A "Middle Of The Road" Breakdown -- No. IV.
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Firm Foundation for publication.)
Universal Church Action
As we continue our study of Bro. Lanier's articles, "THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD," as published in the Firm Foundation, some other things in his third article are yet to be considered. Relative to Homes that operate under self-perpetuating boards, Bro. Lanier says:
"But if some one says these homes are avenues through which the universal church takes care of the needy, I ask for the authority to activate the universal church. If it was sinful for brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?"
Brother Lanier definitely puts himself against universal church action — he calls for "authority to activate the universal church." He reasons that it is just as sinful now to "activate the universal church" as it was a century ago when brethren formed the Missionary Society. You will note that he is not merely opposing these Homes because of the human organizational arrangement, but also because they "activate the universal church." It is sinful, he claims, to activate the universal church now, just as it was when the Missionary Society was formed a hundred years ago. Since it is sinful to "activate the universal church" at all, it is sinful to do it with a Benevolent Society just the same as with a Missionary Society. Then may I ask Bro. Lanier if it is also sinful "to activate the universal church" through a "sponsoring congregation." What he means by activating the universal church is that an arrangement is made by the Missionary Society or the Benevolent Society by which all congregations may do their work through a single centralized agency. Not that all congregations actually turned their funds to one agency. They did not with the Missionary Society, but it was a plan by which they could have done so. Today the "sponsoring church," which Bro. Lanier tries to defend before he finishes his articles, offers the same sort of arrangement. All congregations can turn their funds to one congregation — the sponsoring church for the work of radio evangelism, the work of benevolence or any other work that is placed on the church. Then this sponsoring church can control and use the funds for the work as she deems proper. If "activating the universal church" is wrong, as Bro. Lanier says, then it is still wrong when a "sponsoring church" does it. This forever sets aside any effort that Bro. Lanier later makes to defend the sponsoring church system of operation. When we come to that part of his articles, just remember that he has already said that such a thing is sinful.
Turning from universal church action to individual work, he asks: "Where is the authority for individuals to set up an organization outside the framework of the local church to do a work which belongs to the church? "And we might ask him: "Where is the authority to set up an organization inside the framework of the church to do the work of the church?" He can likely find the authority for both in the same passage.
Argument From Woods-Porter Debate Next, Bro. Lanier introduces an argument that Bro. Woods made in our debate at Indianapolis. It concerned an organization within an organization. Bro. Woods contended that the Post Office Department is not a rival to the Federal Government; that the Highway Department is not a rival of the State Government; and that an Orphanage is not a rival to the church of the Lord. It was shown by me in that debate that the Post Office Department is not a rival to the Federal Government because the Federal Government has a legislative body that can authorize a Post Office Department; and that the Highway Department does not rival the State Government because the State Government has a legislative body to authorize a Highway Department. But in the Lord's church there is no legislative body that has any right to make laws to permit Benevolent Societies for the work of benevolence. Christ is the lawgiver, and we cannot set up our own laws for such. Bro. Lanier thinks Porter did not answer the argument, and if Woods had held Lanier's position he could have left Porter speechless. Here is his statement:
"If Brother Woods would limit the use of his illustration to homes within the framework of the church and under the oversight of elders, he would leave Brother Porter speechless."
Well, since Bro. Lanier so limits the illustration, let us look at it and see just how "speechless" Lanier left Porter. And here is the way he limits the illustration as we quote his own words:
"Yes, Brother Woods, as long as the P. O. Dept. stays within the framework of the Federal Government and respects the head of the government and does the work the government wants done it is not in conflict or competition with the government.
But suppose, Brother Woods, that you and I decide that since we are citizens we will organize a P. O. Dept. of our own, one not within the framework of the Federal Government, would we be in conflict and competition with the government? How would the government look upon our operations? That is what your homes for aged and orphans are."
And now let Porter, who has been rendered speechless, say to Bro. Lanier: Suppose, Bro. Lanier, that you and I decide that since we are citizens, we will organize a P. O. Dept. which the legislative body of the Federal Government has never authorized; we will equip it with the necessary officers to operate and control it; and then we will place it within the framework of the Federal Government. How would the government look upon our operations? Do you think such an arrangement would be accepted by the Federal Government? Or would it still be in conflict and competition with the Government? Well, that is what your homes for the aged and orphans are. Benevolent Societies are set up for the work of benevolence that the lawgiver, Christ, has never authorized. After they have been furnished with the necessary Board of Directors to operate them, then you place them under the elders and within the framework of the church.
I would like to see you and some of the brethren who ride with you try that plan for a Post Office Dept. and see how far you would get with it. The Federal Government would let you know in a hurry that you could not set up one like that and then push it into the framework of the Government. Neither can you set up a Benevolent Society, equip it with officers, and then push it into the framework of the church the Lord authorized. Authority to build a P. O. Department would have to come from the proper source; and authority to build a Benevolent Society would have to come from the proper source — from the lawgiver, who is Christ. Without the proper authority to build a Post Office Department, it would be in competition with the Federal Government; and without divine 'authority for a Benevolent Society it is in competition with the church, regardless of where you try to place it. No one can claim a Scriptural right to set up a Benevolent Society that the Lord has not authorized to do the work of the church than he has a legal right to set up a Post Office Department which the Federal Government has not authorized to do the work of the Federal Government. To organize either and then try to place them within the framework of the government is a usurpation of authority. Both of them would operate without legal authority, and Porter can still talk.
In the beginning of his fourth article, published in Firm Foundation of March 5, 1957, Bro. Lanier paves the way for an effort to prove the "sponsoring church" form of cooperation. He delivers himself in the following fashion:
"Also I believe I have shown that individuals have no right to band themselves together in a corporate body outside of the framework of the church to do a work of the church which the Lord expects his church to do. I now plan to study the right of churches to cooperate with each other in caring for the needy under the oversight of elders. 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 its work."
He believes it is wrong for individuals (and he believes that he has shown it to be) to "band themselves together in a corporate body outside of the framework of the church" to do the work of the church, but it is evident that he does not believe it is wrong to "band themselves together in a corporate body inside the framework of the church" for such purpose. Just what would make the "corporate body" wrong if outside of the church but right inside of it? You have the same additional corporate body in both cases. In both cases it is a human organization. And why a human organization is wrong outside of the church but becomes right if placed inside is a puzzle to me. Also Bro. Lanier plans to prove that it is "the right of churches to cooperate with each other in caring for the needy under the oversight of elders."
As far as I am concerned, he does not need to prove that at all. I have always believed that congregations have "the right to cooperate in caring for the needy." The right of cooperation does not come within miles of the issue. That is not it at all. But the kind of cooperation Bro. Lanier has in mind is shown by his statement that 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 its work." In other words, he is planning to defend the "sponsoring church" type of cooperation. But remember that he has already said that it is a sin "to activate the universal church." Brother Lanier, just how many more children than a "church can feed, clothe and educate" does it have the right to gather into a home? Is there a limit to be placed on it somewhere? Or does it have the right to gather into that home all the children needing care? If it could gather a hundred more that it could support, and such would become its work, could it gather a thousand more than it could support? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Just where would it have to stop? And how many other churches would it have the right to call upon to "assist it in doing its work?" Could it call upon a hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? Would it have the right to call upon all other congregations to help it? If not, where would it have to stop? And if so, how much further would you have to go to activate the universal church?" It is certain that you have the principle of "universal church action" when it gathers only a few more from other places that it can support and calls upon a few congregations to help? And there is no reason why it should not call upon all churches. Bro. Lanier can never defend his point here without endorsing "universal church action," and since he has already said that such is sinful, he has had a complete breakdown "in the middle of the road."
The line of reasoning Bro. Lanier follows in his effort to prove "universal church action" is Scriptural, even though it is sinful, will be considered in the next article.
(To Be Continued)