Gospel Advocate's Irritation In The Vestibule
A few years back Brother G. K. Wallace had some articles in the Guardian concerning orphan homes. I liked the spirit manifested in the articles. He wrote like a sincere Christian. But I got a copy of the Gospel Advocate of August 23, 1956 and saw an "ungood" article on the front page. I opened the paper and Brother Wallace and Bill Rogers had two articles which "spread irritation" (I got that expression from Cled Wallace) over about threepages. Where did I get the paper? In a church house vestibule!
Really, I did not know that it was wrong to have a box in the vestibule until Brother Tant suggested one to keep elders of other churches from getting some of our contribution over our objection and protest. Brother Lemmons speaks of it as the lesser of two evils, although he says that in God's sight all evils are equal. I don't agree with him because he does not agree with Christ. (John 19:11.) Suppose, however, that he is right. If so, it is just as evil for a church to support an orphans home that is under a board of directors instead of elders as it is for the church to support a missionary society. He believes both to be wrong. But did not Brother Guy Woods teach that very thing in the ACC lecture in 1939? Brother Woods said that he had not changed. If he has not changed the wind has.
Does Brother Lemmons think that it is as evil in God's sight to support orphans homes that are under a board of directors other than the elders of a church as it is to support the Baptist Church? Let the Advocate brethren ponder that one. Brother Lemmons should do better thinking.
But what is wrong with a box in the vestibule? Does Brother Wallace think that if the elders of a church put a box in the vestibule "he who fights such is fighting the church of the living God"? Is the collection plate pattern a "binding pattern"? I don't think that we should have an Advocate box of irritation and hate in the vestibule. The church building is a place where Christ and Christians should meet — not a place to spread hate.
Brother Rogers put several if's in his article. If he and Brother Wallace will get on the Lord's side, they can discuss issues without losing their tempers.
Brother Wallace suggested that the readers get copies of his debates with Brother Ketcherside. I have not yet heard of one of the "sponsoring church" brethren recommending a reading of the Totty-Watson-Holt debiate. There is a reason. And I have never heard one of them tell how many of their own children they send off to live in orphan homes. They send other children.
Brother Wallace, there are hundreds of homes among us that we would recommend for orphan children. Any type that Paul endorsed we will endorse. Isn't that fair? Let us look at the sponsoring brethren's admissions:
1. There is no New Testament example for their practice. That means that Brother Boles and others failed in their efforts to proved it by New Testament example.
2. That it is dangerous.
3. That it cannot be proved by command, example, or necessary inference.
No wonder that some of their ablest men will not "tangle" with the opposition.
Did Brother Cleon Lyles say something about disagreement?
As to the Guardian having more in common with Brother Ketcherside and the anti-class brethren, the Advocate has much more in common with the Modernist. Brother Tant said that the apostles and elders had much disputing (Acts 15) but they reached a conclusion. A "sponsoring" church brother taught that their conclusion was wrong!