What Happened To The "Total Situation"?
Recently, it has become quite evident that some of the liberal forces in the church today have forsaken many of their former arguments. One of these that has so mysteriously disappeared is commonly known as the "total situation" argument, including its many "component parts." What had happened to it? Would it try to appear again? Had they learned the truth of it? Why was it forsaken? These and many other questions came to my mind, so I decided to run an interesting test on it.
Writing to a conservative evangelist of the Christian Church (since they have recently pulled away from the liberal branch there over the UCMS, etc., who would be in a better position to know) who I had become familiar with, I presented the following two charts, used by Bro. Guy N. Woods and W. Curtis Porter in the Woods-Porter Debate. (The second Brother Porter used to show the uselessness of Brother Woods'.)
1.
AXIOM: "The WHOLE of anything is the SUM of its parts."
PROOF FOR MY PROP. Requires:
1. Care of Orphans & Aged.
2. Church support of Orphans & Aged.
3. Church cooperation in support of Orphans & Aged.
Syllogism:
(1) All situations, the component parts of which are scriptural, are scriptural situations.
(2) The component parts of the whole work involved in my prop. are scriptural (for an orphan home).
(3) Therefore, the whole work involved in prop. is scriptural.
2.
AXIOM "The WHOLE of anything is the SUM of its parts."
Proof For Missionary Society Requires:
1. Obligation to preach the gospel.
2. Obligation of church to support preaching of the gospel.
3. Church cooperation in supporting preaching of the gospel.
Syllogism:
(1) All situations, the component parts of which are scriptural, are scriptural situations.
(2) The Component parts of the whole work involved in Missionary Society are scriptural.
(3) Therefore, the whole work involved in Missionary Society is scriptural.
Following a brief explanation, I then asked the evangelist three questions: (1) "Would you say the foregoing charts are parallel?" His answer: "Yes." (2) "Would you say the conclusions are parallel?" His answer: "Yes." (3) "Would you say these would serve as a sound proof of the scripturalness of the Missionary Society?" His answer: "No." BUT, he also fulfilled my request to please add anything on the back of the letter he so desired by way of explanation. What was there said is very interesting:
Your apparent assumption that congregational co-operation is obligatory in these enterprises, it seems to me, is not altogether justified . . . certainly whatever co-operation there is among congregations must be wholly on a voluntary basis — that is, without any compulsion from without.
Continuing on from there, he adds that for that reason, "the secondary proposition in your syllogism could conceivably be faulty." Of course I did not imply even that such cooperation MUST take place, but it is interesting to note in WE BE BRETHREN by Brother J. D. Thomas, that he does not accept a missionary society UNLESS the cooperation is compulsory. Yet, the defense made by this evangelist of the Christian Church is precisely the same we are hearing today in defense of benevolent societis and church supported colleges. WHO SAYS WE HAVEN'T DRIFTED? Brother Warren, Brother Deaver, and all the rest of you defending these societies, sit up and take note: with but little persuasion, and you may have full fellowship with the Christian Church.
Listen to the rest of his letter, then compare it to some of the commonly heard statements today by some of our own brethren:
I am not opposed to benevolent and missionary associations as such. I find nothing in the Scriptures against them; in fact there is ample warrant for them — at least for the cause which they profess to serve. But we must be careful not to set up some such modern expedient and demand support of it as a test of Christian loyalty ... all other organizations that are extra to the church itself are in this class.
It seems to me that our Lord has not placed us in a straightjacket at this point. He has left us free in many respects. But we must be careful not to overstep the boundaries of scriptural principles clearly laid down which ought to serve as the general limitations in such matters. (emphasis mine — D.P.A.)
Who says it is not the same arguments made that were originally offered for the missionary society — before the UCMS? Brethren, we are no longer drifting, we have drifted. Pray God we may wake up before it is everlastingly too late. Brother Thomas, your book needs a fast revision, or you will soon find the Christian Church ready to fellowship you on the missionary society, after pointing out your inconsistencies, and get you to extend voluntary support to the missionary society too (what happened to the entire application section of your book now).
Hence, we assume Brother Warren, Woods, Deaver, etc. just got a bit too close to the Christian Church, and decided to change keys before it was discovered. Could this be what has happened to the "total situation"?