"Antis, Semi-Antis, Semi-Pros And Pros"
Seemingly, some have been unduly apprehensive regarding current issues over benevolent work dividing the church into two camps. Late developments should remove this tension and anxiety. It now appears that brethren who have been rather vociferous regarding "Anti-ism and Negativism" are actually disunited. Consistency demands that they write a few editorials and articles on "Pro-ism," "Semi-pro-ism" and "Semi-anti-ism." Or, is it time that quarantine and censorship cease; that bitterness, misrepresentation and partisan spirits be put away from among us; that fair and brotherly discussions characterize periodicals, magazines and papers dealing with said matters? Open and candid examination will lead to the abandonment of unscriptural arrangements and practices, to unity in Christ. This paragraph from the pen of James A. Allen is worthy of serious consideration:
"The only thing that can preserve the integrity of the churches, and develop them in mind and heart to successfully accomplish the work that God has committed to them, is full, free, and continuous investigation and discussion of every Bible subject. Just as a Bible-reading people who have the right of free assembly, free speech, and a free press, cannot be enslaved, so also the churches can never be carried into apostasy as long as their members conform to the divine requirements to "prove all things," and to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear." The effort to shut off investigation and discussion (as is becoming so prevalent in some circles today) can only result in the apostasy of those so engaged. They will depart from "the apostles teaching," and consequently will ever be unable to evangelize the world, or to properly care for the widow and the orphan and the poor, as was so amazingly and so successfully done by the New Testament congregations in apostolic times."
Status In God
Grouping of brethren under the terms that make up the heading of this article does not mean that I am "hurling epithets" at them, nor in reality so classifying them. Children of God ought to be both anti and pro-anti (against) every unscriptural doctrine and practice; pro (for) everything authorized by the Bible. Segregation in this paper is simply for convenience in setting forth various positions occupied, in determining the "status in quo"; and was suggested to me by reading the writings of some who have endeavored to stigmatize others by such terms as "Anti-Co-operation" and "Anti-ism." Names are given to call attention to the state existing; to show the confusion that results when men try to justify popular practices for which there is not a "thus saith the Lord."
Many, including this scribe, question:
1. Elders planning, overseeing and directing benevolent work for other churches.
2. The church maintaining a boarding house — accepting persons with relatives able to support them (I Tim. 5:8-16), receiving old age pensions from inmates and monthly payments from relatives.
3. Elders overseeing agricultural, animal husbandry and poultry projects (farms, dairies, hen houses), secular schools and athletic programs.
4. Creating another institution, a local corporation other than the church to direct the work of the church, a body politic or separate body with its own charter, officers and by-laws. "An organized society, as in a church." (Webster's New International Dictionary.)
These objections have been answered (?) by brethren crying methods, antis. To the unbiased and discerning Christian, there is more involved than methods. Elders overseeing and directing the personnel and resources of other congregations is not parallel to elders arranging and directing Bible classes for the edification of the "flock over the which the Holy Ghost made you overseers." Running boarding houses is unauthorized. Superintending farm operations for profit is not selecting expedient methods to carry out the mission of the church. Chartering benevolent societies is no more in harmony with the doctrine of Christ than chartering missionary societies — the congregation is both God's benevolent and missionary society.
"Semi-antis"
Brethren Reuel Lemmons And Roy H. Lanier Have Been Foremost In "Marking" Members Of Christ's Body As "Antis" And "Anti-Co-Operationist." They Now Affirm That They Are In The Middle Of The Road. They Explain This Position. They Are Against Homes Not Under The Oversight Of Elders. Now Brethren This Includes Boles, Southern Christian, Child Haven, Tennessee Orphan Home And Such Like. They Endorse Brotherhood Homes With Elders As The Board Of Directors — Gunter, Tipton And Similar Setups. Does This Mean That Brethren Lemmons, Lanier And Others Identified With Them Are "Semi-Antis"? By Their Measuring Reed, Are They Not "Partly" Against Caring For Orphans? At Least "Semi" So ? But Let's Raise A Few Pertinent Questions Regarding This Middle Of The Road Doctrine; Some May He Nearer "Diocesan" Elders Than The Middle Of The Road:
1. Is it not a violation of congregational autonomy for one set of elders to plan, oversee and direct affairs for many churches?
2. Can the church universal function through one set of elders as a board of directors?
3. Can elders oversee livestock and poultry enterprises?
4. Is it scriptural for the church to charter a Bible school as a body politic, a legal corporation with officers and by-laws? Would this not be a body within the body of Christ — an organization other than the congregation? Why is a corporation, other than the church, right in benevolence and wrong in edification?
"Semi-Pros"
Brother Gayle Oler and others assert that elders cannot be over a horse. The father (not elders) is head of a private home. Boles and such like are only homes; elders, as such, cannot scripturally oversee a home. Are brethren "Semi-pros"? I heard Brother Oler espouse this doctrine in a sermon a few days ago — the sermon is on tape. Brother Lanier says a home not under elders is wrong; Brother Oler says one under elders is wrong! Would it not be in order for these men to debate the issues? But now to some questions:
1. Is a body politic or "society" composed of representatives of various congregations parallel to a private home?
2. Should not "under shepherds" tend "kingdom business"?
"Pros"
Brother Guy N. Woods and legions of others say that "institutional homes" are scriptural whether under elders or not. Boards and conclaves are simply "orderly arrangements" — methods. Are these brethren "pros"? If I understand their position, "no holds are barred." Would it not be in order for Brother Woods to debate Lemmons, Lanier or Oler as well as W. Curtis Porter?
Conclusion
Propagate and disseminate the principles set forth in the following statements is to pursue a safe, sane, sound, scriptural course; to aid in uniting sincere and Bible loving souls on the basis of New Testament precepts and examples:
1. God ordained that each congregation care for its needy. (Acts 6:1-6.)
2. God ordained that sister churches send relief to a congregation having more needy than it can care for. (II Cor. 8; Rom. 15-25-26.)
3. God ordained that elders oversee the church of which they are members. (I Peter 5:2.) This forbids one set of elders overseeing and directing the personnel and resources of other churches.
4. God ordained the congregation as the organization in charge and control of the benevolent work of the church. (Acts 6:1-6; Phil. 1:1.) This organization may buy the services of others; select expedient methods and means in discharging its obligation. House and care (home), clothing, food and medical supplies must be provided; the church can do this without creating human organizations or societies.
Popularity, appeals to emotions, sentiment and prejudice do not change the eternal standard by which we are all going to be judged. "Good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:18); high sounding phraseology confuses the uninformed. Take heed! Only adherence to truth will save.