Here And There With Guy N. Woods (V)
Much ado has been made by the pro-institutional brethren regarding the question of fellowship. Cecil N. Wright in his early defense of "The Herald of Truth" tried to make a major issue of the question and to lay on Brother Tant the charge of fostering division. Brother E. R. Harper boasted before the Lufkin debate that he would make Brother Tant endorse the missionary society or disfellowship him, Harper. Brother Reuel Lemmons has blasted off into the ethereal regions with his high flown oratory in an effort to impress brethren with the fact that those who oppose today's centralized control and oversight promotions in benevolence and evangelism are "driving the wedge that splits the log."
Guy N. Woods himself has had much to say along this line. Now, however, everywhere he goes he preaches the absolute certainty of a division among churches of Christ. He said in his morning speech at Birmingham, "Division is inevitable in the next few years; it is not possible to avoid it." At other places, he has gone further than this. He has added to this statement the affirmation, "the sooner the better." At the first, he decried even the thought of division. Now he preaches its inevitability and anxiously and hopefully looks forward to the day when it will be a reality. It seems that our polemic giant has a mortal fear of an extended discussion and study of these questions on a fraternal basis. As far as he is concerned, the sooner the churches are divided into non-fellowshipping groups the better it will be. Could it be that our brother recognizes the fact that the more the question is studied calmly, brotherly, and in the fear of God without prejudice and passion, the more there will be of our sincere, devoted brethren who will see the pernicious error involved in centralized control and oversight? Such men as Woods show plainly that their strategy is to prejudice the issue and isolate the opposition. If our hopeful seer has his wish, and division comes, let all be informed that he and his colleagues have both created and "driven the wedge that split the log."
It's In The Great Commission
It is interesting indeed to observe how very much some brethren seem to be able to find in the "great commission." At Birmingham, Brother Woods quoted Mark 16:15.16 and said, "If there were no other passagethan this, it would justify such as the "Herald of Truth." He also stated that he endorsed the Herald of Truth because he believed in the "great commission." Having made these statements, he argued as follows:
(1) The great commission requires us to go every place on earth.
(2) It requires us to contact every person in every place on earth.
(3) It requires us to preach the gospel to every person, in every place on earth.
(4) There is no church of Christ on earth that can do this alone.
(5) Therefore, churches of Christ must pool their resources to fulfill the "great commission."
It is interesting to observe that this is the very argument that Alexander Campbell made in justifying the missionary society, except for the fact that Brother Campbell was logician enough and Bible scholar enough to accept a sixth step in the argument that Woods shied away from completely. Brother Campbell argued:
(6) God has given no particular organization in which and through which churches of Christ may pool their resources and cooperate for the accomplishment of that which is the responsibility of, not one, but all the churches. Therefore, churches of Christ may form an organization for this purpose that meets the particular needs of the age, hence the missionary society is scriptural. (See Millennial Harbinger, 1831, 1832, 1842.)
Let it also be observed in this connection that Campbell's idea was that this organization be used only as a servant of the churches in the field of cooperative evangelism. It was to invade the sacred precincts of no congregation; participation was to be entirely voluntary; and it was to have no authority whatever in the realm of faith or morals. Brother Campbell urged the missionary society not as "a machine over the churches" as Woods puts it, but on the same basis that Woods defends the benevolent societies ("orphan homes") as means used by the churches to obey the divine command to "preach the gospel to every creature."
If Brother Woods' conclusion (5) is correct, Brother Campbell's conclusion (6) logically follows and the missionary society is scriptural. God has provided no organization for the purpose of pooling the resources of all the churches in the accomplishment of the obligations of the "great commission." If "pooling resources" inheres in the obligations which the "great commission" imposes, the authority for the churches to form a suitable organization to control and apply these resources likewise inheres therein. Brother Woods accepts this reasoning in the field of benevolence but stoutly resists it in the field of evangelism. Brother Woods approves and defends the formation of an organization independent of any local church and its elders for the purpose of controlling and applying the "pooled resources" of many churches in the field of benevolence. He condemns and opposes the formation of a similar organization in the field of evangelism. See: Woods-Porter Debate. Brother Woods contends that such an organization inheres in "visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions." (James 1:27.) He repudiates Brother Campbell's contention that a similar organization inheres in "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15,16.) However, Brother Woods will go almost as far as Campbell. He does find in the "great commission" the authority for all the churches to "pool their resources" under the control and oversight of the elders of one church, hence the "Herald of Truth." Why does Brother Woods not take the next inevitable step and endorse a missionary society? Campbell finds the missionary society in the "great commission" in the same place and on the same basis of the same logic as Woods does the "Herald of Truth." Woods cannot if his life were to depend upon it, and his soul may, find, either in the qualifications or duties of elders as set forth in the New Testament, even so much as a hint that these men are to serve as a board of directors to control and oversee the "pooled resources" of many churches either in the field of general evangelism or benevolence. If there is to be a "pooling of resources" for general work, then a general organization is the only fair and sensible procedure.
The thing both Woods and Campbell fail to take into consideration is that the cumulative effect of the independent functioning of local congregations has, can, and will fulfill the obligations imposed by the "great commission." In the first century, the gospel was preached throughout the civilized world in one generation with no "pooling of resources." New Testament "cooperation" was concurrent effort in a common field. The relationship of every congregation to every work was direct. No intervening board, eldership or institutional, stood between a congregation and its work. This was the uniform "pattern" of congregational activity in apostolic times. This is the "pattern" for which the Gospel Guardian contends today.
Did The Apostle Paul Falsify?
We promised last week that we would reveal to you how, at Birmingham, Woods' argument made a liar out of the apostle Paul. In discussing the question of "equality," (2 Cor. 8:13,14) Woods advanced the idea that this is not an example of churches with "abundance" giving to a church in need. He affirmed that there were brethren in Jerusalem who were not poor, hence could have helped their poor without the help of the churches. He based this on the expression, "poor among the saints." (Rom. 15:26.) He said further that the Jerusalem church had sent a missionary, hence was not in destitute circumstances (compare this with his statement in 1946 Quarterly in our previous article). He did not say who this missionary was. I confess that I do not know.
Now let us note how this makes a liar of Paul. Woods says that Jerusalem was not destitute, that she could have taken care of her poor if she desired. He further argued that the Macedonian churches were in greater poverty than the Jerusalem brethren — "deep poverty." (2 Cor. 8:2.) If Woods is correct, Paul took contributions from churches who were desperately in need to alleviate the needs of brethren in a congregation that could have taken care of its own poor. Hence, he, Paul, was guilty of "burdening" the churches of Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia Minor in order that the Jerusalem church might be "eased." This is the very thing that Paul said he did not do. Hear Paul, "For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye be burdened." (2 Con 8:113.) If Jerusalem could have helped her own poor and did not as Woods contends, then Paul was guilty of "easing" the brethren in Jerusalem While "burdening" the brethren in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia Minor. In so contending, Woods makes Paul out to be a liar. On March 11, 1956 in the Gospel Advocate Quarterly and in the 1946 Quarterly, Woods taught the truth on this question; namely, that Jerusalem was in a destitute condition and that the churches of the Gentiles gave of their relative "abundance" to establish a state of freedom from want or "equality." It is too bad that now Brother Woods finds it necessary, in his defense of present brotherhood promotions, to repudiate the veracity of Paul. Paul, however, is not the only victim from Brother Woods' barrage at Birmingham. Highland church in Abilene, Texas, and E. R. Harper come in for their share of punishment. Next week, we shall reveal to you how Woods denies the constant affirmation of Highland church that "Herald of Truth is our work." Look for us then.