If They Are Expedient, What Then?
(Editor's note: This excellent article strikes at the very heart of current controversies. The highest sanction that anybody has ever claimed for present-day promotions such as Herald of Truth, institutional orphanages, church contributions to the colleges, etc., has been that these things are "expedients," that is, they are PERMISSIBLE. Brother Wilson takes the argument from there; assuming that everything anybody has ever claimed for the projects is true, what then? Read this article. It is one of the best we have printed in many weeks.)
It becomes increasingly apparent that all of the lines of argumentation and discussion in the current controversy over benevolent societies (separate from the church to do the work of the church) and sponsoring type church cooperation are converging on one focal point. After several years of theological "smoke-screen," during which time we have been treated to a parade of sectarian commentaries, and have uncovered some hitherto undiscovered talent in the fields of Greek and Logic, it now becomes obvious that the major battle ground of the present controversy will be on the matter of expediency. In the debates, articles, and sermons on these subjects in recent months, the so called "law of expediency" has been the major argument presented. In reading from some of the men who are considered to be the leading men in defense of these human arrangements, we find a definite pattern of thinking being expressed:
Guy N. Woods: "When God gives a command and doesn't specify the way in which the command is to be carried out, then the way becomes expedient." (Speech on Benevolent Work of the Church in Tipton, Oklahoma.)
G. K. Wallace: "... What does all this prove? This proves that there is no pattern in such procedure. Neither is there an exact pattern in the matter of fellowship. Fellowship is allowed and required. (2 Cor. 8:4: Gal. 6:10.) The method and manner of this fellowship is left entirely to the judgment of the brethren. It is an expedient. IF IT WERE A LAW IT COULD NOT BE EXPEDIENT." (Cans mine, P.J.W.) Gospel Advocate, pg. 417, May 3, 1956.
Cleon Lyles: "How was this matter of benevolence operated? I don't know. Was it all in one congregation or did some other congregation receive aid? I don't know... and if I try to tell you. I am legislating where God didn't legislate." Gospel Advocate, p. 442, Nov. 17, 1955.
Ernest Harper: In the Lufkin debate, he explained his "principle eternal" by saying that he simply meant the realm of expediency.
Reuel Lemmons: In several recent editorials he has pointed up the rule of expediency as the authority for the human arrangements being engaged in.
Whenever we hear men say, "there is no set pattern," or "God tells us to do it and does not tell us how," or "It is simply a question of methods and means," or "these are pimply matters of liberty and judgment," you are hearing an expression of what men call the "law of expediency." Upon this principle then, the "champions" of institutionalism and centralization seem content to rest their case.
It is not my purpose in this article to attempt to prove that the use of benevolent societies separate and apart from the church to do the work of benevolence God has assigned to the church is not a matter of "methods and means" but a matter of organization; or that sponsoring church arrangements are not a matter of "expediency" but rather are a matter of destroying church autonomy and overstepping the authority given to local elderships. These points have been well handled in recent debates and articles. My purpose is rather to grant, purely for the sake of argument, the position these men have taken and to urge upon them the logical conclusions of their favorite argument.
I. If These Are Matters Of Expediency, Then They Are Not Matters Of Law.
Surely this will be granted by all. As Brother G. K. Wallace states it above: "if it were a law it could not be expedient." Why then have such desperate efforts been made to find specific authority for such arrangements? Why go to such extremes as to make Philippi a "sponsoring church" and Jerusalem the "centralized agency" for Judean benevolence? Why take the Greek text apart verse by verse in a frantic attempt to find specific authority for the things you are practicing when your own favorite argument is a declaration to the world that you have no specific authority for what you are doing? For years the Digressives have tried to argue that instrumental music is an "expedient" and yet at the same time that it is included in the command to "psallo" in Ephesians 5:19. You men, along with other gospel preachers, have insisted that they could not have it both ways! If it is a law, there is no liberty or choice about it and if it is an expedient, there is no specific authority for it. It would be as logical for you to search the New Testament for specific authority for song books, pitch pipes, etc., as to try to find specific authority for that which you have admitted is a matter of human judgment and not law.
II. If These Are Matters Of Expediency, Then They Are Not Worth Dividing The Church Over.
The ominous clouds of division that have gathered on the brotherhood horizon have been minimized and tossed off by saying: "they are just arguments over methods and means." Brethren, are you aware of the implications of that admission? Are these human methods and means more dear to your heart than the blood bought institution of our Lord? Will you accept alienation from those with whom you have fought side by side for the faith of the gospel by imposing your methods and your means upon sincere brethren who believe such methods are wrong? If there are "methods and means" agreeable to all and upon which we can unite, does not the law of love demand that you forget that which you conceive to be your "liberty" for the sake of the peace and harmony of the Lord's church?
In many congregations today there is open dissension and confusion over the support of such things as the Herald of Truth and institutional orphan homes. On the one hand, you have sincere and conscientious brethren who believe that such human arrangements violate God's law of church organization and work. For them to lay by in store upon the first day of the week knowing that some of that contribution will be spent for the support of something they sincerely believe to be wrong is a violation of their conscience. Call them "antis" "non-progressives," "weak brethren," if you will, that is their firm conviction at the present time. On the other hand, there are other brethren in this same congregation who are just as sincere and conscientious in their conviction that the Herald of Truth and benevolent organizations are simply expedients, methods and means, in doing God's work.
Now, in the light of New Testament teaching what can be done to bring about unity and harmony in such congregations?
(1) Those who believe such things to be expedient can, by patient teaching, prove to the rest that supporting such things is within the realm of their liberty.
(2) Those who conscientiously oppose such things can, by equally patient teaching, prove to the others that such things are not within the realm of scriptural authority or the liberty we have "in Christ."
In either case, open mindedness, love, respect for the integrity of those who disagree with us, must characterize our attitudes and a diligent study of the scriptures must be engaged in to find the real truth of the matter.
But in the meantime, what can the congregation do about these "methods and means"?
(1) To place them in the budget of that congregation would be to force brethren to violate their conscientious convictions. They would be forced to "submit or get out" just as those who opposed the instrument and societies had to leave rather than violate their convictions.
(2) To leave the questionable practices out of the budget until any doubt concerning them is eliminated would maintain the harmony and peace of that congregation. Those who were willing to yield their "judgment" for the sake of unity would be blessed by God for having put the peace of Zion above every plan and project of man.
The words of Moses E. Lard are as needed today as they were almost 100 years ago when he said:
"The subject of expediency, as interpreted by some of us, may yet prove the rock on which the reformation for which we are pleading goes to pieces. This is not said in the spirit of alarm, it is the utterance of a calm conviction. I do not deny that expediency is sometimes right, nor that the New Testament, in very special cases, sanctions it. When we plead expediency to justify practices unknown to the apostolic age, we are not within the limits of the expedient. We are then violating the word of God. Expediency is no law for innovations, whether in faith or practice; and he who pleads it to this extent has abandoned the only rule which can save us from ruin. (Apostolic Times. Vol. 1. No. 3 n. 20.)