Reviewing Brother Roy H. Lanier On Congregational Cooperation -- (I)

Cecil B. Douthitt, Brownwood, Texas

The first in a series of articles on "Congregational Cooperation," by my good friend Brother Roy H. Lanier, appeared in the Gospel Advocate of August 25, 1955, in which he, with obvious sincerity, promised to be considerate, impartial, unbiased, fair and free from misrepresentations and ugly personalities in the discussion of this subject.

He said that he had no intention of misrepresenting either the scriptures or his brethren, and if he should unwittingly do so, he would be glad to make immediate correction, on having his attention called to it. Now, that is the kind of brother with whom I like to discuss religious issues.

Brother Lanier says that, as far as he knows, he does not have "even one enemy among the brethren," and that he intends "for it to be that way when this discussion is over." I number him among my friends; I am not his enemy; I shall not be his enemy when this discussion is over. "I think if I have a reputation for anything" among those who know me best, it is freedom from bitterness toward those with whom I differ.

I appreciate every good intention and every noble promise expressed in Brother Lanier's first article, and the only thing that I can see wrong with them is that he broke every one of his promises in his introductory article: not intentionally, but "unwittingly."

In his promise of "freedom from personalities," he said:

"But this time I plan to refrain, not only from ugly personalities, but from all personalities. I do not intend to call the name of any brother on either side of this issue."

But he hastens to state plainly that he is going to call these brethren, "anti-cooperation brethren," who differ with him on certain points of church cooperation, though he knows "that these brethren will take exception to this term." He expressed determination to refrain from such "ugly personalities" as calling "the name of any brother," to which the brother might not object; but he is determined to call his brother by a name to which he says he knows they will object. He gives his reason why he will persist in calling them by a prejudicial namewhich misrepresents them: he says, "I can produce abundant proof that consistency will force them to accept the term without qualification or limitation."

All of this reminds me of Baptist preachers with whom we used to debate many years ago in Kentucky and Tennessee. They would start their first speeches by telling how courteously and gentlemanly they were determined to act throughout the debate; but before the first speech ended, they were calling us "Campbellites." And their reason for doing so usually ran about like this: "I am aware that these brethren will take exception to this term, but I can produce abundant proof that consistency will force them to accept the term 'Campbellite' without qualification or limitation, for I have abundant proof that Alexander Campbell is their spiritual daddy." We usually would reply that their calling us by a name to which we objected was due either to ignorance or meanness.

I do not mean to imply that Brother Lanier's calling his brethren by a prejudicial name is due to ignorance or meanness; I just do not know why he wants to act like that, and persist in his avowed purpose to call his brethren by names to which he says that he knows they will object. Some say that men do that, because they know their weak position cannot be sustained in any other way; they may be right; I do not know.

The missionary society advocates are quite adept in hurling such names as "anti-cooperatives," "non-progressives" and "anti-missionary" at brethren who do not believe in the missionary society type of congregational cooperation; but does that prove we are "noncooperative"? Why can't Brother Lanier see that the name "anti-cooperation brethren" as used by the missionary society promoters, is a misrepresentation of those who do not believe in the missionary society type of congregational cooperation? Why can't he see that his own use of that ugly term is a misrepresentation of those who do not agree with his "sponsoring church" type of cooperation?

Brother Lanier says that he himself does "not agree exactly with some of these brethren in all matters of organization," who are promoting benevolent homes "and a nation-wide radio program." Well, is he himself one of these "anti-cooperation brethren"?

Since Brother Lanier and I are real good friends, and since we both mean to keep it that way, and since we both are praying "that through sincere study and frank discussion we may find common and scriptural ground on which to do every good work the Lord expects his people to do"; will he please be kind enough to answer the following questions?

1. Brother Lanier does "not agree exactly with some of these brethren in all matters of organization," who are promoting benevolent homes "and a nation-wide radio program." Question: Will he name and try to correct, in the pages of the Gospel Advocate, those points on which he does "not agree exactly" pertaining to "matters of organization" in the benevolent homes "and a nation-wide radio program"? Why keep these erroneous "matters of organization" a secret?
2. Some "good honest brethren" connected with the Gospel Advocate argue that churches should cooperate by sending contributions to Bible colleges; but the Advocate brethren are not in agreement at all on this question; some contend that that type of "congregational cooperation" is unscriptural. Brother Lanier cannot be on both sides at the same time, regardless of how hard he may try. Question: Which side is he on now, and why in he on that side? Peter said something about being ready always to give answer to every man that asks for a reason for the hope that is in you. Is Brother Lanier ready to give answer? If not, when will he be ready?
3. Some "good honest brethren" connected with the Gospel Advocate teach that churches should cooperate by sending donations to benevolent societies under a board of directors (such as Boles Home); but the Advocate brethren are not in agreement at all on this question; some say that such "congregational cooperation" is as unscriptural as the missionary society type of congregational cooperation. Question: Which side is Brother Lanier on, and why is he on that side? He may not have the courage to tell which side he is on and why he is on it, but everybody knows that he cannot be on both sides at the same time.
4. Some brethren contend that ecumenical charity should be under the oversight of an eldership (such as Tipton Home and the Lubbock brotherhood project) and that other churches should cooperate by sending donations to these "sponsoring churches" for a benevolent work to which the contributing churches and the receiving churches are equally related; but others say that this type of congregational cooperation is unscriptural. Question: Which side is Brother Lanier on, and why is he on that side?
5. Brother Lanier says that if he should "unwittingly misrepresent" either the scriptures or his brethren, he would make "immediate correction." He certainly misrepresents his brethren in his use of the name "anti-cooperation brethren," because those brethren do believe in every kind of "congregational cooperation" for which there is any scriptural authority at all.
   1. They believe that congregations may cooperate in sending wages to preachers in distant places. (II Cor. 11:8.)
   2. They believe that churches may cooperate by appointing and using the same "messengers" in going and teaching other churches their duty toward poor saints in any disaster area. (II Cor. 8:19, 23.)
   3. They believe that churches should cooperate in sending relief to poor churches that are not able to do the work which is peculiarly their own. (II Cor. 8 and 9.)
   4. They believe that congregations may cooperate in using the same agents to transport funds and to contact the receiving churches in all needy areas. (II Cor. 8:20-23; I Cor. 16:3.)
   5. They can give book, chapter and verse for every type of "congregational cooperation" which they endorse, and they gladly would endorse the missionary society and the benevolent society type of congregational cooperation, if the promoters thereof would present one passage of scripture authorizing it; and they gladly would endorse Brother Lanier's "sponsoring church" type of "congregational cooperation," if he would present one passage of scripture which shows that any church ever sent a donation to another church, except when the receiving church was in want.

Question: Will Brother Lanier keep his promise and "make immediate correction" of his misrepresenting his brethren in his use of the prejudicial term "anti-cooperation brethren," of which he became guilty "unwittingly"?

6. Brother Lanier claims that he has something to "force" some of his brethren to "accept" the unsavory title, "anti-cooperation brethren," without "qualification or limitation." What a claim! A few denominational preachers have made the claim that they had proof to "force" us to "accept" the protested term, "Campbellite." These claims are totally false, and nearly everybody knows they are false, except Brother Lanier and a few denominational preachers; for there is no power on earth to "force" any people to "accept" any name against their will. His brethren cannot keep him from carrying out his avowed purpose to call them by a name to which he says he knows they object; but that is far from proving that they will ever accept his ugly names, or that he has a weapon to "force" them to do it.

Question: Will Brother Lanier withdraw this false claim of supernatural power, which he made "unwittingly"?

In my next installment, I shall try to get Brother Lanier to look at some of the glaring errors in his "Two-Parallel-Movements-Pattern" argument.

In the meantime, you may be wondering how these sponsoring church brethren can write so much and never quote a verse of scripture in their endeavor to prove that their hobby is scriptural. Shall we call them "anti-Bible brethren"? Well, not yet; let's wait a little while and see.