No Binding Example?
To those who have kept abreast of current discussions on congregational cooperation, the following' facts are well known:
a. — Brethren for the past several years who have opposed the centralized cooperative arrangements such as that of the Herald of Truth, the "sponsoring church," and the various brotherhood orphanages have insisted that any congregational cooperation involving the transfer of funds from one church to another is authorized only by example; and that the pattern for such cooperative efforts inheres in the example.
b. — Brethren defending the various cooperative arrangements have responded to this generally by DENYING that any "pattern" exists, and by affirming that no example can ever be binding in the sense of being exclusive. The example can show that it is right to do a thing that way; but can never show that it would be wrong to do that same thing some other way or at some other time.
This position was taken in the Lufkin debate by Brother E. R. Harper, also in the Abilene debate. It was publicly taken by Brother Gayle Oler in a brief discussion at Mt. Pleasant, Texas; it formed the basis for a series of articles in the Firm Foundation by Brother J. D. Thomas of Abilene Christian College; it was more recently espoused by Brother G. K. Wallace in some of the day sessions at the Paragould debate. It has been widely discussed, and seems to be generally agreed on by the brethren defending "sponsored cooperation" as the only answer to the arguments made on the "binding pattern."
Have They Considered?
But we wonder if our brethren have seriously considered the ominous and ill-starred consequences of rejecting the traditional teaching of faithful Christians that God's will is made known to us by direct statement, approved example, and necessary inference? They have rejected the two last named as carrying any "binding" authority, and in the words of Brother Wallace at Paragould have declared, "I'll show a Bible COMMAND for everything I do in religion and for everything God binds on anybody." But is this position tenable? Is nothing bound on us save that which is expressly commanded?
Take a look at some of the things that could be discarded:
1. Congregational cooperation after the example set by churches in the apostolic days.
2. "First day of the week" communion. The only way we can know at all that the Lord's Supper is to be restricted to a "first day of the week" is by EXAMPLE. (Acts 20:7.)
3. Weekly communion. The frequency of the Lord's Supper is to be determined by example only (Acts 20:7). Christ authorized the supper by the expression "As oft" as ye do it; but not one word is recorded as to how often we are to commune save in the example cited. Thus, Christians might determine to commune three or four times in a life-time, or perhaps once a year.
4. Weekly assembly. Where is the COMMAND requiring a weekly assembly of the congregation? It is not in the New Testament! Certainly we are admonished not to "forsake" the assembly; but who is to say this requires a regular weekly assembly for worship?
5. Church organization. Where is the COMMAND for churches today to have "elders in every church"? It is not in the New Testament! We know that such is authorized by example. Paul and Barnabas "appointed for them elders in every church" (Acts 14:23); Titus was reminded by Paul that he had been left in Crete "that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city" (Titus 1:5); Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi "with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1); he sent from Miletus to Ephesus "and called to him the elders of the church"; and in many, many passages in the New Testament we learn that it was the accepted and approved practice of New Testament congregations to have elders. Instructions are given as to qualifications, duties, treatment of, etc., but there is no express COMMAND for elders in every church!
To Escape An Argument
The above are some (only a few of many) of the consequences immediately apparent for the one who declares that no "binding" authority can be seen in an approved example. Suffice it to say that if this heresy (for such it is) be generally accepted, it will destroy the church as we know it, in our day. It will not be required of Christians that they assemble on the first day of the week; they can assemble once or twice a year, or perhaps once every five years if they desire. They will not be required to assemble ever for worship, but each man can worship in his own home, or out on the creek bank as he sees fit. It will not be required that the Lord's Supper be observed weekly, neither on the first day of the week. It can be taken annually if desired, daily if desired, or at whatever intervals each individual may prefer; and it can be observed on any day of the week. Congregations will no longer be governed by elders, but may work out whatever form of rule or government they desire — majority rule, a single presiding officer, a centralized bishop over many churches, or any form of rule or government the ingenuity of man can devise.
Who is ready to accept such revolutionary consequences? Certainly the men previously named in this article who have advocated this position are not — Brethren Harper, Oler, Thomas, and Wallace. But we have found certain younger brethren, under the influence of these men, who are sincere enough and honest enough that they are perfectly willing to accept the consequences; and are already arguing and teaching some of the preposterous things listed above!!
And all of this mess has come about because of the determination of a few brethren to uphold and defend a type of "centralized cooperation" which is unknown to the New Testament. If the New Testament example is "binding," then their pet projects exist and operate without authority; consequently, they have sought to deny that any example can have "binding" authority. But the conviction of faithful Christians in every age has been that we can learn God's will from that which His people did which met with His approval. God must have authorized "elders in every church," else Paul and Barnabas would not have appointed them. We do not have any expressed command of the Lord, but we are certain that such instruction was given FROM THE EXAMPLE OF MEN WHOM GOD APPROVED. The "example" then becomes the ONLY way, in certain areas, where we can know God's will. If the "example" is denied binding authority, then we are hopelessly at sea, and can rely only on human wisdom as to our course.