Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
June 20, 1957
NUMBER 8, PAGE 12

"The Same Thing Over Again"

Thomas F. Shropshire

In the Firm Foundation of April 30, 1957, Brother Frank Lilly had a few things to say under the above heading. The title of his piece well describes the things which he wrote. This is not the way he used the title but it is the same song which the "institutional" brethren have been singing for some time now. That is, that those of us who oppose the institutional arrangements in the church are just another "anti" faction. According to Brother Lilly, he studied his "way out of the 'anti Bible class' faction" ten years ago. We assume that this makes him some sort of an authority on the similarity which is supposed to exist between the "anti Bible class faction" and those of us who oppose and expose certain forms of cooperation in the church. What Brother Lilly does not know (or does he?) is that what he calls the "anti Bible class faction" is saturated with institutionalism. These people oppose teaching the Bible in classes or what they call "Sunday School", but they will defend the "Herald of Truth" set-up.

But let us notice some of the things which the brother says in his article. He writes, "The same arguments that are now being used by some of our brethren have been worn threadbare 'by the 'anti Bible class brethren years ago." Now I wonder if Brother Lilly does not know the difference between an argument and the thing the argument is supposed to prove. Has it never occurred to him that an argument which is worthless in proving one thing, may be effective in proving an entirely different thing? I am familiar with the principal argument about which he speaks and have discussed it with him personally. That argument is what is called the "pattern argument". Evidently, he reasons that, since the "pattern argument" could not be used successfully in proving the "anti Bible class" theory, the argument itself is worthless. If the use of the "pattern argument' 'makes one an "anti", then I will have to plead guilty to being one. But I do not feel too badly about it because Moses was told to go by a pattern and Paul made an argument on it. The difficulty in which the "anti Bible class" brethren have found themselves, in their use of the "pattern argument", is that it proves the wrong thing and therefore is useless for their purpose. These brethren find their pattern in I Cor. 14 and try to make it a pattern for religious services today. Their efforts to follow I Cor. 14 as a pattern for religious services today are pathetic indeed. The fact that it is a pattern for the reception and use of spiritual gifts makes the use of it for religious services today ridiculous. There is no specific pattern for religious services today. The things which are done in religious services today must be authorized in the New Testament but a specific order of such services cannot be found.

After pointing out the similarity of the arguments made by the "anti Bible class" brethren and those used by us who oppose some of the prevalent arrangements of cooperation, he continues, "To be really honest about the matter, I think consistency demands that they join ranks." I would like to ask a question of Brother Lilly in regard to the fore-going statement. Upon what ;grounds would those of us, who oppose some of the cooperative arrangements in the church today, join ranks with the "anti Bible class" brethren? These two groups are as far apart as the poles on the cooperation issue. I would also like to make a suggestion in regard to the statement. If "consistency demands" that those of us, who oppose certain cooperative arrangements in the church, "join ranks" with the "anti Bible class" brethren because the same arguments are used by both to prove DIFFERENT things, then would not "consistency demand" that those with whom Brother Lilly has aligned himself, "join ranks" with those of the Christian Church inasmuch as they make the SAME arguments in defense of the SAME things? How about it Brother Lilly?

Brother Lilly further states, "I have labored under the impression that whatever the Lord wants accomplished, that it is right for the whole brotherhood to join hands as one great army of people to accomplish. Have I been laboring under a false impression?" If Brother Lilly means by "join hands as one great army of people", that the church is to operate in its general, universal sense to accomplish the work enjoined by the Lord, then certainly he has been laboring under a false impression. Evidently he does mean this or the entire context of his article is misleading. The organization authorized by the Lord, which is the local congregation, for the accomplishment of the work of the church makes any arrangement or project on a "church universal" scale unscriptural.

But he continues, "It is easy to see that it would be wrong to form institutions separate and apart from the church to accomplish the things the Lord wants done, but as long as we work for the church, within the church with no ulterior motives. I fail to see "the wolf" that some are trying to warn us of". Brother Lilly, what do you mean by "institutions separate and apart from the church"? This statement needs some clarification in view of what you have already said. You have already endorsed the work of the church on a universal scale in the church universal sense. This last statement in regard to "institutions separate and apart from the church" would have to refer to institutions such as the American Red Cross and others which have no connection with the church whatever. It could not have reference to institutions such as the Missionary Society or Childhaven because you have already endorsed the work of the church on the universal scale. Do you not know Brother Lilly, that any work done by the church through an organization (in the church) unauthorized by the scriptures, is considered to be an organization or institution separate and apart from the church? It is separate and apart from the organization of the church authorized by the Lord in the scriptures. There is not one single thing which we may know or do with reference to the church except as we are guided and governed by the PATTERN of the church in Holy Writ.

Brother Lilly, if you feel that these arguments are "worn threadbare" already, I would like to give you the opportunity of subjecting them to further wear by a did., cussion of the issues about which you wrote. I am ready to arrange the propositions, the time and the place for such a discussion.