What Are The Consequences Of Their Positions?
(Note: The February issue of The Spiritual Sword carried a front page article under the above caption. It contains many inaccuracies and indicates a failure on the author's part to understand, or else an inability to state, the position of those whom he attempts to represent. However, when one applies that general approach of binding consequences on the opposition it cannot, even if successful, prove that which is promoted to be Scriptural, and the same rule returned is often capable of revealing the unscripturalness of certain brotherhood projects. Written after the form and style of the article mentioned, the following is submitted to your candid consideration.)
Several years ago some brethren began their promotion of congregations functioning through a single eldership. Relative to the cooperation question, these brethren now hold various positions.
Positions
1. Some hold that in evangelistic (or spiritual) matters there can be any kind of cooperation.
(1) That a church can send to a central church.
(2) That a church can send to a society or evangelistic organization (e. g., Gospel Press.)
2. Some hold that a church can send to a church for any reason; evangelistic, benevolent or social and recreational (to build kitchens, fellowship halls and gymnasiums).
3. Some hold that a church can send to a church for any reason except benevolent needs (the elders cannot oversee the helping of orphans, widows or the indigent).
Consequences
Following are some of the consequences of the idea that many churches can function through a single eldership in evangelism or any good work.
1. One church can receive all the New Testaments in the brotherhood and oversee their distribution to either the giving churches or churches that never had any Testaments. A central church "sponsors" this work.
3. Churches cannot support the preaching of the gospel directly, either at home or away, and still cooperate. Cooperation requires that churches function through, or turn their work over to, a single agency.
4. Churches can send their funds to a central church which in turn helps or oversees the building of other churches' meeting houses (even of the contributing churches). One church to "sponsor" all the building of meeting houses.
5. Churches can send their funds to a central church (Highland, e.g.) to do either part or all of the radio preaching.
Consequences of the idea that a church cannot oversee its own benevolent work, and that churches can function through (or turn their work over to) a single church are as follows:
1. This denies the examples of the church seeing to her needy. (Acts 2. 4 and 6.)
2. It denies the fundamental Bible teaching that there are some who are to be enrolled and cared for by the church. I Tim. 5:16.) (And the church isn't enrolling and overseeing a "home" by so doing, either.)
3. It is a system of inflated institutionalism in that it elevates human societies above the church. A church can send to a society, but cannot do its own work, which openly is a denial of the sufficiency of the church.
Positions
Promoting brethren were forced to see that many of the arguments being made by them in opposition to "missionary societies" could apply with equal force to the benevolent societies among them. Consequently a new line of battle was created for the benevolent societies, viz., of being divine homes which do not do anything with which the church is charged. Relative to the orphan homes, these brethren hold various positions:
1. Many hold that if individuals adopt orphans, the church cannot practice pure and undefiled religion; that orphans should be placed in institutions supported by churches.
2. Some hold that orphans should be preferably adopted; otherwise, the church can and should see to the needs of orphans under the oversight of the elders.
3. Some hold that orphans should be preferably adopted; otherwise, the care of the orphans must be in an institution under a board incorporated as a benevolent society (or the like) since they teach that the church cannot and should not do this work under the elders' oversight.
Consequences
Some of the consequences of the idea that the church practice pure religion by depriving orphans of families and placing them in institutions are as follows:
1. This means that the worthy and godly husband and wife without children cannot adopt one.
2. This means that the orphan must be deprived of a mother's love and a father's guidance, having an institution for a domicile (home?) and a board of directors that it seldom sees as legal parents.
3. This position simply denies the definite teaching of (a) the primary responsibility of the individual toward the orphan (Jas. 1:27.) and the widow (I Tim. 5:16.); and of (b) the church's ability to do its own benevolent work. (e.g., Acts 6.)
Some of the consequences of the idea that the churches can see to all their orphans under the oversight of a single eldership are as follows:
1. This nullifies God's law of autonomy, upon which each church is to operate. It is the functioning of one church for many.
2. This position creates a permanent sponsoring church and completely overlooks such passages as II Cor. 8:13.14, which show the nature (local need), purpose (equality, freedom from want) and duration of help (temporary, at this present time).
3. This practice creates an ecclesiasticism; the binding together of churches.
Some of the consequences of the idea that the church cannot and should not see to the needs of orphans under the oversight of the elders, but must work through (or surrender its work to) a benevolent society are as follows:
1. This denies the sufficiency of the church, charging it with the inability to do its benevolent work.
2. This position overlooks the examples of the church doing its benevolent work, and of help being sent to churches (not societies) in areas where such was needed. (Acts 6; 11:27-30; II Cor. 8 and 9.)
3. This position attempts to make material buildings and humanly originated and arranged boards divine.
4. This contention confuses the divine home (family relationship) with a purely human substitution that is void of any of the original "constituent" relationships necessary to a "total" divine situation.
Conclusion
But enough of this writing in the form of the article mentioned in the introductory note. Suffice it to say there is no Scripture, though many syllogisms, to authorize one church receiving the funds of sister congregations to sponsor a brotherhood evangelistic or benevolent program, or to sponsor any recreational programs. Nor is there Scripture that even indicates that the church cannot do under the oversight of its elders all the benevolent work God wants it to do. It did it in New Testament times. No number of syllogisms can make human boards divine, nor can they give societies the right to supplant the all-sufficient church. God's organization has been divinely chartered and fully equipped.