False Premises
In recent articles by brother E. R. Harper, and in earlier articles by brother G. C. Brewer and brother Batsell Baxter, all appearing in the Gospel Advocate, certain conclusions have been drawn and applications made from Acts 11:29-30, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 which are wholly unjustified and false. I think these brethren would not have perverted these passages had they not been pressed for some way to justify certain idols they have in their hearts; but it is a tragic weakness that we sometimes find ourselves practicing something and then begin to hunt for some means of justifying ourselves.
The argument made from these passages runs like this:
- A famine arose in Judea.
- Various churches contributed to the relief of destitute saints in Judea.
- These churches combined their contributions and forwarded them by means of chosen messengers.
- This contribution for the Judean brethren was all turned over to the elders of the Jerusalem church.
- The elders of the Jerusalem church distributed this fund among all the brethren in Judea as they had need and as the Jerusalem brethren saw fit.
The conclusion drawn from these premises is that it is scriptural for a number of churches today to contribute to one church and thus enable that church to carry on a program of work for them all — such as 1080 churches contributing to the Highland Avenue Church so that this congregation can preach the gospel over the radio for all of these 1080 contributing churches.
Another conclusion drawn is that one eldership can oversee a program of work for many churches because the Jerusalem elders had the oversight of the distribution of benevolence among all the churches of Judea.
If these premises are justified by the passages cited, then we would readily admit that the conclusions are warranted. Even then, however, we doubt that the brethren who so apply these passages would be willing to accept their own conclusions all the way.
What Was The Agency?
If the churches of Antioch, Macedonia, and Achaia all combined their funds through one agency to do this benevolent work, what was the agency in which they combined the funds? Were the funds combined in the messengers, and did they have the authority or control over the funds? If so, then many churches can combine and turn their funds over to individuals chosen by them to control and exercise jurisdiction over the funds. If this be true, what would be wrong with a number of churches (even 1080 — or more; or all the churches as for that) electing one group of individuals to have the oversight of all "missionary" work done by them? Would it not follow that a board of elected or selected individuals could operate as an agency through which the churches could do all of their work? In this case we would need a Missionary Board, a Benevolence Board, an Edification or Education Board, etc., for each major phase of the churches' work. How would these boards be elected or selected? Would it be by a general assembly, or by each congregation doing its own selecting? How would such Board members be nominated? Would one church nominate its messengers to serve for all, or would the messengers nominated by one church vie for the approval of all the churches with the messengers nominated by another church? Or would these messengers be self-nominated?
But if the funds of all the contributing churches in these passages were not combined in these messengers, but were combined in the Jerusalem Church when delivered to its elders, then all these messengers did was to act as a medium of getting the contributions from the churches giving into the hands of the eldership receiving. In this case an eldership of a congregation becomes the medium through which all of the churches can act to fulfill their mission in any work appointed by the Lord.
These brethren (Harper, Brewer, and Baxter) should take a position one way or the other. Is it the messengers selected by the churches in 2 Corinthians 8 which justifies Highland Avenue Church in receiving funds from 1080 churches to do the radio preaching for all? The fatal mistake here is in making an individual parallel to a church. An individual can be the messenger of a church. No one has questioned that. But how would that justify the Methodists for condemning their church organization. It is really much more efficient than our "sponsoring church" and "centralized control and oversight" practice. Which is it?
The brethren are having a most difficult time deciding how to defend their illegitimate promotions. Brother Buchanan and others have tried to defend Herald of Truth on the ground that it is simply one church furnishing the medium or instrument through which many churches are able to operate in doing their work. Brother Malone compared Highland Church to a faucet through which a stream of water was pouring, the water and the pressure coming from a great number of other sources. The "faucet" does not supply the water; it is only the a church being the agent of another church? Agency carries with it always the idea of subordination. An individual can be subordinate to a church; but how can one church be subordinate to another church?
If the funds of all these contributing churches were not combined and managed by the individual messengers, then the messengers prove nothing with reference to the Herald of Truth or "sponsoring churches" of any kind.
If the funds of all these contributing churches were combined in the hands of the Jerusalem elders and administered by them among all the churches of Judea, then cannot the eldership of one congregation oversee the work of all the churches in a state or in the nation? Would that not exalt one eldership over other elders? Is that not a diocesan eldership, or an episcopal form of church government? Should such elders be appropriately designated as "presiding elders"?
Did not the other churches in Judea have elders? There were other churches in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14); elders in every church was God's established order. (Acts 14:32) In the absence of any testimony to the contrary we can presume that the churches of God in Judea followed God's established order and had elders. Were the Jerusalem elders overseeing the distribution of benevolence in other congregations which had their own elders? If the Jerusalem elders could determine, control, and oversee the distribution of benevolence among other churches, could they not administer discipline among other churches, oversee their work of edification or their work of evangelism? If not, why not? The principle would be exactly the same. And if one eldership can oversee anything done in another congregation, by the same authority, logic, and for the same reason, they can oversee ALL of the work done in that other congregation. If not, why not? In such event, what would the elders of the church do whose work is overseen by another eldership? What part did the elders of the other churches of. God in Judea have in the benevolence done among their flock by the Jerusalem elders?
And if all of this can be done, we should apologize to outlet or instrument for it. Others, including, I understand, the Herald of Truth preachers, have the idea that it is SOLELY and wholly the work of Highland Church, and that the other congregations are simply contributing to Highland Church to help her do HER work.
If this latter contention be right, then Brother Harper is clearly wrong in trying to use the Jerusalem church as an example of one church doing the work among all the churches of Judea. These brethren should get their minds settled on the grounds of their defense, if any. As it is they are contradicting each other in their efforts at defense.
But what are the facts concerning the premises numbered in the beginning of this article? We shall show next week just how false are the premises on which their conclusions are being based.