"Walking Among The Candlesticks"
In the Firm Foundation (?) issued October 2, 1956, the editorial (Brother Reuel Lemmons is the editor) is entitled "Walking Among the Candlesticks." The reader of this article is urged to read that editorial. Read it and know that this writer in no way misrepresents what is in that editorial.
After some five or six paragraphs in which Reuel stayed with the truth, and at the end of this portion of the article, Brother Lemmons said, "Most brethren are well grounded upon the unity of institution but too little thought is given to the unity of the body." Could it be that another who thinks very highly of his own observations has "surveyed the scene" and handed down a "judgment" of more sure accuracy than hundreds far his superior in knowledge and experience? Be that as it may, the statement was made in preparation for the astounding revelations of the following paragraphs.
The first of these "brotherhood-shaking" revelations is — "The church is a body"! Those of us who have been members of the church only about as long as Reuel has been alive should read that from the New Testament sometime. Wonder why we overlooked it! Next, the startling revelation — "It is an organism — not an organization." I can't understand why I had always thought that it was an organism. Maybe I just stumbled upon it somehow. Anyway, what am I to do with my conviction that the church has certain organizational aspects, also?
Next, there is posed a question, the answer to which is to settle some vital matters which others have been too stupid to solve; that is, if the writer's own answer is allowed to stand and surely one with such "revealing" ability should not be curbed! To the editor of the Firm Foundation things become so "self-evident" that even those things which make them so to him should be immune to investigation. I know this and can prove it. I wonder if he would want me to do that ? But, the question — here it is: WHY IS THE CHURCH CALLED A BODY? Now, now, Reuel, where is it called A BODY? I have always "thought" it was called THE BODY of Christ. Either I have been imposing upon people something wrong or else someone is "drifting."
I know of no better way to answer the question than to say: the church is called a body BECAUSE IT IS THE BODY. That is what Paul said it was. Paul also taught that the body grows by that which every joint supplieth. I thought that every member of the body (church) of any growth whatever knew that to be true. But Reuel has something which he calls cooperation that he is trying to protect in the editorial. My mind, at this time, immediately turns to such things as Herald of Truth, the Gospel Press, institutional homes for orphans and aged, sponsoring church programs of many sorts, when Reuel mentions cooperation in an editorial of this nature. I just could be thinking of the wrong things but I hardly think so and I don't believe for one minute that anything other than things of this nature had much space in his mind when he wrote it. However, as is his habit, he didn't EXACTLY name the things he referred to under cooperation. This makes it conveniently easy to "be in the clear" should some nasty old brother attempt to "put words into his mouth (pen)."
Just in case he WAS referring to the above things which come into my mind when he writes as in this editorial, allow me to make a few suggestions for study in the matter. Reuel asked, "But why is it called a body? Especially if units of it are limited in their cooperation, why is it called a body? Is its fellowship unlimited and its cooperation limited? Is it a body with functions impaired? Do not limits imposed upon cooperation also apply to fellowship?" Now, a body has many parts. My feet are a part of my body. So, also, are my arms, my eyes, my ears, my lungs, etc. All of these are connected to my heart and my nervous system, but they do not move around over my body. They stay in constant fellowship. What affects one of these, affects all of them. However, no one of them, no group of them, decide among themselves whether walking shall be done and if so, how walking shall be done; whether breathing shall be done, how or with what; neither does my foot decide that since it is its work to walk that my arms shall contribute what, and how to my foot so that it may do its work. Yes, the cooperation among the "units" of my body is limited. Is the fellowship of the units of my body destroyed when the foot can't make demands of the arms?
Now, of course, should my foot become broken or seriously infected, my arm and hand would make use of a crutch and supply the aid needed that walking, which is the work of the foot, might be accomplished until the foot was well enough to again take care of its own work. This, of course, would be done at the direction of the part of my body to be discussed in the following paragraphs.
There is another thing peculiar to my body that Reuel forgot to include in the "a body" which he called "the church." For better or for worse, whether empty or just plain crazy, my body has a head. That head may direct the feet into the wrongs paths, but it directs them, never-the-less. That head determines whether my eyes see, either physically or spiritually, or are closed. So, also, with the other "units" of my body. Reuel gave lip service to the presence of the head (Christ) of the body when he reminded that Christ was "walking among the candlesticks." But what purpose could Christ have in being there if not needed to direct the "functions" of the Body? Reuel emphatically taught that no limits could be placed upon the cooperation of the "units" of the body. With Christ walking among the candlesticks (the churches) certainly if Herald of Truth, The Gospel Press, institutional orphan homes, and the like were by His direction, it could be detected in His instructions to the churches. The discovery of such instructions from the head of the body has not been made, nor can they be heard as we listen to His voice (the New Testament). In fact, should we respect the silence of Him who walks among the candlesticks in these matters and refuse the authority of the "units" to legislate such "functioning" into the "organism" which is the church, Reuel would complain of limited cooperation. The only way we could satisfy Reuel would be to ignore Him who walks among the candlesticks, ORGANIZE the different units in COOPERATIVE WORK, charge each unit that refuses to "cooperate" with ugly attempts to disfellowship and divide, then quarantine such "dead" units within the bounds of the "cemetery," and let their "sectarian spirits" forever regret their insistence upon being instructed by the head.
Reuel's description of a headless body has no appeal to me. I remember too well the life of my saviour that was given to purchase the body, the church, that "in all things he might have the preeminence" — "head over all things to the church, which is his body." I have no desire to picture my Lord walking among the candlesticks — not as the head of the body, but just as a figurehead. When He who walks among the candlesticks directs that such as Herald of Truth, etc., shall be among the "units" of the body I shall be a part of that "cooperation." But please, Reuel, allow me the right to respect Christ as the actual head of the body.