A "Middle Of The Road" Breakdown -- No. V
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Firm Foundation for publication.)
Brother Roy H. Lanier, in his "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" series of articles published in the Firm Foundation, endeavors, in his fourth article, published March 5, 1957, to sustain the "sponsoring church" type of cooperation in the work of the church. The following statement is made near the beginning of the article:
"We begin this part of our study by saying that God's commandments are basic, specific, exclusive, and that they are binding alike upon all in the category to whom given and for all generations since they were given."
Following this statement he endeavors to apply his rule to three separate actions — preaching the gospel, benevolence and congregational cooperation. He takes them one at a time in the following manner:
"Preaching The Gospel"
He introduces Mat. 28: 18-20; Mark 16:15, 16; 2 Tim. 4:1, 2 to prove that God has commanded the gospel to be preached. Then he applies his rule like this:
1. This command is basic because it is fundamental.
2. It is specific because it definitely points out what is to be preached.
3. This command is exclusive because it excludes science, philosophy, politics and everything except the gospel of Christ.
4. This command is binding alike upon all to whom it is given.
5. And this command is binding upon God's people in every generation since it was given."
He shows that the command to preach the gospel is not a way or method of doing something, but it is the thing the Lord commands us to do. Then he proceeds to the next:
Benevolence
Gal. 6:10 and James 1:27 are given to show that the Lord commanded benevolence. Then his rules are applied this way:
1. This command is basic because it is fundamental. Benevolence is not a way, method, or means of doing anything; it is the thing the Lord commands us to do.
2. It is specific because t points out help, assistance, to the needy.
3. It is exclusive because it forbids selfishness and covetousness and everything else which would keep us from doing good to others.
4. This command is binding upon all.
5. This command is binding in every generation; there is no time limit on it"
"Congregational Cooperation"
This is taken as the next point for consideration. Bro. Lanier raises the question: "Is congregational cooperation commanded of God's people?" Then he begins to apply his rule. He follows a plan like this:
"1. Is it basic in the sense of being a fundamental?"
He reasons that it is not because it is only a way or manner by which something "basic" is done. He proceeds with his next point:
"2. Is it specific?"
He wants to know what is specified, in what fields we are commanded to cooperate, and so on. Then to the following point:
"3. Is it exclusive?"
He wants to know what is excluded. Is it individual action? This would imply that there could be no "cooperation" in "individual action." I wonder if Bro. Lanier thinks that. He goes to the next point:
"4. Is cooperation binding upon all congregations?"
He concludes that no one would contend that all congregations are required to "cooperate." And then his final point is applied:
"5. Is congregational cooperation binding in all ages since the gospel became binding upon churches?"
He thinks no one will affirm that it has been binding during all of this time. So he gives an affirmative answer to all five points in his rule to preaching the gospel and to benevolence, but a negative answer to all five points as they relate to congregational cooperation. He concludes, therefore, that congregational cooperation is not basic. I give his exact words in reaching his conclusion as follows:
"Since the matter of congregational cooperation has none of the characteristics of the commandments of God, we conclude that it is not a basic command. It is a way or manner of doing things which are commanded. Follow this syllogism: 1. Commands are basic and binding upon all God's people in all generations since they were given. 2. Cooperation is not basic nor binding upon all God's people in all generations. 3. Therefore, cooperation is not a commandment of God.
"Having taken cooperation out of the field of what is commanded, we now place it in the field of incidentals, of what is expedient, and of what is good judgment."
It may be easily seen that Bro. Lanier makes room for only two fields — one is the field of what is commanded, and the other is the field of incidentals. According to him, if a thing is not commanded, it cannot be basic, specific, exclusive, binding upon all and binding for all time. So he rules out cooperation as something fundamental and makes it an incidental. He denies that things are made binding by example and necessary inference — it must be a commandment or it is not basic. Upon his plan of reasoning I would like for him to prove that a Lord's day communion service is fundamental. The only authority we have for the Lord's supper on the first day of the week is by way of an apostolic example. (Acts 20:7.) Brother Lanier, Is it fundamental? There is no commandment for it. Bro. Lanier sensed he might have some trouble here, so in his fifth article, Firm Foundation, March 12, 1957, he tried to fix it up. Here is what he said:
"The command to take the Lord's supper is basic. We do not have the right to say whether we will or will not take it on the Lord's day. But the time of the day, whether we take it before or after the sermon, is in the field of incidentals and in this we have liberty."
Why, Bro. Lanier, do we not have the right to say whether we will or will not take it on the Lord's day? There is no command to take it on the Lord's day. Yes, we have a command to take the Lord's supper, and that is basic, according to Roy, but we do not have a command to take it "on the Lord's day." His argument, therefore, puts the day we take it in the field of incidentals. It is not basic, according to him, for it is not commanded.
Our authority for a first day communion service is given by apostolic example and in no other way. Furthermore, he can find no commandment for the frequency of it. If he could find a commandment to take it on the Lord's day, he would still be unable to find a commandment that says "every Lord's day." We get the frequency of it by a necessary inference. So neither a Lord's day service nor a weekly service is fundamental, according to Lather's argument. He rejects everything as being basic unless he finds a commandment for it. He also sensed further trouble as shown by this statement:
"Why are we bound to follow some examples of the apostles and early Christians and free to ignore other examples? When apostles and early Christians set an example of obedience to basic, fundamental, commandments of the Lord, we are bound to follow those examples."
This reasoning again rules out a Lord's day communion as binding. When they set the example of first day communion, it was not an example of obedience to a "basic, fundamental commandment." There was no such commandment to be obeyed. There was a commandment to partake of the Lord's supper, and when they set the example of partaking the Lord's supper, it was in obedience to a basic, fundamental commandment. But when they set the example of doing it on the "first day of the week" they were not setting an example of obedience to a basic, fundamental commandment, for there was no such commandment that required the first day of the week. So Brother Lanier will just have to place first day communion "in the field of incidentals" or give up his long-drawn-out argument, for, according to him, neither an example nor a necessary inference is binding unless a specific commandment back of it can be found. And since he can find no such commandment for a weekly communion service nor for a first day service, he will have to agree that it will be all right to take the Lord's supper on Wednesday and take it only once a year.
Is Cooperation An Incidental?
If Brother Lanier will prove that taking the Lord's supper once each week and taking it on the first day of the week are fundamental and basic, I will prove, by the same method, that congregational cooperation is both fundamental and basic. He says:
"A congregation may or may not cooperate with other churches in a good work and still be pleasing to the Lord, provided it is using well all its energies and abilities in works of its own."
He reveals in this statement a misconception of the meaning of "cooperation." All he can see is a "sponsoring church" type of cooperation. Churches do not have to pool their funds under the eldership of one congregation to be spent for them in order to cooperate. Cooperation is of two types, as lexical authorities will confirm. It means: 1. Concurrent action for a common purpose. 2. Joint action in producing an effect. The only thing Bro. Lanier can see is "joint action." But when a number of congregations engage in a similar work to accomplish a common purpose, they are cooperating, even if one does not know of the existence of the other. Preaching the gospel is a work given to every church — the "church is the pillar and ground of the truth." 1. Tim. 3:15. When a number of congregations engage in gospel preaching for the purpose of saving souls, they are cooperating in the salvation of sinners. We are certainly commanded to preach the gospel, and that commandment cannot be obeyed by more than one church without cooperation. Furthermore when Paul commanded the church at Corinth and the churches of Galatia to lay by in store on the first day of the week to relieve the distress of poor saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1,2), the commandment required cooperation. The commandment could not be obeyed without cooperation. So cooperation is not a way or method of doing something God has commanded, but it is an inherent part of the commandment. When they acted concurrently to relieve the needs of those in distress, they were engaged in congregational cooperation. Their funds did not have to be centralized under one eldership, but when they sent direct to the needy church, every church taking part in the matter was cooperating. Bro. Lanier seems to think that only the "indirect sending" is cooperation, but such is not true. His rules can, therefore, be applied to congregational cooperation and they will prove that such is fundamental. Let us try it:
1. It is basic because it is fundamental. The command to preach the gospel or to relieve the needy cannot be obeyed by more than one church without cooperating. It is impossible to do so.
2. It is specific because it points out concurrent action toward a common purpose.
3. It is exclusive because it forbids rebellion against the work of saving sinners and helping the needy.
4. It is binding upon all congregations. It is utterly impossible for them to do the work commanded without working toward a common goal.
5. It is binding in all generations since the gospel was given. There has never been a time, and there never will be, in which action toward a common goal is not required.
So when we apply the rules Bro. Lanier gives, we move congregational cooperation out of the field of incidentals and move it in the field of fundamentals. All of this will take care of the argument he made about basic and incidental parallels.
He concludes his series of articles with the following language:
"We have found gospel teaching which justifies all the essential elements of an orphan home operated by one church which is assisted by many and when we put these justified elements together we conclude that our program of benevolence is authorized. Let those who oppose such work show first where such a program violates gospel teaching and, next, show us how such work can be done without violating any gospel principles."
The thing he thinks he has justified is the "sponsoring church" that performs the work of many churches in a home operated under the elders. If he wants the proof he calls for, I cite him to Roy H. Lanier. In article No. 3 he declared that it is a sin "to activate the universal church." That is exactly what is done in the type of work he thinks he has justified. If such is sinful, it violates gospel teaching, Bro. Lanier. And in article No. 2 he suggested some methods by which the work could be done without violating any gospel principles. I recommend these methods to you, Bro. Lanier.