The Middle Of The Road
(This is a review of a recent series published under the above title and run in the Firm Foundation. Roy H. Lanier is the author. The reason for this review is that I believe brother Lanier to be in error and since I am not allowed space in the F. F. to answer his error I have used the limited circulation of my weekly bulletin and now the pages of the Gospel Guardian in the hope that we may be able to counteract some of this false teaching. — RLC).
In a recent debate held in Fort Smith, Arkansas, Robert Gordon Clements made one statement that I can wholeheartedly endorse. In taking a slap at his erstwhile cohort, Roy H. Lanier, and others of that persuasion, he said, "The middle of the road is a dangerous place. You are very likely to get run over in the middle of the road."
The reason for brother Lanier's "middle of the road" attitude is because he feels that there are two extremes in the church today. He tells of one group and says of them, "they are too liberal for me." I agree with brother Lanier in that statement. The group to which he refers is headed by the Gospel Advocate with its editor, B. C. Goodpasture. These brethren have opened the door for complete apostasy even as the digressives of the Christian Church opened it about 100 years ago. They have accepted the idea that the Lord's churches may support from their treasuries any type of human institution so long as these institutions are operated by our brethren, such as colleges and benevolent societies. They have also accepted the idea that an example (an inspired Bible example) cannot be binding. This concept opens the door for Thursday (or any other day) communion, water and corn bread in the communion, the missionary society, and a hundred and one other things that might he borrowed from Rome or Cincinnati. Yes, I am just as much, or more, opposed to this extreme liberal position as brother Lanier is.
Brother Lanier used to be a staff writer and a Bible school quarterly writer for the Advocate, but since Goodpasture refused to publish his articles and then deleted others, the deletion of which caused it to appear that brother Lanier was upholding the Advocate position, the only honorable thing left for him to do was resign. That he did and I admire him for his courage in taking a public stand against the powerful Gospel Advocate.
Then brother Lanier suggests a leftist group which he says is the other extreme. I stand among those accused of leftism. Another reason for this review. I, with many others, oppose the centralizing of funds in ANY human institution or the support of any such with money from the treasury of the congregation, and I also oppose the centralizing of funds from many churches under the eldership of one congregation which has set itself up to oversee work for these many congregations. They have no scriptural (Bible) authority to plan and direct work for any other than those who have chosen them for their overseers, whether it be in the field of benevolence or evangelism. (Acts 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:2). Because of this Bible position, brother Lanier has labeled us as leftists, extremists, antis, and has said that we oppose the care of widows and orphans and are opposed to preaching the gospel anywhere except in our own home congregation. All of these ideas I emphatically deny and call on brother Lanier or any of his stripe for public proof or public apology for any one or all of those charges. (My prophecy is that neither shall be forthcoming.)
Brother Lanier takes the position that the elders of one congregation may plan and direct the work or a portion of the work of many congregations; that many churches may work through one eldership. This, he says, is his "middle of the road" position. I say that there is not a scripture in the New Testament to sustain his position. If there is, surely someone will present it. Brother Lanier hasn't. Perhaps we can put it in plain enough language that some will find out just what the issue is and why this battle must be fought.
This series of articles could very aptly be titled, "Scriptural, Liberal, or Digressive?" The reason is this: there are men among us who believe that we are bound by scriptural examples, if such exists. I am among these, and if we are right, then surely we can be referred to as "scriptural." Then there are those like brother Lanier, Lemmons, Harper, etc., who believe that it is wrong for any church to contribute regularly to any human institution under a board of directors, such as Boles Home, Abilene Christian College, etc., but that it is right for a group of elders in some church to organize and oversee the work or a part of the work of many churches, whether in benevolence or evangelism. One church becoming the central agency through which many churches work. This I believe to be contrary to scripture, and if I am right in that surmise, this will definitely place these brethren in the classification of "liberal."
Then the third group which is headed by B. C. Good-pasture and the powerful Gospel Advocate with men like brethren Totty, Watson, etc., who believe it right for the church to put human institutions in its budget, thus opening the door for missionary societies as well as the benevolent institutions they have already accepted and the educational societies (colleges) which they agree are obligations of the Lord's churches. If I, or the group in which we find brother Lanier is right, then surely these brethren must be classed as "digressive." They have departed completely from scriptural authority and have thrown open the door of apostasy.
But let's look at brother Lanier's No. 2 article. Actually he has said very little in this article with which I would differ. First he points out that there is a vast difference in individual and church activity or responsibility. To this I agree. The "digressives" say that what the individual does it is the church dong, or vice versa. But Lanier begins to fight a straw man as so many others have done. He shows that no specific method for caring for widows or orphans is revealed in the New Testament. I agree and no one of whom I know disagrees with that. But brother Lanier seems to think that this is the issue. No, we know that no method for such care is suggested but we are NOT discussing THAT. We are discussing whether or not the New Testament reveals how two or more churches are to cooperate; when one church is authorized to send funds to another church. We wouldn't argue for one moment about HOW widows or orphans are to be cared for. That is strictly a matter of wisdom. We should choose the wisest method. But what we are contending for is the fact that we are not at liberty to use OUR wisdom in cooperation between churches.
Brother Lanier contends that "if a church has opportunity to keep and care for" more orphans or widows than it has financial ability to do, then other churches are obligated to send funds. He uses Jerusalem and "the poor saints" there as his authority. There is a vast difference between "obligation" and "opportunity." Jerusalem had an "obligation" it could not fulfill and other churches helped them. They could not care for "their own." What churches today are doing is accepting orphans and widows from all other congregations, accepting them as their own "obligation" and then calling on other churches for help, thus relieving the congregations sending the orphans or widows from responsibility. Brother Lanier excuses these instances by just "putting it under the elders" of some local congregation. I maintain that there is no authority in all of God's Book for any one church taking the orphans or widows of other congregations, thus becoming a central agency through which many other congregations operate or "cooperate."
That is a "liberal" attitude for it has set aside the simple New Testament pattern for cooperation: that is: one church sending to another church when that church is UNABLE to care for the needs of its OWN indigent members.