A "Middle Of The Road" Breakdown -- No. 1
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Firm Foundation for publication.)
During February and March of this year Bro. Roy H. Lanier, former staff writer for the Gospel Advocate, published a series of articles in the Firm Foundation concerning the work of benevolence, under the title of "THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD." The articles which I now begin are intended as a review of the articles written by Bro. Lanier.
About a year before the articles appeared in the Firm Foundation, and while still a staff writer for the Gospel Advocate, Bro. Lanier wrote a series of articles for the Advocate on the subject of COOPERATION. But two of the articles in that series were never published, because the editor of the Advocate refused to allow them to appear, as they were not in harmony with the published views and policies of the Gospel Advocate. Such information is given us in the series that were run in the Firm Foundation. Because he was not allowed to present his position in a paper for which he had long served as staff writer, Brother Lanier broke with the Gospel Advocate, asked that he be discontinued as a staff writer and that his name be taken from the payroll. He would not continue to write for a paper that would not allow him to express his views on matters that vitally concerned the unity of brethren.
Brother Lanier is to be commended for his courage in this matter. He sacrificed his position and pay as a writer for the Advocate rather than to sacrifice his convictions and stultify his conscience in submitting to such an unfair editorial policy as is maintained by the editor of the Advocate. I well know what he was talking about. Very few men — if any — have been more maliciously criticized and condemned through the pages of the Gospel Advocate than I have; but I have never been shown the Christian courtesy of uttering even one word in my own defense. If such a policy is a manifestation of the principles of Christianity, I have been reading the wrong book. So I compliment Brother Lanier for standing by his conviction in this matter.
Shortly after Brother Lanier's articles appeared in the Firm Foundation, Brother Guy N. Woods, staffwriter of the Gospel Advocate and the leading champion of human institutionalism, reviewed the Lanier articles in the Gospel Advocate under the heading of "LANIER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WRONG ROAD." This was an amusing admission on the part of Brother Woods. The ROAD in the MIDDLE OF which Brother Lanier was traveling is the road of human institutionalism for doing the work of the church, although he seemed not to be aware of this fact. It is the same road that Woods is traveling, except he is far to one side of the road from Lanier. If Lanier was "in the middle of the wrong road," then Woods is also in the wrong road, even if he is not in the middle of it. For both are trying to defend human institutions to do the work of the church. Of course, Woods thinks the only work of the church is to furnish the money and that the institutions are doing their own work, and Lanier thinks human institutions are all right if you put them under the elders of a local congregation.
Brother Lanier thinks that many young preachers have thought they must accept one of two extreme views in the matter of benevolence because they did not know there was a "middle of the road" position they could occupy. And he thinks this "middle of the road" idea will become a solution of the problem of benevolence before the church today. However, I am inclined to think that he is destined for a great disappointment along that line. No doubt many will jump on the "band wagon" that is traveling in the "middle of the road" in preference to the one that is lumbering so far to the right, but that by no means indicates that such is a solution to problems before the churches today.
Brother Lanier presents what he calls "two extremes" in the matter of benevolence. I shall let you read of them in his own language. These statements are taken from the first article that appeared in the Firm Foundation of Feb. 12, 1957. Note what he says as follows:
"There is one group of brethren who are too liberal for me. They believe a group of men can form a corporation, build and maintain a home which is not under the oversight of elders of a church and that many churches can cooperate in the upkeep of that home. * * This view is too liberal for me; It is on the extreme right.
"There is another group of brethren who contend that a church does not have the scriptural right to organize, make an orderly arrangement of its forces to operate a home to care for orphans as the Tipton church is doing in Oklahoma. This I believe to be an extreme left view; it is too conservative for me."
I am acquainted with the first group that Bro. Lanier calls the extreme right — those who think they can build scripturally a benevolent organization, independent of the church, to do the work of benevolence. Such men as Guy N. Woods, Gayle Oler, W. L. Totty, Sterl A. Watson, and a number of others, have tried to defend such as a Scriptural arrangement for the care of the needy. But the other group mentioned by Brother Lanier I do not know — those who think the church has no right to "make an orderly arrangement" to care for the aged and orphans. I have never yet found any man who says "an orderly arrangement" cannot be made for such work. And I don't think Bro. Lanier has found any of them either. However, he somewhat defined his "orderly arrangement" to mean the way in which the aged are cared for at Gunter, Texas, and the orphans at Tipton, Oklahoma. The effort he makes to justify Gunter Home and Tipton Home on the basis of "orderly arrangement" is similar to the effort made by the liberal brethren to justify Boles Home, Tennessee Orphan Home and Childhaven and others by claiming they have only "an orderly arrangement." Brother Lanier can see that these latter homes involve much more than "an orderly arrangement" — that they are actually human organizations. But the same is true with the ones he is attempting to justify. I shall show during these articles that both Tipton and Gunter, and other similar homes, involve more than "an orderly arrangement." They involve human organizations just as definitely as the ones Bro. Lanier condemns. If he can be made to realize this fact, it will likely change his place of travel. It is fine that he has seen the human organizations in the set-up being defended by the "extreme right" group. Now if he can be made to see that he has the same thing in those he would defend, maybe he will come all the way back to the truth of God and the all-sufficiency of the church, instead of stopping "in the middle of the road" that definitely leads to apostasy. Let us hope that he may have the insight and courage to do even this.
Not Opposed To Orphan Care
In this first article of Bro. Lanier's he makes this statement:
"The fact that I am opposed to caring for orphans under a board does not put me in the group who is against taking care of orphans. And the fact that I believe in taking care of the aged and orphans does not necessarily throw me in the extreme right, or liberal, wing of brethren who are willing to allow and support any sort of organization through which to do benevolent work." Firm Foundation, Feb. 12, 1957.
I am glad that Bro. Lanier is able to see that a man may oppose human organizations to do the work of the church in benevolence without being opposed to the care of orphans. The greatest weapon that promotional brethren have — that is, brethren who are promoting human institutions for the care of the needy — is the falsehood that they spread when they represent us as not believing in caring for orphans. A great deal of prejudice can thus be aroused and minds closed against any effort to find out what we do teach. But Brother Lanier well understands that he can oppose such organizations and still believe in caring for orphans. He does not want to be put "in the group who is against taking care of orphans." Now, I would like for Roy to tell us who composes "the group" that "is against taking care of orphans." That "group" must exist somewhere for Bro. Lanier does not want to be put in that group. Will he please name one man who is located in that group? As far as I have had contact, I have never found any brother that belongs to such a group. I am sure I am not in it. And if Bro. Lanier knows of anyone who is "in that group," will he please tell us who it is? Could it be that Bro. Lanier is engaged in the sort of misrepresentation that he is asking others not to engage in concerning him? He opposes some kind of organizations for the work of the church in orphan care, but he does not want any one to put him in the group that is against orphan care. I wonder if he fails to understand that brethren may be opposed to the kind of organizations he endorses for orphan care without being opposed to the care of orphans. Does he mean that those who do not agree with him make up a group who are against taking care of orphans? Be careful, Bro. Lanier. You are doing to others what you are asking not to be done to you. And if you actually know of any such group among us who are against taking care of orphans, you should let us know something about who they are. We anxiously await the information.
But I do want you to notice that Brother Lather says he is against taking care of orphans under a board. Notice his language again: "The fact that I am opposed to caring for orphans under a board * * ." Now, if this is true, he will have to give up his defense of the homes that he endorsed in his series of articles, such as the Home for the Aged at Gunter, Texas, and Tipton Orphan Home, at Tipton, Oklahoma. The care rendered to the orphans and the aged in these homes is "under a board," and if Bro. Lanier is against such care, he will have to oppose these also. Before these articles are finished I shall give ample evidence that such homes are operated "under a board." I am not quite ready for that material yet. But just keep in mind the fact that Bro. Lanier says he is "opposed to caring for orphans under a board."
(To Be Continued)