"Cooperation Between New Testament Churches"
Chapter II. "Elements Of The Proposition"
On page 2 of his tract, Brother Thomas B. Warren lists six assertions which he calls "Elements Of The Proposition."
The "proposition" to which he refers is quoted in Chapter I of this study. Though worded poorly, the "proposition" means that Brother Warren thinks that a church scripturally may send contributions to another church for the work of evangelizing an area over which the receiving church has said "dubs" and thereby made that work "peculiarly and exclusively" the work of the receiving church. If this is not what his proposition means, it is not related to the issue at all.
Here are his six "Elements Of The Proposition."
"1. The existence of a need (a work to be done) in a field to which the two churches sustain the same relationship."
Yes, the "existence" of a three-fold need is obvious: (1) every creature in the world needs the gospel; (2) every church in all the world needs to preach it; (3) Brother Warren needs a passage of scripture, and not six assertions, to prove that "the scriptures teach that one church" may contribute to another church for evangelistic work in an area over which the receiving church has said "dubs" and thereby changed the relationship of all the churches in the world to evangelistic work in that "diocese."
"2. Congregation `A' assumes the oversight of the accomplishing of this work. This involves the right of congregation `A' to act in such fashion."
The work of preaching the gospel in all the world was assigned by the Lord to every church from "A" to "Z" (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8), and the word "assumes" in this connection is erroneous and misleading.
The "oversight" of this church work was assigned by the Lord to the elders of every church from "A" to "Z" (1 Peter 5:1-3), and the elders of no church from "A" to "Z" have any scriptural right to give or accept money from one church to another for the work of evangelization which the Lord has assigned to every church from "A" to "Z." When they do "act in such fashion," they go beyond what is written; they violate God's law of exclusion; they sin against the authority of heaven. (2 John 9.)
Not only congregation "A," but every congregation from "A" to "Z" has the "right" to "act" in the work of preaching the gospel to the world, and it must "act" or lose its New Testament identity. Congregation "A" has neither a duty nor a "right" in the field of evangelization that all the other churches all the way to "Z" do not have.
"3. This work then becomes, peculiarly and exclusively the work of congregation `A' — congregation `A's' own work."
This assumption No. 3 is totally false. The work of preaching the gospel in any area never becomes, "peculiarly and exclusively," the work of congregation "A," regardless of what congregation "A" assumes or says "dubs" over. After congregation "A" says "dubs on," or" assumes" the work of evangelizing a given city, or state, or nation or the whole world, all the other churches from "B" to "Z" sustain precisely the same evangelistic obligations to that area that they sustained before congregation "A" did any "assuming" at all.
If congregation "A" can "assume" the work of evangelizing one city, and thereby make the work of evangelizing that city, "peculiarly and exclusively the work of congregation 'A'," then by that same process congregation "Z" can "assume" the work of evangelizing the rest of the world and thereby make the work of preaching the gospel in all the world, "peculiarly and exclusively," the work of congregation "Z." Brother Warren and the other riders of the sponsoring church hobby would be able to see that this is true, if they would get off of their hobby horse long enough to exercise as much as one grain of reason or common sense.
"4. The total accomplishing of this work exceeds the ability of congregation 'A.' Congregation 'A' is unable to do its own work."
Unto every church from congregation "A" to congregation "Z" the Lord has assigned the work of preaching the gospel to the world. "The total accomplishing of this work exceeds the ability" of any one congregation from "A" to "Z." Now, according to Brother Warren, no congregation from "A" to "Z" is able "to do its own work"; therefore every congregation from "A" to "Z" must become a sponsoring church, and every one from "A" to "Z" must beg all the others for funds with which "to do its own work." The profundity of Brother Warren's logic would make old Socrates ashamed of himself!
"5. Congregation 'B' may contribute to (send funds to) congregation 'A' to be used by congregation `A' in the accomplishing of that work."
When this "element" No. 5 is considered in the light of the three "elements" immediately preceding it, one wonders how a sensible man like Brother Warren can let a false doctrine or dangerous hobby lead him into so many ridiculous absurdities.
According to Brother Warren's "elements," "congregation 'A' assumes the oversight of the accomplishing of this work" of evangelizing "area (field) D." Congregation "Z" assumes the oversight of evangelizing all the rest of the world. But both "A" and "Z" bit off more than they could chew, therefore neither is able "to do its own work."
Brother Warren "assumes" that congregation "B" may send its money to congregation "A" to be used in evangelizing "a (field) D," then of course all the congregations from "C" to "Y" can send their money to congregation "Z" to be used in evangelizing the rest of the world. Then it necessarily follows that no congregation from "B" to "Y" will have anything to do in the field of evangelization, except to send money to congregations "A" and "Z," because "A" and "Z" have "assumed" the work of evangelizing the whole world, thereby making the work "peculiarly and exclusively" their own. The word "exclusively" leaves no field of evangelization on earth for congregations "B" to "Y." If they ever evangelize anywhere, they must pick out a spot for themselves on the moon or some other planet and say "dubs" on it before congregations "A" and "Z" decide that the earth is too small for their "ability" and "leadership" and beat them to it.
There is not one word of truth in Brother Warren's "element" No. 5. That congregation "B may contribute funds to congregation "A" to be used by congregation "A" in evangelistic work is a false assumption for which there is no support anywhere in all the sacred writings. That is the very thing that his "proposition" demands that he prove; instead of trying to prove, he chooses to "assume" it. Does Brother Warren know the difference between proving a thing and assuming it?
"6. A congregation may have the right to do a work for which it has no specific obligation — that is, it may not be obligated to do this work in just this specific particular way, but at the same time it may have the right to do so."
The first statement in No. 6 is not true. No congregation has a right to do any work for which it has no "specific obligation." Every church has a "specific obligation" to do every work which the Lord has assigned to it, and it is in open rebellion against God, if it neglects to do that work. If a church plunges into a work which the Lord has not assigned, it goes beyond what is written (2 John 9), and violates God's law of exclusion.
After making this false statement, Brother Warren hastened to explain that he did not mean at all what he said. He explained that he meant that a church "may not be obligated to do this work in just this specific particular way." Well, why didn't he say that in the first place, and entirely omit the false statement? Does he not know the difference between a "work" and a method of doing that that work?
Why does Brother Warren write so many false, contradictory and equivocal utterances which necessitate so much explaining? Is it because he has not learned how to express his thoughts on paper? Or is it because he knows that he must dodge, cover up and confuse in order to present any semblance of proof of his "proposition"?
Of course a church may not be obligated to employ a particular method in doing a work; but is Brother Warren trying to say that a missionary society or a sponsoring church is a "way" or method of preaching the gospel? If that is the impression he is trying to create, he needs a lesson on "God's Law Of Exclusion"; if that is not his purpose, then his "element" No. 6 is not related at all to his "proposition."
In this list of six assumptions which he calls "elements of the proposition," the most of which are false, Brother Warren completely ignored one "element" which is named specifically in his proposition — "the scriptures." His proposition says, "The scriptures teach": but in his list of "elements" he made no reference whatever to the "scriptures." Does Brother Warren think the scriptures are too insignificant as proof of a "proposition" to be mentioned as an "element" at all? If "the scriptures teach" the sponsoring church hobby, some one should be able to give the reference: the verse, or the chapter, or the book. If six assertions, without any reference at all to the scriptures, prove that the sponsoring church racket is scriptural, then every damnable doctrine in existence can be proved to be scriptural.
The silly syllogism which evolved from Brother Warren's six "elements" will be examined in the next chapter.
(To be continued)