Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 3
December 20, 1951
NUMBER 33, PAGE 4-5a

How Confused Can A Man Get?

Editorial

One basic error, stupendous and monstrous, lies at the bottom of much of the present disagreement over the orphan home and Christian college matters. And that error is what seems to be an utter inability to differentiate between the church, an orphan home, and a college. This confusion is outstanding in the writings of several men who have been prominent as gospel preachers and writers for more years than this writer is old. One is astonished (and, frankly, somewhat depressed) at the egregious error so apparent in their thinking. When some bewildered brother demands a "scripture" to justify a private business enterprise in the matter of employing a financial agent, thereby showing that he totally identifies the private enterprise and the Lord's church as one and the same, we may smile at his confusion and try sympathetically to help him. But when men like G. C. Brewer and I. A. Douthitt, who for more than two-score years have enjoyed the confidence of thousands of brethren make the same mistake, it is no laughing matter. It is depressing and alarming. It creates confusion and chaos.

The Error

That these two brethren are unable to distinguish between the church, a work of the church, and a private work of a Christian, is evident from their recent writings. A few weeks ago brother Douthitt showed his obfuscation by submitting a proposition which clearly joined a work of the church with what is not a work of the church, declaring that the elders have the same right to use the church's money for both works that an individual Christian has to support both works. Here is his proposition:

"The elders of a church of Christ, as God's stewards have the right to use the money of the church to support a Christian school (such as David Lipscomb College) and an orphan home (such as Spring Hill, Tennessee, Home) as the individual Christian has to use his money to support these institutions."

This proposition was so jumbled and confusing, putting church work and non-church work in the same bag and shaking them up together that we commented:

'Brother Douthitt's proposition that the elders of the church 'have the same right' to do something as the individual Christian has to do something else (which proposition G. C. Brewer wants to defend) convince us that brethren Brewer and Douthitt ought to enroll in James Bales' class in logic over at Harding College."

Brother Brewer considered our observation as "impotent and impudent," and under the caption of "LOGIC" in the Gospel Advocate of November 8, had this to say about it:

"You guessed it, that was in the Overflow. But Douthitt did not even suggest that somebody has the same right to do something that someone else had to do something else! It was the same something that the agents contemplated has the same right to do. There was no "else" in the proposition that scared the Guardian gentry into genuflections. The proposition says that the elders have the same right to do the something that the Guardian has hitherto contended that the individual should do. Same right...same act!

Comment

If you aren't dizzy by this time, we'd like to straighten out a few elementary facts, and help brother Brewer to see where he jumped the track. Here is what is, and has been, the Guardian's "contention":

1. A school is a private endeavor, engaging in that which is NOT the work of the church; its work is no part of the mission of the church. As such, it is perfectly right for Christians to support—but not for the church.

2. The care of orphan children IS an obligation of the church, and the church not only can support them, but should.

3. Any organization or institution, set up apart from the church, designed "to do the work of the church, is wrong and sinful The church is "to do the work of the church"; and it is wrong for any congregation, or any individual Christian, to support a rival organization or institution.

Now, with that in mind, let us analyze brother Douthitt's proposition:

"The elders of a church of Christ, as God's stewards have the same right to use the money of the church to support a rival institution which is set up "to do the work of the church" (an institutional orphan home) as the individual Christian has to use his money to support a private endeavor which is not set up "to do the work of the church" (a Christian college).

That is exactly what Douthitt's proposition calls for—the elders having the same right to use the church's money in support of an institutional orphan home as the individual Christian has to give his money to a secular school. And that's exactly why we said that:

"Brother Douthitt's proposition that the elders of the church 'have the same right' to do something (support an institutional orphan home) as the individual Christian has to do something else (contribute to a secular institution)...convince us that brethren Brewer and Douthitt ought to enroll in James Bales' class in logic over at Harding College."

We still think they ought to enroll. Brother Brewer has not yet seen that the Douthitt proposition (which he wants to defend) requires him to put church work and non-church work on an identical basis; requires him to defend an institution to do the work of the church, and assumes that the opposition concedes the right of an individual Christian to support that institution. Which assumption is utterly wrong.

We are not particularly disturbed at the verbal brickbats brother Brewer throws in our direction. He has long been a past master in the art of invective and ridicule. We are no match for him, and have no special interest in trying to rival him in that field. To tell the truth, he is so extremely clever in his handling of the pyrotechnics of sarcasm that we can't keep from occasionally admiring the art and artistry of the truly accomplished craftsman. And we are certainly not without appreciation for his wit. We hope we never reach the place where we can't enjoy a good chuckle from a well-turned phrase or a sparkling sally, even when the shaft is intended for our vitals. We have enjoyed, and do enjoy, the "vinegar" of the Brewer pen.

But when the church of the Lord is involved in the affair, and when thousands of honest-hearted brethren are being confused and bewildered and discouraged by his teachings, that is another matter. We can not, and will not, stand silently by and see him and others who think like him saddle the church with an unbearable "institutionalism"; we will not tolerate without protest the burgeoning bureaucracy in the church.

As for brother Brewer's suggestion that the "Guardian gentry" cast their lot with Sommer's paper—well, that is his usual appeal to prejudices. It certainly doesn't contribute anything toward a solution of some grave problems facing the church; although we can see how it would vastly simplify what brother Brewer is trying to do. We believe certain brethren are determined to use their influence and abilities to promote institutionalism within the churches—and we know there are many of us who are set to oppose such a course. And so the matter stands.

— F.Y.T.