The Middle Of The Road -- No. III.
Brother Lanier draws a conclusion saying that she believes that he has shown that a congregation has the right to care for the homeless even if doing so necessitates the building and operation of a home so long as that work is done under the oversight of the elders of that church. To this I would readily agree if he would limit this to the flock of God over which these elders have been appointed. The scriptures do not give any group of elders the right to make provision for the needy of other congregations. But brother Lanier does not mean that. Notice his statement: "I believe a church has the right to gather more children in such a home than it can feed, clothe and educate and that it has the right to call on other churches to assist it in doing this work."
He says many things in connection with this idea but they all boil down to just this: if cooperation is a command, something to do, then we MUST follow the Bible example; (notice that brother Lanier admits that there is an example) if it is not a command (and brother Lanier says it is not) then it is in "the field of incidentals, of what is expedient, and of what is good judgment." I say it IS something to be done in certain instances and under circumstances; a command. Here's what I mean: if a church somewhere is in distress, (like Jerusalem) and we know of it, (like Corinth) and have ability, (like Corinth — "let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered") then we are obligated (commanded) to help that church. No, we don't have to seek out a church somewhere that is in need and send something to it whether we can or not, just to fulfil the commandment to cooperate, but it falls in the same category as the individual visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc. This is a command. We MUST do those things as we have opportunity and ability, but never has it been suggested that we must go out over the country seeking a sick person, a naked person, one who is hungry, one who is thirsty, one who is in jail, etc., but as the opportunity presents itself and as we have the ability we are to act.
I believe we could see this cooperation thing better if we would just leave it like it is in the Bible. Just as an individual helped another who was in need, (they did something) even so when one congregation was in need (distress) then other congregations helped it. Never did they operate or cooperate through another church in helping that church nor did they operate through some agency, some society.
Brother Lanier says that cooperation is in the realm of incidentals; we may or we may not cooperate. But the thing brother Lanier and perhaps you readers need to think about is this: we suppose (for the sake of argument) that it IS incidental whether or not we cooperate, but we do decide through our own human wisdom, as suggested by brother Lanier, that we will cooperate. HOW DO WE DO IT? That's the whole question. Is HOW we do it (cooperate) left to human judgment? Please answer that in your own mind. If you say "yes" as brother Lanier has through his arguments, then you may admit the sponsoring church, the society. the convention, the association, or any way of cooperation that does not DICTATE to the churches, as being permissible. If you exclude ONE of these, then you must take it out of the realm of expediency and put it in the realm of FAITH and when you do that, then you must accept the example of the Bible and when you do that, then we will all be in agreement and the "cooperation controversy" will be at an end. To that end we should be studying, working and praying with all diligence.
I believe that brother Lanier is completely in the dark as to what the issue is and in some other things, just as many others seem to be. He insists that cooperation is not commanded but is in the field of expediency thus we are allowed to use our judgment as to whether we will or will not cooperate, to what extent we will cooperate in any given work, and on what conditions we will cooperate. He takes the Lord's Supper and giving on the Lord's Day as commands and then shows certain things in connection with their doing to be in the field of incidentals. I don't believe brother Lanier's stand on cooperation being in the field of incidentals but let's grant that it might be just for the sake of argument. Let's grant that we may choose to or not to cooperate, we choose the extent to which we will cooperate, and we choose the conditions under which we cooperate. Now, brother Lanier, the discussion is: "HOW shall this cooperation be carried on?" Shall it be through an institution with a board like Boles Home? I say no, and so does brother Lanier. Shall it be through a convention? We both say, no. Shall it be through a missionary society? We both say, no. Shall it be through a sponsoring church? I say no but now brother Lanier says, yes. But, if cooperation is in the realm of incidentals, then how can we draw a line at anything? Why not the society? Why not Boles Home? Why not the convention? What condemns them? I say the Bible excludes them AND the sponsoring church (home under the elders) concept by giving us an example of HOW churches DID cooperate in the New Testament.
Brother Lanier says that we demand an example or a command or inference for everything they are doing. No. we demand some kind of scriptural proof, and so far it hasn't been forthcoming. We are not asking for an example for everything done in services, but we are saying that where an exclusive example exists, such as is the case in cooperation, then we are bound by that Bible example. Just as we are bound by the Bible example to partake of the Lord's Supper ONLY on the first day of the week. and in that supper to use only unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, just so are we bound by the Bible example of cooperation. It can all be summed up to this: one church may send to another church when that church is UNABLE to take care of its OWN obligations. For that kind of cooperation we have scripture. For any other kind we must place it in the realm of expediency, and when we do that we open the door for missionary and benevolent societies, conventions, associations, AND sponsoring churches.
This discussion is not now neither has it ever been a discussion of HOW to care for orphans. Let's forget that. The controversy is: HOW churches are to cooperate. Brother Lanier ends up by saying that Antioch decided to send some of its money far away to assist another in its benevolent work. (Acts. 11:27-30). That's right. But what he needs to find is where Antioch sent to another church to assist that church in doing a BROTHERHOOD work; a work for other churches like Tipton and others are doing today. He then brings up the example of "the churches in western Asia and eastern Europe cooperated in doing some of their benevolence in far away Jerusalem." That's right, to a certain extent, and no one would question doing just that today. Jerusalem was in need. Churches sent to their assistance that they might meet their OWN obligations, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD SET THEMSELVES UP AS A CENTRAL CHURCH THROUGH WHICH OTHER CHURCHES WORKED. Jerusalem wasn't taking care of the people from other congregations. The contribution was for "the poor among the saints in Jerusalem," and certainly not for the "poor among the saints" that had been brought there for other churches, There are many other ramifications of the "orphan home controversy" that have not been dealt with in this series, but they have been taken care of in other articles. More needs to be written on the "issues" and will be written. The problem now is how to get these writings before those who need to read and study them. Do your part by circulating all articles on the "issues" in every way you have opportunity. That's the only way that the misrepresentations can be answered.
Study these things and if there is some way in which low see that I have erred, please let me know. Eternity depends on the right answers.