to you, or better still bend over in front of him, stretch your neck like a turtle and whisper to the third person down the seat. This not only will disturb the one next to you, it will also make him feel like hitting you on the head with a songbook.

2. BE A RUBBERNECK, or better still be a pivot-head. A rubberneck can only turn the head half way around every few minutes to see what is going on in the rear, while a pivot-head can describe a complete circle at one grand swing of the head.

3. DISTURB THE BABIES. If you see a baby sitting quietly out of your reach with its parents, first dangle a bunch of keys till you get its attention, then make faces and signs until it gets noisy. If the baby is within reach of you, in that case pull it out of its mother's arms and hold it until it gets disgusted with you and begins to cry. Then the mother will reach over and get it and smile at you, but in reality wishes she could choke your tongue out, and on the way home she will tell the family that she wishes you would mind your own business in worship and let her baby alone.

4. CHEW GUM, and be sure to smack your lips so every one will know you are enjoying it. And if possible, learn to make the gum pop real loud every few minutes. This will make other gum chewers envy you, who cannot make it pop.

5. MANICURE YOUR NAILS, that is, if you are a lady. By doing this job during worship you will have more time for things at home. If you are a gentleman, throw your shoulders against the back of the seat, stiffen your legs, shove your hand in your pocket, whip out your knife, open it with a big snap, and start trimming your nails or cleaning the dirt out from under them.


How Can They Do It?

Voyd N. Ballard, San Pablo, California I have received a bulletin from George Pepperdine College announcing their "Ninth Annual Biblical Forum and Lectureship" with the general topic "The Work of the Church." This bulletin gives a list of the speakers that will appear on the program during the "Lectureship." Among those listed are the names of three or four preachers here in California that are supposed to stand for something and AGAINST something. These men claim to stand with those of us who are trying to stay the tide of digression, modernism, liberalism, denominationalism, and compromise in the church. Now, what I am wondering is how these men can appear on the lectureship programs of George Pepperdine College thereby lending their names and influences to encourage the very things that they claim to oppose.

Every informed preacher in the state of California knows that George Pepperdine College is one of the greatest hindrances to the church of our Lord in this state. California in general and Southern California in particular has a large number of preachers that are attempting to sell the truth and the church down the river of compromise, digression, and liberalism; and these preachers find their main source of sympathy and encouragement in Pepperdine.

When the preachers in this state who stand for the doctrines of Christ (and their number is increasing, thank God) cry out against these things, some good brethren think we are becoming unduly alarmed—that there is nothing to worry about. When men that are supposed to be sound appear as speakers at Pepperdine they encourage brethren to think that there is nothing wrong with Pepperdine; that there is nothing wrong with the teachers there who are pleading for modernism, denominationalism, and compromise. How can they do it?