"Round And Round The Mulberry Bush" Or Thomas B. Warren's "Monkey Business" (IV.)
It was pointed out in last week's article that one of the fallacies of Brother Warren's argument on "Cooperation Between New Testament Churches" (Gospel Advocate, December 15, 29, 1955) is the ambiguous use of terms. In his "Elements in the Proposition," No. 6, he says:
"A congregation may have the right to do a work for which it has no specific obligation — that is, it may not be obligated to do this work in just this specific particular way, but at the same time it may have the right to do so."
That Brother Warren is both confused and confusing is not a debatable point, for "a proposition which can be demonstrated is not debatable." That Brother Warren is both confused and confusing is indubitably demonstrated in the quotation given above. He speaks of a "specific particular way." A specific way can hardly be anything but particular, and a particular way can hardly be anything but specific. Too, the word, "work," is used in two senses in the one sentence of "Element 6." It is used generically to mean the God-given work of the church, and specifically of a "way" of accomplishing this work.
Our brother says, "A congregation may have a right to do a work for which it has no specific obligation ...." This is not true in the sense in which the word, "work," is commonly used in the present controversy over "centralized control and oversight." The work of a New Testament church is authorized by its only and all-sufficient head, the Christ. Its work is to "edify the saved, care for the needy, and to preach the gospel to the alien sinner." This work, it has both the right and obligation to perform. Any other work, it has neither the right nor obligation to perform. Brother Warren misuses the word, "work," by using it in the sense of a "particular way" by means of which a church does its God-given work. He explains the first statement of element 6 by saying, "That is, it may not be obligated to do this work in just this specific particular way ...." In this statement, he indicates that by the word, "work," as used in the first part of the sentence he means a "specific particular way" of doing "this work." What, then, does he mean by "this work"? Inasmuch as Brother Warren, immediately after publicizing his new (?) argument, associated himself as chief funneling agent with Brother E. R. Harper in the Abilene Debate, we can logically and correctly assume that he meant by "this work" the preaching of the gospel to the lost, and by "specific particular way" that he meant such things as "The Herald of Truth" radio and television program. Hence, our charge, that he is guilty of an ambiguous use of terms in his argument, is abundantly demonstrated.
What Warren Is Actually Obligated To Prove
A careful reading of Brother Warren's "Elements of the Proposition" as given in last week's article will reveal that he must prove:
That in the work of preaching the gospel to the lost (a work to which all congregations are equally related), a congregation is authorized by the scriptures to plan and attempt a program of activity which she knows (at the time of planning it) she does not have the ability to perform, and for the accomplishment of which she proposes to solicit, receive into her treasury, and to spend the funds of a plurality of congregations.
This is actually what our brother is trying to prove without saying so. You will note that Brother Warren wants to discuss in his proposition the right of a church to send to a church doing what we have described above. Like many others who have defended "institutionalism" and "centralized control and oversight," our brother would like to hang the issue on the question of the rights of a congregation in the use of her funds. Prove that a missionary cooperative such as the society has the right to exist and there can be no question as to the right of congregations to contribute thereunto. The issue among churches of Christ today has been created by promoters (individuals and churches — elders within churches) setting up such cooperatives as "The Herald of Truth." This is the front door of the issue, Brother Warren. Face up to it!
Warren's Inductive Proof Of The Truth Of His Minor Premise
We have previously suggested that a sound induction must: (1) contain a sufficient number of details; (2) each detail must be irrefutable — the chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Brother Warren's major premise is an awkward rephrasing of the old mathematical proposition: "The whole is equal to the sum of all its parts." In view of this fact, our brother must (1) have all the parts of his "centralized control" arrangement clearly set forth in the scriptures. Does his argument set forth this proof? We shall see!
To test the strength of our brother's inductive reasoning, let us observe his component parts of the whole, or as he calls them, "constituent elements of the total situation."
"Listing of the Constituent Elements of the Total Situation Described in the Proposition"
1. "Every congregation has the right to preach the gospel in any geographical area of the world.
2. Every congregation has the right to seek to accomplish its own work.
3. A congregation has the right to assume (undertake) the oversight of a work to which another congregation sustained an equal relationship prior to the assumption (undertaking) of oversight.
4. A congregation has the right to oversee the accomplishing of a work the total accomplishing of which exceeds its financial ability.
5. One church has the right to help (send funds to, etc.) another congregation to do its own work when the receiving church is unable to do its own work; that is, one church may give to another church to meet a want.
6. One church may help another church to accomplish its (the receiving church) own work
7. Even when the need for help was not brought about by catastrophic causes.
8. Evangelism as well as benevolence may be involved in such cooperation.
9. A church may have the right to undertake a work for which it does not have a specific obligation."
In a moment, we shall discuss these elements and our brother's attempt to sustain them, but we should like to suggest at this point a list of component parts or "constituent elements" of the proposition which we have set forth as that which Brother Warren is actually obligated to prove.
Constituent Elements Warren Is Obligated To Prove Scriptural If He Establishes What He Is
Actually Obligated To Prove
1. Congregations being equally related to the preaching of the gospel in all the world, every congregation has the right to preach the gospel in any geographical area of the world.
2. Every congregation has the right to seek to preach the gospel by any righteous means (Ex.: a network radio program) in any geographical area of the world.
3. A congregation has the right to plan and/or attempt to accomplish a program of activity designed to accomplish the preaching of the gospel to the lost which is beyond her financial ability.
4. A congregation, having planned and/or attempted to accomplish a program of activity designed to accomplish the preaching of the gospel to the lost which she knows to be beyond her financial ability, may solicit, receive, and disburse the funds of other congregations for the accomplishment of said program of activity.
It would please us no end to see our brother address himself to the proof of the thing he is actually obligated to prove. The constituent elements which we have suggested have definite relation to the thing to be proved, are logically related to one another, and are both cumulative and conclusive in their effect. In addition, they are less in number than his arrangement, yet comprehend the whole of the "situation" which is the occasion of the present controversy among churches of the Lord.
Testing The "Constituent Elements Of The Total Situation"
No. 1 is true but not in an unqualified sense. If alone, considered independently, it is untrue. A congregation has the right and obligation to preach the gospel anywhere in the world to the extent of her ability. She has neither the right nor obligation to attempt what she has not the ability to perform in this realm.
In No. 2, Brother Warren does some of his juggling of terms to which reference has been made. Grant any embezzler on earth the privileges with his company's books which our brother takes in presenting his arguments and he can forever escape detection and prosecution. He talks about a universal right of congregations in No. 1, but introduces the expression, "own work," in No. 2. In doing so, he breaks the cumulative force of his induction. Preaching the gospel to the whole world can be the right of a congregation and not at the same time be its "own work," in an exclusive sense. Why does our brother not employ 'the same terms in the same extent of meaning? If the term "work" means the God-given task of preaching the gospel to the lost that is obligatory on every Element No. 3 actually affirms that when a group of elders assume oversight of an activity, it becomes the exclusive work of the congregation they serve regardless of its inability to perform the task. Before reputable witnesses. Brother Warren has gone so far as to take the position that the work could involve all of the "mission" work of all the churches in the entire world. He has further declared that such is true even if the matter has progressed no further than "a plan." We would still like to see Brother Warren affirm:
"The scriptures teach that a single congregation may assume the oversight of the evangelizing of congregation, we can accept the statement that it is the right of every church to seek to accomplish her "own work." If our brother Means that a congregation may attempt anything in this field of endeavor (the preaching of the gospel to the lost) which she desires regardless of her ability, we must respectfully deny it. This he must prove. It cannot be assumed.
In No. 3, we have another wonderful example of Warren's ambiguity. He talks about a church having the right to "assume oversight of a work." Where in his New Testament does he read about churches "assuming oversight of works"? A congregation works. Elders oversee the congregation and its work. Elders are overseers of the flock (a single congregation) which is their charge. All of this is taught in the New Testament. But where does it teach that a church "oversees a work"? Warren uses the term "work" in this element in a specific sense. He uses a piece of property bought by a congregation in an effort to preach the gospel to the lost — "establish a new congregation" — as an illustration of his use of the term, "work." His chain of induction began in No. 1 with the "right of a congregation to preach the gospel." Preaching the gospel was the "work" of the church to which all are equally related. In No. 3, Brother Warren has hopped from the generic to the specific — from preaching the gospel to purchasing a lot. It is his contention that churches A and B were equally related to a lot before it was bought; that A desiring to preach the gospel and feeling that the lot is necessary to the accomplishment of her objective, buys the lot; that A, having bought the lot, sustains a peculiar relationship to it, hence that it is her exclusive work. The thing Warren does not seem to be able to see is that congregation B never did sustain any relationship whatever to the lot in question. Congregations are equally related to the work of preaching of the gospel to the lost, not equally related to some specific activity designed to accomplish this work. If congregation A can buy a lot in territory D and utilize it in preaching the gospel to the lost, it is her right to do so. If she does not have the ability to purchase a lot in territory D for the purpose of preaching the gospel, she does not have either the scriptural or moral right to attempt it. Congregation B is equally related with congregation A to the preaching of the gospel to the lost in territory D or anywhere else. Congregation A does not have the right to seek to usurp the rights of congregation B by asking congregation B to give up her funds to congregation A that congregation A may function in a work (preaching the gospel in territory D) to which each bears an equal relationship. Brother Warren could have delivered his readers from all this confusion if he would have refrained from an ambiguous use of terms.
Element No. 3 actually affirms that when a group of elders assume oversight of an activity, it becomes the exclusive work of the congregation they serve regardless of its inability to perform the task. Before reputable witnesses. Brother Warren has gone so far as to take the position that the work could involve all of the "mission" work of all the churches in the entire world. He has further declared that such is true even if the matter has progressed no further than "a plan." We would still like to see Brother Warren affirm:
"The scriptures teach that a single congregation may assume the oversight of the evangelizing of the whole world and that all churches may contribute to her for the accomplishment of this work."
Element No. 3 obligates Brother Warren to such an affirmation. Will he do it? I think not!
Brother Warren assumes a terrible dilemma. He says that, if element No. 3, be denied, "(a) the church has work to be done, (b) does not have the right to undertake." Such nonsense is appalling. The work of the New Testament congregation is to preach the gospel to the lost (among other things) to the extent of her ability. She may do this by holding meetings, preaching over the radio, distributing tracts, etc., etc. Churches are equally related to the task of preaching to the lost, not to some specific activity of some specific church in this realm. However, may it be repeated, this does not authorize a church to attempt in this field any activity which she does not have the ability to perform, and for the accomplishment of which, she knows she must depend upon other churches surrendering their funds to her. This is the point with which Brother Warren must deal. He tries after awhile. We shall see next week how successfully.