Expediency Again
First, I want to express my appreciation to Brother Tant for publishing my article in the December 6, 1956, issue of the Gospel Guardian. I also appreciated Brother Patton's reply, as published in the same issue. Truth has nothing to fear from open discussion. As I said before, if I am in error on some point, I, for one, shall be most happy to learn of it.
Brother Patton and I agree that in matters of faith we must have divine authority — by express command, by approved example, or by necessary inference. In things not of faith (expediency), Brother Patton writes at length in an effort to get some authority other than our own human judgment. It seems to me our brother fails to get any such authority, but in trying to do so, makes rules where God made none.
With reference to God's command to Noah to build an ark, I think Brother Patton rightly observes: "Material is one realm. Tools is a different realm . . . . The specific 'gopher' excludes pine, cedar, oak, etc., ONLY as it applies to 'material' used in the structure of the ark itself . . . . one must be careful to distinguish between the realms, or classes, under study; otherwise, confusion will result."
It seems that Brother Patton now, also, admits that it was by "necessary inference" alone, so far as we are informed, that Noah selected his tools (expedients), and whatever he selected, and whatever other wood was involved in the expedients was chosen solely by Noah's own judgment; and he had the right to do just that — and nothing else — in this whole realm of expediency.
In another place, he says, "When will we learn that we walk by faith every step of the way?" (II Cor. 5:7; Rom. 10:17.) The reference in Romans says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Noah had no word of God telling him which tools, which wood in the tools, etc., should be used. He did have his own human judgment in this "realm," and nothing else. Is it not then clear that Brother Patton has, himself, done at this point the exact thing he warns not to do, viz., "Failure to distinguish between the realms." Is he not a victim of the very "confusion" he would avoid?
It seems clear that when God commands to go preach, teach, sing, assemble, visit the orphans, etc., we have this "realm" where God tells what to do; and we are not to change that realm. But as to the "tools," the ways and means, like Noah of old, we are left (by necessary inference) to our own human judgment. God hasn't specified automobiles (to enable to go); uninspired literature (to teach); song books with written music, this song leader or any leader, this waving or that motion, pitch pipe or tuning fork or neither (to sing); a brick, stucco, wood church-owned meeting house, or any church-owned meeting house, with corporation and trustees, at all (to assemble); nor has He specified the how, as to the care of orphans.
If Brother Patton keeps these "realms" separate, using the word of God for the "material" — the thing commanded — and letting human judgment be used to select the "tools" — the enabling means — all seems clear. When he mixes these, it is "confusion" to me. Isn't it to you and also Brother Patton.
Our brother says expedients, "Must first be authorized." If he means there must be, by necessary inference, the need to select something in order to do the thing God commanded, we agree as above. But, if he means Noah may select only an "authorized" tool, of "authorized" wood, etc., he has me confused again. If he leaves this to human judgment, it is clear.
He says the expedient, "Must be lawful ... must first be authorized." He cites Paul (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The texts say, "All thing are lawful unto me," repeating it twice in the first text, then repeating it twice in the second. If Brother Patton believes; "All things are lawful," then he and I agree with Paul at this point. If, however, Brother Patton means Noah's tools, and an automobile, and a church building, etc., etc., are only lawful if "authorized," he has me confused again. Paul did not add the "if authorized," did he?
He says, "Instrumental music cannot be expedient because it is not in the realm of `sing'." Is that the reason an instrument cannot be used? Is the waving of the song director or the blowing of the pitch pipe, "In the realm of sing"? Is a material church-owned meeting house in the realm of building God's spiritual house, the church? Is the uninspired literature among the many dividing Church of Christ groups in the realm of teaching "The Word of God"? The brother confuses me by many rules, here, and observations I've not found in the Word of God.
Brother Patton says, "In the genus 'sing' of Ephesians 5:19" he gets the tuning fork, song book, song leader waving his arm. This isn't clear to me; I wonder if it is to Brother Patton. When one obeys the command to "sing," doesn't one obey what is "in" that command? If one can — as doubtless thousands have — sing without the use of a tuning fork, song book, song leader waving his arm, were these then "in" it or not? Does "sing" mean any of these things? Isn't every one of these but chosen (by human judgment) as no part of "sing" at all, but simply enabling means (among others possible) that may HELP some people in some circumstances to do whatever "sing" is?
More could be said, but does not mine in December 6th, '56 issue state it clearly? "In other words, in obeying His will, God allows human judgment the right to select the best available aid or enabling means, which, of course, are not sinful in themselves." If it is generally conceded that some aids are necessary to obey the command, then surely God allows human judgment to select aids helpful in carrying out the command. Isn't that what Noah did? Isn't that what we all must do? Wouldn't it be sinful to make a law for Noah, or for us, in selections that God made not at all?