Reviewing Brother Roy H. Lanier On Congregational Co-Operation (VII.)
In the Gospel Advocate of October 13, Brother Lanier writes on "Congregational Cooperation" under five topic headings.
"Principles Governing Congregational Cooperation" He Began This Topic With These Two Sentences:
"The church is authorized to operate in three distinct realms, or fields, of activity: 1. evangelization; 2. edification; 3. ministration. There is no set 'pattern' for its operation in either field."
If there is no set pattern for the church's operation in these three fields, why can't all the churches send donations to a missionary society, and operate in the field of evangelization through a missionary society? Why can't they all send donations to a Bible college, and operate in the field of edification through a Bible college? Why can't they all send donations to the Red Cross or some other human benevolent organization, and operate in the field of ministration through a benevolent society? There is a "set pattern" for the churches' operating in these three fields, and that same set pattern which forbids the churches' sending donations to these institutions also forbids the churches' sending donations to a sponsoring church.
"Organization And Activity Within The Framework Of Local Church"
Under this topic subject, Brother Lanier makes several observations:
"We must keep all activities whether in the field of evangelization, edification, or ministration to the poor within the framework of the local church."
Brother Lanier, if "there is no set pattern" for the churches' operation in these three fields, as you positively have said, why must the churches keep all activities in these fields within the framework of the local church?
Can't you see that you contradict yourself every time you turn around?
"Our Lord gave the local church sufficient organization to take care of all the work he intended for it to do."
Exactly so; but that is the very thing that Brother Lanier has been denying. In the Gospel Advocate of October 6, he argued that a small church "could never have a part in caring for orphans and aged," and he named several other things which he said a little church could not do within the framework of its local organization. He contended that a little church must do this work through the framework of another organization — a sponsoring church — by sending its money to it. He argued that God did not give to "many small churches" sufficient organization to take care of the work that the Lord intended for them to do; that they must do that work through the organization which God gave to the sponsoring church, but did not give to "little churches." My anti-Bible brother has contracted a chronic case of contradictions.
"To keep the work of the church within the framework of the local church simply means that all is to be done under the oversight of the elders, or bishops."
Certainly so. Now will Brother Lanier please answer these questions? The elders of a local church can oversee scripturally the work of how many local churches? Can the elders of a local church scripturally surrender the oversight of any part of its work to the elders of a sister church?
If Brother Lanier is saying that the oversight of the work of a local church must be kept within its own framework, he is stating the truth, but he is contradicting himself. In the Gospel Advocate of September 29, he argued and drew a diagram to prove that the only way that churches can cooperate is by surrendering the oversight of their resources to a central agency, preferably a sponsoring church. He said "there is no cooperation about it," when a church in Nashville, a church in Dallas and a church in Abilene act independently and send support directly to a preacher in Africa, like "other churches" sent to Paul in Corinth. (II Cor. 11:8.) Also, in the Gospel Advocate of October 6, he said that it is "unwise" for churches to act independently and send support directly to a preacher, like Philippi sent to Paul; he argued that it is "wiser today" to take that work of sending support to a preacher out of the framework of the local church and place it under the oversight of the elders of a sponsoring church. I have heard many Baptist preachers in debate; they all frequently contradicted themselves; but I never heard one who could contradict himself as many times in as few words as Brother Lanier can.
"If every local church on earth should voluntarily cooperate in some work, such as preaching the gospel, that would not be an act of the church universal as a corporate body."
Certainly not, "if every local church on earth" sent support directly to the preachers on the field, like Philippi and "other churches" sent it to Paul, which Brother Lanier says is unwise "today"; however, "if every local church on earth should voluntarily cooperate in some work, such as preaching the gospel," by sending donations to either a missionary society or a sponsoring church, that certainly would be an "act of the church universal as a corporate body"; and if Brother Lanier cannot see it, he is voluntarily blind.
"Local Church Autonomy To Be Protected"
Regarding the cooperation of the churches in sending relief to the poor saints in Jerusalem, Brother Lanier says this:
"Their gifts were put together in one sum, one purse and taken by Paul to Jerusalem. Did Corinth lose her autonomy when she gave her money to Paul?"
That "their gifts were put in one sum, one purse and taken by Paul to Jerusalem" is just another "probably" of one of Brother Lanier's (see Gospel Advocate, Sept. 29, page 870) "deeply respected" denominational commentators.
He neither quoted a verse of scripture nor gave a reference to show how that money was transported to Jerusalem; but here is what Paul said about it: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me." (I Cor. 16:1-4.)
Paul gave exactly the same three-fold "order" to the churches of Galatia that he gave to the church at Corinth: (1) They must lay by in store; (2) they must approve their own carriers of this money; (3) the men approved by these churches must carry that money to Jerusalem; Paul said, "They shall go with me." On how that money was carried to Jerusalem, Lanier and Paul do not tell it the same way at all. One or the other is wrong. Since Brother Lanier said in the Gospel Advocate of October 6, that the way Philippi sent support to Paul is "unwise" today, he may think that Paul is wrong in what he says about carrying the money to Jerusalem; but I think Paul told it right, and Lanier is wrong.
No, the churches did not lose their autonomy when they placed their contributions in the hands of their chosen carriers for delivery in Jerusalem; because they were nothing more than transporting agencies. Churches do not lose their autonomy today when they turn over their contributions to the postal service for delivery to destitute churches and gospel preachers in Africa; because the postal service is nothing more than a transporting agency.
But churches certainly do lose their autonomy when they turn over their money to a Don Carlos Janes, or a sponsoring church or a missionary society, because these are more than transporting agencies; they are managing agencies. Is anybody dumb enough to conclude that a Don Carlos Janes, or a sponsoring church, or a missionary society is nothing more than a transporting agency?
"Sense Of Local Church Responsibility To Be Guarded"
When many churches sent contributions to Jerusalem, a church that was so poor that it could not do the work which was strictly its own, the work to which it bore a relationship that no other church bore, a work whose oversight it had no right to transfer to another eldership; the contributing churches did not lose their autonomy, and under these conditions their gifts did not cause the contributors to lose their sense of responsibility at home.
However, if any church had set itself up as a sponsoring church and had said to other churches: "Send us your money; send us your orphans, aged and other indigent; we will take care of them; this will be our work; we will be the sole authority on how your poor are fed, clothed and sheltered; this work will be under our oversight; we will not delegate any authority of this work to any man; send us your money quick, and we will do the rest"; then every church that contributed to such an arrangement would have lost that much of its autonomy. And it has been proved over and over again that many churches that contribute regularly to such an arrangement have lost their sense of responsibility to their poor at home. That sponsoring church at Gunter has caused some well-known preachers and elders to lose their sense of responsibility to their own aged parents and grandparents, and they have sent them to the institution in Gunter for the church to support, while these children and grandchildren of these old people enjoy financial income far above the average. Does Brother Lanier want me to name some "big" preachers and elders who have done and are doing that very thing? I have their names and addresses.
"Abuses Should Not Prevent Right Uses"
Under this topic heading, Brother Lanier makes no attempt at either reason or argument. Here he spreads his malice and contempt for the people whom he calls "my anti-cooperation brethren" over more than three-fourths of a column in the Gospel Advocate where he knows that the brethren who disagree with his views on centralized control cannot write one word in reply to his insults.
He has much to say about "sanctified common sense" which he thinks the brethren who disagree with him do not have. He contemptuously calls them "guardians of the gospel."
"Sanctified common sense." In his article Brother Lanier has said: (1) that the way "Philippi sent to Paul" is "unwise"; (2) that "there is no cooperation about it," when churches send wages to preachers, as "other churches" sent to Paul, unless they send it first to a sponsoring church, or some other agency; (3) that Paul meant by the term, "equality," that the giving churches must "bring the receiving church up to exactly the same degree of financial strength which they possessed." Now, if that is "sanctified common sense," I am glad that my "common sense" is not "sanctified."
"Guardians of the gospel." Up to the day that I am writing this (Oct. 18), Brother Lanier has written five long articles — more than fifteen columns in the Gospel Advocate — on "Congregational Cooperation," but he has not quoted one verse of scripture. In his current article (Oct. 13), he did not give even a scripture reference; the more he writes the further he gets from the Bible. Therefore, in view of his total abstinence from Bible quotations, I safely can say that no honest man will ever call him a "guardian of the gospel."
Brother Lanier uses this title, "guardians of the gospel," in contempt; I consider it an honor, and pray that I may be worthy to be called a "guardian of the gospel." Many gospel preachers of today are humble "guardians of the gospel." And Brother Lanier cannot disgrace that noble title, regardless of how hard he tries, unless he starts to calling himself a "guardian of the gospel"; that would bring it down in a hurry.