Statistics Or Scripture?
One of the basic tenets of pragmatism is the idea that "truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief." Applied in religion, this philosophy would determine the truth or falsity of any teaching by its apparent success or failure in application.
On the basis of such reasoning the Roman Catholic Church has for centuries used its success as proof of its rightness. And multitudes have rejected the Lord's church, saying, "If this were the true church it would be larger and better known."
Statistics Misused
We always rejected such a philosophy as false and such arguments as fallacious, pointing out that human ideas are understandably more acceptable to carnal man than divine truth. But one day, someone came up with the dubious fact that "churches of Christ are the fastest growing religious body in America. Suddenly, finding opportunity to use such reasoning to our advantage, many accepted it, and today it is featured in broadcasts, newspapers, tracts, correspondence courses, private conversations — wherever there is a chance. Of course, it proves no more for us than it did for them.
Having become adept at pragmatic reasoning with those outside the church, it is little wonder that it should be introduced into discussions within the church. Indeed, in the current controversies it is fast becoming the most popular argument made by those supporting human institutions and unscriptural cooperation.
It is commonly reported that churches opposing these things are doing nothing, that they are "drying up" and dying. In a letter circulated among Australian churches in an attempt to discredit brethren Corner, Everett, and Harkrider, the following statement occupied a prominent position: "I do not know one church among them that is growing." The editor of the Firm Foundation reports in all seriousness: "The anti-cooperation hobby has already done about all the damage it will do. Its ground swell was not as large as the anti-Bible school movement and it will disappear from the earth possibly before the anti-Bible school group does." All of this, we presume, is supposed to prove them wrong.
This modern pragmatism is reminiscent of the cartoon which appeared many years ago in the Christian Standard, depicting David Lipscomb as an old woman trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. It was implied that he was wrong because his task was hopeless. The scriptures proved then that he was not wrong. And time has proved since, that his task was not as hopeless as it seemed.
Statistics Confused
Basically, the above information is false. Not long ago in this journal, we had an article telling of the work being done on every inhabited continent by these very churches. Other reports appear in almost every issue. Some of these churches whose funerals have been so often preached make lively corpses.
And they are growing. Within the past week we have received bulletins reporting the growth of several. Park Hill in Fort Smith, Arkansas reports a 23.6% increase in Sunday morning attendance from May, 1965 to January, 1968. Downtown in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee shows a 65% increase in contribution since 1960. Seventy-Seventh Street in Birmingham shows a 46% increase in contribution and a 27% increase in Bible school attendance over the past two years. There are congregations in our limited acquaintance just finishing or planning new buildings to accommodate their growth. These are but samples.
Of course, there are instances of losses in attendance and/or contribution; but a careful look often shows these to be the result of progress rather than recession. Recently, we heard a man shedding crocodile tears over the decline of a good church in Georgia. At the time we had no knowledge of the facts, but since we have learned that members from that church have assisted in a peaceful establishment of two new congregations in needy nearby areas.
Some congregations of illustrious history exist now in sub-standard communities from which people are gradually moving away. Losses by such a church are no disgrace — no more than when the church at Jerusalem "were scattered abroad, except the apostles." This did not prove there was something wrong with the church. And again, it meant a blessing for many new communities.
Statistics Refused
But suppose a church does lose worldly-minded and unconverted members by taking a stand for Truth, is it any weaker for it? May it not be, like Gideon's army of 300, more useful to God than a far larger one made up of unfit soldiers? Did not the great churches of the New Testament lose members at times through apostasy. Did this prove them wrong? And did the fact that some gained in size and prominence as they compromised with paganism prove them right?
Churches need to be concerned for growth. They need to pray for it, plan for it, and work for it. And if growth stops or even slows, the cause needs to be sought. But may the Lord pity us if we become more concerned with the figures on the board than with the Faith in the Bible — with statistics than with scripture.
The great church at Jerusalem, referred to above, lived only thirty-four years. But, in the words of J. W. McGarvey, "It died as it had lived, in obedience to its Lord. It died as the sun dies at set of day, when it sinks amid a bank of clouds, and fills all the heavens with glory. 0 what a church was that!" Better thus to die in obedience, than to live by compromise. Better to reduce on a diet of truth, than to grow fat on "the king's dainties."
— 108 French Way, Athens, Alabama