"Where There Is No Pattern"
Nearly a century ago Moses Lard, J. W. McGarvey and other "giants" of the restoration movement waged a vigorous fight against instrumental music in the worship. They opposed it on the ground that it was without scriptural authority and that those who introduced and used it were guilty of the sin of Nadab and Abihu — doing that which "Jehovah had not commanded." They argued that respect for the silence of the scriptures required that the instrument be rejected from the worship of the New Testament church.
Paradoxically, both these giants in logic endorsed and defended the missionary society as a means by which the "brotherhood" or church universal could function. Basing their defense on the silence of the scriptures, they argued that as God had given no pattern of organization for "brotherhood" action, it was left to men to devise one according to man's best judgement. They opposed the instrument on the ground of the silence of the scriptures, while defending the society on the ground that the scriptures were silent as to a pattern of organization through which the church general could function. In one case silence restricted; in the other case silence gave license. Even giants in logic can be guilty of holding inconsistent positions. The silence of the scriptures restricts those who respect the silence of the scriptures in the matter of organization just as surely as it restricts in the matter of worship. In organization God specifies the local congregation; in worship God specifies sing. Failure to respect the silence of the scriptures is again making havoc of the unity of God's people.
As the controversy over the society developed, those endorsing and promoting it shifted from one position to another in an effort to justify an organization through which the "brotherhood" as such could be activated. One brother who signed himself as "W". wrote an article which was published in "Lard's Quarterly" in 1868. This article was a powerful attack against the missionary society. In this paper "W" showed that the work of preaching the gospel is assigned by God to the church and that the only organization of the church is the local congregation; hence, the only organization for preaching the gospel is the local congregation. In reply to this Moses Lard wrote an article in which he took the position that the duty of preaching the gospel is not laid upon the church. In this reply, Moses Lard expressed an argument which is becoming exceedingly popular among some brethren today. Here is the way he expressed it: "In considering the merits of these propositions, we will take up the last first. Is it true that 'the duty of preaching the gospel is, by the appointment of God, laid on the church?' The writer attempts to prove it by sundry quotations from the prophets and apostles, but his proof comes short of the proposition. In the nature of the case it is impossible for a church to preach the gospel. (Emphasis mine, R.H.F.) In the secondary sense, of illustrating the gospel by example, it certainly can; but in the primary sense of the term preach, it can not. The church may cause the gospel to be preached; it may furnish food and raiment for the preacher, but it can not preach. It is not true, then, that the duty of preaching the gospel has been laid on the church; it is not stated in the passages quoted, nor is it consistent with the nature of the case." Lard's Quarterly, April 1868, p. 195.
It should be a matter of grave concern to all, who love the church, to learn that Bro. A. C. Pullias, the president of David Lipscomb College, has adopted Brother Lard's argument in his efforts to defend (benevolent societies) orphan homes. Here is the way Brother Pullias expresses the argument: "The local congregation is not its own orphan's home. As a matter of fact a congregation could not care for even one orphan without establishing an institution (orphan home) (emphasis mine, R. H. F.) to do so, or using an institution already established — a private home or an orphan's home." "Where There is No Pattern," p. 10 Notice that Brother Lard denied that the church as such could perform the action "preach" while Bro. Pullias denies that the church, as such, could perform the action "Care." In both cases it is argued that methods and means have to be employed by the organization, the local congregation. With Brother Lard the missionary society was merely a method or means; with Brother Pullias the orphan's home (benevolent society) is merely a method or means. The occasions of the use of the argument are separated by nearly a century of time but in both cases it is used to justify a human organization through which the church universal may function. A century ago it was used to justify organizations for activating the church universal in evangelism; today, it is used to justify organizations for activating the church universal in benevolence.
In an effort to escape the force of the argument for the sufficiency of the divine organization, the congregation, Bro. Pullias asserts that, "The local congregation is its own 'missionary society.' The local congregation is not its own orphan's home." He then attempts to prove the latter assertion by arguing that in the nature of the case a local congregation "could not care for even one orphan." It has already been shown that Brother Lard used this argument in an attempt to prove that the church was not its own missionary society. The brethren who opposed Brother Lard's society theory proved that the local congregation was the only divine organization for church function and that God had assigned the work of preaching to the church. Thus, they proved that the church was its "own missionary society." The thing that makes the congregation the divine "missionary society" is the fact that God assigned the work of preaching the gospel to the church, plus the fact that the congregation is the only organization provided in the divine pattern. Now our problem with reference to caring for the needy is simply this: has God assigned this work to the church? Most brethren are agreed that God has assigned to the church the reusonsibility of caring for certain needy ones. Hence, the same thing that makes "the local congregation its own missionary society" also makes the local congregation its own benevolent society.
The local congregation is the only organization provided in the divine pattern. There is a pattern for this organization. This divine organzation, the local congregation, is sufficient organization for doing all the work God intended it to do. It may "cause the gospel to be preached" by supporting the preacher; it may "cause" the needy to be "cared for" by providing the necessary food, clothing, shelter, training, etc. The local congregation can "care" for the needy in the same sense that it can "preach" the gospel; yet today, there are those who ridicule the idea of the church caring for the needy. They point out that the church can not fix the baby's bottle, spank the children when they misbehave etc. Brother Pullias expresses this idea in his tract, "The local congregation is its own 'missionary society.' The local congregation is not its own orphan's home. As a matter of fact, a congregation could not care for even one orphan without establishing an institution (orphan's home) to do so, or using an institution already established a private home or an orphan's home." "Where There is no Pattern" p. 10. Perhaps it will help to clarify Brother Pullias' thinking if we just consider some other cases of needy. Is it not equally true that — 'as a matter of fact, a congregation could not care for even one" (sick person) "without establishing an institution" (hospital) "to do so, or using an institution already establshed" (a nursing home or a hospital) ? The point which we need to see is that the local congregation can care for its needy, orphans, widows, sick etc. by using the means and methods necessary for the local congregation to accomplish its work.
In his tract, "Where There is No Pattern," Bro. Pullias has attempted to show that while there is a pattern for the evangelistic work of the church which excludes a "missionary society," yet there is no pattern for the benevolent work of the church which excludes a benevolent society. The tract is another attempt to justify a benevolent society, while at the same time condemning an evangelistic society. Surely, Bro. Pullias is able to see, that when God gave the pattern of the organization for doing the work of the church, all the work of the church was to be accomplished according to that pattern. When God assigned a work to the church, he thereby excluded other agencies from undertaking "to take over and do this work of the local congregations." Bro. Pullias sees that "it would be unscriptural for any agency other than the local congregation to undertake this work" (evangelism). Why can't he see that this is equally true of the benevolent work of the church? God has assigned to the church the work of providing for certain needy ones. In some cases the needy will be widows or orhpans but in many cases they will be needy because of sickness, famine, economic depression or some other cause. In providing for the needy regardless of what made them "needy," the local congregation is the only organization in the divine pattern. It is lust as sinful to substitute a human organization for doing the benevolent work of the church as it is to substitute a human organization for doing the evangelistic work of the church.
Institutionalism is not a problem so long as brethren think and plan in terms of the divine organization, the local congregation. But when brethren begin thinking of the church in a denominational sense and trying to determine the extent of its work by the potential strength of the "brotherhood," institutions commensurate in magnitude to this church universal concept must be established. We sorely need to gear our thinking and planning to the divine pattern of organization, the local congregation. We need to re-examine those areas of activity "where there is no pattern" and be sure that we are not operating in an "area of silence." It is admitted that there is no pattern for an organization through which the church universal can function. What does this silence of the scriptures signify? Shall we disregard the silence and provide whatever organization we think most expedient? Is the divine pattern of church organization exclusive? We dare not form other organizations through which the "brotherhood" may function. We dare not pervert the divine organization, the local congregation, in making it perform in a "brotherhood" work.