"Cooperation Between New Testament Churches"
Chapter V Scripture References And Questions
Brother Thomas B. Warren did not quote one line of scripture in his tract which he wrote to try to prove that "the scriptures teach that one church may (has the right to) contribute to (send funds to) another church which has assumed (undertaken) the oversight of a work to which both churches sustained the same relationship before the assumption (undertaking) of the oversight." He gave a few Bible references, but he did not quote a line of any of these references.
Nowhere in his tract did Brother Tom claim that any of these references teaches that one church may send money to another church for a work to which both churches are related equally; he did not cite these references for that purpose; he gave other reasons for presenting them.
1. Scripture References.
Here are all the Bible references that Brother Warren gave in his tract, and the reason why he gave every one of these references is stated in his own words.
(1) Romans 1:15 is the first scripture citation in his tract, and here is the use he has made of it in his own words: "It may be pointed out that according to Romans 1:15 Paul was ready to preach the gospel to the members of the church at Rome."
(2) He gave Mark 16:15; Matthew 38:19; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8 to prove that "Jesus plainly set forth the fact that the gospel is addressed to every creature."
(3) Romans 1:18 - 3:23, to show the "universal need of man to be saved."
(4) Romans 1:16, 17, to prove that "the gospel is God's power to save."
(5) He gave 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 to show "the terrible alternative to obeying the gospel."
(6) He pointed to 1 Timothy 3:15 to prove that the "church is the pillar and ground of the truth."
(7) He referred to 2 Corinthians to show that "the work which confronted the Jerusalem church in this instance exceeded her material ability to accomplish," and that "Jerusalem had the oversight of the accomplishing of this work."
Providing for its poor members is the work of every congregation. The Jerusalem church did not have the "material ability" to take care of its own poor members. The Lord commanded other churches to send contributions to the Jerusalem church to supply the needs of the poor saints in that church. (1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8:14.) When the needs of the poor saints in the Jerusalem church were supplied, the contributions from other churches stopped right there.
Does Tom think that 2 Corinthians 2 teaches that other churches were sending contributions to Jerusalem because Jerusalem had set herself up as a "sponsoring church," and was gathering up the poor from other churches, and had assumed "the oversight" of collecting money from other churches all over the world in order to enable her to operate a brotherhood charity project? Does he think that 2 Corinthians 8 teaches that a "sponsoring church" was a "constituent element" of the "total situation" of that charity work in the Jerusalem church? If he does not think so, then why all this double-talk and babble about Jerusalem's having the oversight of a work that "exceeded her material ability to accomplish"? If he does think so, then he does not know enough about the word of God to teach anybody anything, and he has no business trying to write a tract on any religious subject.
(8) Tom gave 2 Corinthians 8:14 to prove that "one church may help another church to meet a want." This passage teaches that one church may send money to another church to help the receiving church care for her own poor, when the receiving church does not have the "material ability to accomplish" the job herself. But neither this passage nor any other passage in the Bible teaches that "one church may" become the controlling agency for either a brotherhood benevolent project or a brotherhood missionary project.
Brother Tom's proposition obligates him to prove that the scriptures teach that one church may send contributions to another church for a work to which both churches are related equally. Does he think that the receiving church and the contributing churches sustained the same relationship to that charity work in Jerusalem, which the Holy Spirit discusses in 2 Corinthians 8?
(9) The last scripture reference given in Brother Tom's tract is Acts 11:19-23, and here is all that he says about this passage: "Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch. This involved teaching (not benevolence) and it involved no catastrophe."
Of course "it involved no catastrophe"! Is Tom insinuating that somebody believes that a church cannot send a preacher into a distant town or country, unless it involves a catastrophe?
Of course "this involved teaching (not benevolence)"! If the Jerusalem church had operated like Broadway in Lubbock and a few other sponsoring churches, it certainly would have involved a lot more "benevolence" than teaching. When some of these modern sponsoring churches decide to send a preacher into a distant land, they send a heavily loaded gravy train along with the preacher, and the first work "involved" is benevolence (not teaching). If Tom continues his double talk long enough, he might convince Broadway in Lubbock and a few others that they are not doing it like Jerusalem did it.
If any one of these passages can be made to teach that one church may send contributions to another church for a work to which both are related equally, they can be made to teach anything that any man might want them to teach.
If any one or all of these passages can be made to teach that one church may send contributions to another church for a work to which both are related equally, they can be made to teach anything that any man might want them to teach.
But Brother Tom said nothing in his tract to indicate that he thinks these references that he gave prove his proposition. He did not quote one line of scripture to prove anything, and the scripture references that he cited were not for the purpose of proving his proposition; he cited them for other purposes as stated in his own words. He tried to prove his proposition by "total situations," "constituent elements," a "syllogism" and more than fifty foolish questions, and not by the scriptures. And when a man becomes so confused that he does not know the difference between a song book and a work of the church, he is incapable of handling aright the word of God, and he should stop trying to prove anything by the Bible (like Tom did), lest he wrest the scriptures to his own destruction.
2. Tom's Questions.
More than one-fourth the space in Brother Tom's tract is given to a list of more than fifty questions presented in eighteen groups. Some of these groups are preceded by, and based upon, hypothetical conditions so absurd that they sound moronic.
For example, he bases a group of exactly twelve questions on the following foolish hypothesis:
"Congregation 'A' (a struggling group) decides to have a preacher to spend his full time working within an area to extend no farther than fifty yards from the meeting house of congregation 'A'."
Elders who decide "to have a preacher to spend his full time in working within an area to extend no farther than fifty yards from the meeting house" do not have sense enough to be elders, and a preacher who would agree to work under such restrictions should be "institutionalized" to a padded cell; a radius of fifty yards is entirely too much territory for that kind of preacher to roam over. Under the limitations of Tom's hypothesis, that preacher could not participate in a funeral service, or tell a lost soul what to do to be saved, or visit the fatherless and widows, unless it all could be done within an area extending "no farther than fifty yards from the meeting house." Can any man think of a sillier hypothesis on which to base twelve questions? When anything more ridiculous is found, Tom will find it, and print it in a tract and publish it in the Gospel Advocate.