Bible Authority -- Essentials And Expediencies
(This is the sixth in a series of articles in review of the book "We Be Brethren" by J. D. Thomas.)
In the fifth article of this series we called attention to the fact that our brother convicts himself of the attitude of a "Denominationalist" by "feeling free to add to or take from the required matters, in line with his own traditions; yet all of the while he feels that he is definitely showing allegiance to the Bible". Brother Thomas professes to have respect for the authority of the Bible but readily admits that the Bible does not teach certain things that he wishes to practice and that they can be understood to be right only by an appeal to "common sense." We suggested that this is indeed a contradictory attitude. If we must have authority from the scriptures for what we practice in the church of the Lord, then we must find it taught in the scriptures, and if it is not taught there, then "common sense" will not justify it. We pointed out that our brethren who divided the church over instrumental music and missionary societies and went off into apostasy in the Christian Church have always relied upon "sanctified common sense" to justify those practices which they wanted and which the scriptures did not teach.
Mr. Kershner, an eminent scholar of the Christian Church discusses this matter of common sense in his book "The Christian Union Overture" and raises the question of how to reconcile the "use of common sense" with proper recognition of scriptural authority. In several quotations in the article preceding this we gave you his conclusion, and it is the only conclusion that such an appeal can reach. He reasoned the matter down to a rejection of the "infallibility of the text as interpreted by one person" such as the Pope of Rome or the clergy of the Roman Church. He also rejected the acceptance of some humanly written creed or manual such as the Protestant Denominational bodies of the world offer in solution of this problem. In the final analysis he appealed to the "common mind" and argued that Mr. Campbell in his "Declaration and Address" would "unquestionably have answered the question by an appeal to the intellectual majority. Whatever the great bulk of thoughtful men agree upon as touching the interpretation of Scripture is doubtless an expression of the common mind upon the subject"! This is the conclusion that Brother Thomas will have to reach and the only conclusion that can be justified in appealing to "common sense" as a means of "interpreting" the scriptures and ascertaining what they authorize.
Again we raise the question, If we are going to depend upon common sense to supply what the Bible does not teach either generically or specifically, by precept or command, approved example or necessary inference, then whose common sense shall we go by? We, each, prefer our own. Brother Thomas prefers his. There cannot be any unity concerning revealed matters by following such a course. All authority will be lost sight of in the appeal "each man to that which is right in his own eyes". This God will not accept. Unless Brother Thomas has conceit enough to think that the brethren everywhere should accept his own judgment in these controverted matters, or that the "bulk of thoughtful men" — the "intellectual majority" as Mr. Kershner of the Christian Church would put it — should be convened and reach a decision for all of us on these matters, then he will have a hard time convincing those who think and study for themselves that he believes in the Scriptures as "our rule of faith and practice" and the exclusive source of authority in revealed matters. We affirm again that his difficulty and the difficulty of the vast majority of those among brethren who stand with him is in their attitude toward divine authority. This is the fundamental issue in these questions. Are we willing for the Bible to settle the question? Are we willing for the issues to be resolved by what God has said and that alone?
We certainly recognize, as we have already said, that a proper application of divine truth can be made only by the employment of all the good judgment and wisdom God has given us. But there is a vast difference in applying the principles of law determined by statute or court decision to the facts and circumstances involved in any particular case and determining what the law is and what it provides. In our application of divine truth to our lives and service to God we often err for we are lacking in wisdom and are often influenced by other factors. But Truth in revealed matters does not depend upon our wisdom and judgment but upon a "Thus saith the Lord". `What saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach — ". (Romans 10:8.)
In the previous article we illustrated the means of establishing authority from the scriptures. We pointed out the difference between generic and specific authority and showed the effect of each. We want to further this study of Authority by illustrating the difference between matters that are essential in carrying out what God has authorized and those things that are optional. In the language of Brother Thomas we would say "required specifics" and "optional expedients".
CHART 4 GOES HERE
It is necessary in the study of New Testament authority that we make a distinction between those things necessary or essential and those things which expedite or are optional and therefore matters of human judgment. By essential on the chart above we mean those things which are necessary in carrying out God's instructions and without which obedience cannot be rendered. In the realm of essentials God has specified or made the choice and they are either expressly commanded or necessarily inferred by the very nature of the thing commanded. Concerning them we have no choice but to either obey God's instructions or rebel at his will. But by expediencies as we use that term on the chart, we mean those things which may or may not be employed in carrying out God's com stand and yet obedience is rendered which ever may be chosen. In other words the methods or means within the scope of the command, which God has left to human judgment, circumstances, or expediency and concerning which God has not specified and therefore has made no choice for us.
In the chart above we have illustrated this distinction — not with a wavy horizontal line — but with a straight perpendicular line — maybe it will do just as well. In carrying out the command to "teach" there are some things essential, viz., we are to teach the gospel of Christ. We cannot obey God's commandment and teach anything else. He has placed that limitation upon our teaching and specified what we are to teach. But in the church of our Lord the manner of teaching to be employed has not been specified; whether it shall be done in a public class, before a specified group, publicly preaching, or privately teaching one individual at a time. He has specified what we shall teach but he has not specified the particular method of teaching. In one God has made the choice and in the other he has left the choice to be dictated by our ability, opportunity, and the circumstances.
Baptism
Likewise in the command to "Baptize" there are some things which are essential in obeying the will of God in this command and there are some things that are optional or matters of choice with us. Again, where God has made a choice, there is none for us to make. We must simply obey what God has specified for us to do — all things essential in carrying out God's will. The action of baptism is immersion. The meaning of the word, the description of the action, the circumstances surrounding the action in New Testament examples all demand that conclusion. Water is the essential element. The believer is the essential subject. These are clearly taught in the Bible. But the Bible does not teach whether the act shall be performed in a natural or artificial pool. This is a matter of indifference, it is not indispensable, absolutely requisite, or of the essence of obedience to the command that baptism be performed in either. It can be done in one as well as the other and every element of the command be respected and obeyed. This matter then, since God has made no choice in it, is left up to the circumstances or choice of the individual. Some try to exercise such a choice in the "mode" or action of baptism and some of the creeds tell us that it can be either "sprinkling, pouring, or immersion according to the convenience and preference of the candidate". But God has not given us a choice as to mode. Baptism is immersion and when we perform another action, we have not baptized.
The Lord's Supper
Another illustration of this same point, viz., the difference between things essential and things optional in carrying out God's commandments, is the Lord's Supper. We have no choice as to the elements that compose this supper for the Lord has ordained that these elements are the unleavened loaf and the fruit of the vine. These are essential. Nothing can be added, substituted, or changed about these elements and the will of the Lord be done. But the Lord has not specified as to the kind of a table that shall be used or whether or not one shall be used. He has not specified as to whether a plate shall be used for the loaf or how many. He has not specified the number of containers that shall be used for the fruit of the vine or what kind they shall be though some kind of a container is essential since the element specified is a liquid. These matters of the table, place, and container for the fruit of the vine, are optional matters. God made no choice or specification about them and therefore they are matters of option or choice with man. The most expedient or convenient way that is decent and in order is the ruling factor in such matters of choice.
It is also true in the assembly on the Lord's Day to break bread. We have no choice concerning the day to assemble and break bread in memory of the Lord for God has made that choice. We do have a choice however as to the hour when we assemble on the Lord's Day for the Lord has not specified that. Where God has specified, we have no choice but to obey. But when God has not specified, the choice is left up to us in harmony with righteousness otherwise revealed. The Lord's Day, the First Day of the Week, is the day chosen by the Lord for our assembly to break bread. Some place to assemble is necessary in obeying that command. The Lord has left no instructions as to how that place shall be provided. We have to use our best judgment as to providing a place for assembly. The hour of the day and the place to assemble are matters to be decided upon the basis of human judgment, the convenience of those involved, the most expedient source.
Relieving The Destitute
But someone asks, is this not true in the work of relieving the destitute? Has not God commanded the church to relieve the destitute without telling us how to do this work? Is it not therefore our privilege to choose the method or means of carrying out this command? The claim is often advanced today that "there is no pattern." Is this true? It depends altogether upon what you are talking about. If you mean that there is no "pattern" as to the organization that is to do the work which God has commanded the church to do, then such a claim is absolutely false and untrue. God has given the church an organization. The pattern of it is perfectly clear and unmistakable in New Testament scriptures. It is the local church. (Phil. 1:1.)
Our chart illustrates the command to "relieve" — I Tim 5:16. This is a commandment to the church — unquestionably directed to the church. The fact that it is limited to a certain class of the desolate and destitute does not concern us in this particular discussion. It is the work of "relieving" by the church that we are interested in, and how it is to be accomplished. As a command addressed to the church, what is essential and what is optional that is involved in carrying out this command? Is the organization formed by the church and maintained by the church an optional matter? Will Brother Thomas so affirm? We are not talking of organizations from which the church buys services or which the church pays for services rendered. But what kind of an organization can the church build and maintain to actually do this work of relieving? Can the organization which God has given in the scriptures — authorized by Jesus Christ — do this work of relieving? Can the members of a local church furnish the resources, the deacons, or others appointed, do the work of ministering to the needs, under the supervision of the elders of the congregation that has such a responsibility? Has God given us the "pattern" of an organization that is able to function in the actual discharge of such an obligation as this which God has assigned His church to do?
If the congregation is the only organization God has given and this is a work which God has assigned his church to do, then either the organization which God gave is able to do this work and God so intended or God assigned his church a work to do for which he gave no organization or the means of executing the thing commanded. Which is true? Are we ready to deny that the church can do the work which God has assigned it ? The fact is that this verse answers the question. The very thing which the individual Christian is commanded to do, if he has a widow for whom he is responsible, is the thing the church is commanded to do for the "widows indeed". The word "relieve" is used with reference to both the individual duty and the duty of the Lord's Church. Whatever is necessary for the individual to do in "relieving" the widow for whom he is responsible, the church can do and is commanded to do for the widow for whom the church is responsible.
The particular means and method to be used is not specified. If she needs a place for shelter, that can be furnished in the most expedient way at hand, whether it is the individual that does it or the church. If she needs the necessary things of life, (food, clothing, medicine, or anything else) that can be furnished in the most expedient and proper way at hand, whether it is done by the individual or the church. If she needs someone to take care of her, not being able to take care of herself, then that care can be furnighed in the most expedient way at hand, whether it is done by the individual or the church. These particular methods and means have not been specified when the church does the work any more than they are specified in the individual doing the work. But the organization of the church has been specified definitely and clearly. Will our brother deny this?
We will deal with the misrepresentations engaged in by our brother in his book in another article but we call attention now to the fact that when he or any else accuses any of us of specifying some particular method or means, they misrepresent all of us. We do not know and we do not believe Brother Thomas can produce a single instance of anyone trying to specify as to method or means to be employed by the local church in doing this work. If they have, they are wrong about it. No man has the right to specify where God has not. But we know of no one who has done so, except in the case of the contention made by Guy N. Woods in debating these issues. He plumbed every possible ground upon which to find footing until he hit upon the idea that the church cannot actually do the work of relieving but can only furnish the money so that some other organization (which he tries to classify as a "home" in spite of the form it assumes not even being a forty-second cousin to a home) can do the work of relieving. Even though B. C. Goodpasture recently denied that the Advocate contends there is only one way in which this work can be done, the chief exponent of the Advocate's promotion of these human arrangements has firmly taken, and positively advocated, the position that such arrangements as Boles Home, Incorporated are essential to cooperation among the churches in doing this work and the church itself cannot do it. They have done the only specifying as to method which we have discovered. The fact is that the organization controlling these homes must itself employ methods and means of doing this work after it is formed. When the corporate set-up has been affected there still must be the employment of methods and means of doing the work. The organization of the church, God-given, can employ whatever means may be necessary to do its work of relief and since God has not made the choice, the selection is to be made by the church as to the particular way in which the work shall be done. But we have no choice as to the organization to do it for God has made that choice and we either respect it or we do not "walk by faith". The organization in God's plan is essential — it is the local church. The methods and means of doing the actual work of "relieving" is optional for God has not specified the particulars any more than he specified the method of teaching, the place to baptize, the number of containers, the hour and place of assembling.
Aids And Additions
But in establishing authority we meet face to face with the problem of distinguishing between aids and additions. To illustrate this we present Chart No. 5.
Aids And Additions
| Commandment | Aids | Additions |
| SING | BOOKS - LIGHTS LEADER - ETC. | INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (another KIND of MUSIC) |
| BAPTIZE | BAPTISTRY | SPRINKLING (another KIND of ACTION) |
| ASSEMBLE TO BREAK BREAD | BUILDING, LIGHTS, SEATS HEAT, ETC. | SATURDAY (ANOTHER DAY) |
| PREACH GOSPEL | RADIO LITERATURE, , ETC. | MISSIONARY SOCIETY (ANOTHER ORGANIZATION) |
| BUILDING, CARE NECESSARIES | BENEVOLENT SOCIETY (ANOTHER ORGANIZATION | |
| RELIEVE THE DESTITUTE | ||
| EDIFY ITSELF | PLACE FACILITIES TEACHERS | SUN. SCHOOL SOCIETY (ANOTHER ORGANIZATION) |
Chart No. 5 We have already shown that those matters essential and those matters that are optional in carrying out God's commands or the instructions of the scriptures are both included in the authority given by such instructions or commands. When a thing is included within the scope of the authority given by the scriptures, it can properly be classified as a means or method or aid in executing the command and is properly authorized because it is included. In all such cases, aids are subsidiary to the thing commanded and never coordinate with it. In other words, it cannot be an aid and belong to the same order or class as that which God has specified. All coordinate things, of the same order, class, genus, or species, are excluded and eliminated by the very choice that God has made when he specified his will in that particular genus.
In the article before this (No. 5) we included some very fine teaching along this very line by our late Brother M. C. Kurfees, a great Gospel preacher. He points out in that very article quoted from his book, "Instrumental Music In The Worship" that the same principle applies to the organization of the church through which God has specified that its work shall be done as applies to the kind of music which God specified shall be used in praising him in worship. This fact is absolutely irrefutable. The principle is exactly the same.
In the above chart No. 5 we have illustrated this principle which is fundamental in establishing scriptural authority. We must see the difference between AIDS and ADDITIONS to scriptural authority. One of the fundamental and glaring errors in the book, "We Be Brethren," is the failure of our Brother Thomas to recognize that in matters of authority when God specifies all coordinates are eliminated and excluded and that is always the nature of specific authority. In order that we may not be accused of misrepresenting our brother on this point we give you below two of his charts in which he uses his "Standard Diagram of Authority" to illustrate his argument concerning these matters. The charts are found on pages 122 and 140 of his book
Chart Goes Here
In the chart (figure 20) page 122 he correctly illustrates and classifies the "Bible Classes" as a method of teaching. It is not excluded because the Lord has not specified the method of teaching to be used in the church.
But look at the charts on page 140 (figure 22). In these charts he has the "sponsoring church method" as optional with any other method that is expedient. Now, Brother Thomas, what is another expedient method beside the "sponsoring church method" of preaching the Gospel? Is the missionary society method another expedient method? If not, why isn't it? How would you rule it out? Our Christian Church friends insist that it is only a "method" of doing what the Lord commanded. They also insist that it is an "expedient method" and can give some imposing figures to prove it — even much more imposing than all of the "gigantic, stupendous, and colossal" facts claimed by the Herald of Truth. How would you rule it out? On page 141, our brother undertakes to answer this question, hear him:
"The Missionary Society is a human organization that could serve as an optional expedient to the generic pattern "Go, Preach;" but inasmuch as it involves "control" over the churches that comprise its membership, its use would demand the violation of local church autonomy. It therefore necessarily infers a form of church government that differs from that of local autonomy, the required pattern, and it thus is an "excluded specific" and is definitely a violation of God's pattern will and is sinful and wrong. What we mean by "control", is that the Missionary Society is an organization whose board "legislates," or passes rules that they expect to be binding upon the member churches, and where the member churches expect to be so bound".
(Page 141 — last paragraph)
We shall show in an article to follow that our brother represents the Missionary Society contrary to all that its advocates claim for it. It does not claim to be an organization of churches but a medium of cooperation for churches that work together through it. They also specifically deny that they are a "legislative" body over churches or that they exercise any control whatever over churches. As we have said we shall produce their side of this story in another article. But be that as it may. We want you to see from our brother's chart that if he excludes the Missionary Society, then there is but one other coordinate to the "Sponsoring Church Method" as a specific of "Go, Preach". That coordinate and the only one, so far as the Church of the Lord is concerned would be each congregation doing its own preaching under its own eldership and using its own resources. Let us illustrate what we mean by our brother's own chart.
Chart Goes Here
Now, Brother Thomas, where does the wavy line go with reference to these specifics? Are they optional expedients? If so, then you can either find neither of them in New Testament scriptures or you must find both of them. Which will you undertake? Will you agree with your fellow teacher Bro. Roberts that the scriptures actually authorize the sponsoring church plan in Phil. 4:15-17 and that we therefore have an approved apostolic example for it? If you take this route, you will go exactly contrary to much you have said in your book. You will also stand squarely opposed to the most of the "institutional" exponents for they say there is no such thing as an example of one church contributing to another church in New Testament scriptures. In case you have not read what your team mates are saying on these matters, you need to page G. K. Wallace, Guy N. Woods, Thomas Warren, Roy Deavers, and a multitude of others.
If both are not found in the scriptures, Brother Thomas, then is either of them found there? If so, which one can you find' It is not difficult to find repeated instances of local churches sending men out to preach the Gospel both at home and abroad. Local churches were the medium through which this work of preaching was done in the New Testament days. Of course, individuals went by their own resources and upon their own initiative and local churches sent men out also. But where did the churches pool their resources under one eldership and in one congregation in a joint effort to preach the gospel? Find it for us, Brother Thomas, or what you think will do for it, and we will abundantly show that you have perverted the text you choose.
Coordinates And Subordinates
It is important that we do not forget that in order for a thing to be an "aid" it must be a subordinate to the thing commanded or authorized, and cannot be a coordinate. If it is a coordinate, it is an addition to the thing commanded. To illustrate this you have but to think of the commandment to sing. A song book, lights, leader, and such matters are not a "kind" of music. They are not therefore coordinates with singing. They would classify as aids in carrying out the command to sing and can so serve for the reason that they do not bring another element into the worship. But playing upon an instrument brings in another element — a coordinate — and therefore is an addition to the commandment to sing. Instrumental music is another kind of music. If you find both in the New Testament then either or both can be used in the worship of God. But the New Testament teaches only "sing". That does not include playing. Playing is then an addition to what God has commanded. God condemns those who add to his Word.
By another illustration on our chart No. 5 we see the same principle demonstrated. When we baptize a believer in water and use a baptistry to accomplish that act, we have used an "aid" to the action that God has commanded. The baptistry simply "aids" in carrying out God's commandment. But when we sprinkle water upon a believer and claim that he has been baptized, we have offered a human substitute for what God has ordained. Any one can see that sprinkling is "another kind of action". It is coordinate with immersion or baptism for it is another kind of action. It cannot classify as an aid in obeying God's commandment because it is not a subordinate but a coordinate of the action commanded. It is therefore an addition instead of an aid.
The same thing is true in the assembly to break bread. God has commanded that we assemble to keep the Lord's Supper. This assembly was to be observed on the First Day of the Week and only then "to break bread". In carrying out this commandment there are many things that would classify as "aids." A building or place in which to assemble, lights when needed, seats, heat or air conditioning in season, and many other things would be "aids" in keeping the commandment to "assemble." But these are all "aids" because they come within the scope of those things essential or helpful in executing the command and therefore are "subordinate" to the thing commanded. But if we were to assemble on Saturday or the seventh day of the week "to break bread", that would not facilitate our obedience to God's Commandment but would pervert and add to it for Saturday is "another day". As a "day" it belongs to the same "genus" or class as "The First Day" and since God commanded that we should "Break Bread" on "The First Day", if we were to do so on the "seventh day" we would be substituting or adding another day to God's commandment. This is always condemned.
In like manner the command to "preach" is carried out by the use of means such as radio, literature, visual aids, etc., for these are subordinate to the command to preach and are not coordinate with it. They do not belong to the same class or "genus" with preach They are methods or means of carrying out the command to "preach" and are therefore subordinate to it. Since God has commanded no specific way to preach, all of these and others that could be listed with them are included in the command, and can therefore be used to carry out the command without adding or substituting something of human will for God's will. But God has specified the organization through which this preaching is to be done. It is the church and in organization is congregational or local. It has no other: When we build a missionary society of any kind to do this work of preaching (which God built the church to do) we add another organization of our own making and substitute it for the one God made to carry out his command. This is the thing that is wrong with the missionary society. It is not ordained, authorized, provided by the Lord. It has been fashioned by man to be added or substituted for the one ordained of God and is therefore "adding" to the Lord's Word and Way. This is sinful and wrong, has always been so, and will always be so.
Present Applications
Now for the application to present day problems. God commands the church to relieve certain destitute persons. God gave the church a specific organization through which to do the work he assigned it to do. That specific organization which God gave is the congregation — the local church. (Phil. 1:1.) There are many aids that can be used in the nature of methods and means of executing this commandment in the church but ANOTHER ORGANIZATION IS NOT A METHOD OR MEANS THAT CLASSIFIES AS AN AID. The congregation itself is an organization. God commanded this organization to do the work of relieving. It can employ methods or means to do so but it cannot build another organization to do this work. Another organization would be "coordinate" with not "subordinate" to the congregation. As a coordinate organization to do this work another organization would be an "addition" and not an aid to the congregation in doing anything God has commanded it to do.
Boles Home, Inc. is not a "method" or "means" of taking care of orphans any more than the Masonic Lodge is a method or means of taking care of orphans. Boles Home, Inc. is a chartered organization with entity separate from everything on earth. It uses methods and means in providing and supplying the needs of destitute children. Boles Home, Inc., then is an organization to do benevolent work coordinate with the local church or congregation in its benevolent work. Benevolent work can be done through and by either. God ordained one — the local church. There is no choice or option about the one God ordained. We either do the work God wants done through it or we "add" our own will and wisdom in a "substitute organization" for the one God ordained. As a church institution or organization to do the work of the church, Boles Home, Inc. is therefore sinful and wrong just for the same reason the missionary society is wrong. Boles Home, Inc. is not wrong because of the good work it is doing. Neither is the Missionary Society wrong because of the good work it is doing. Both are wrong because they are human organizations provided by the will and wisdom of man to do the work God gave to his divine organization, the local church. They "add" to the word of God and to God's way. They are without authority and therefore without a scriptural right to exist as church organizations or institutions.
Brother Thomas is mixed up in his "coordinates". On page 134 of his book he has a chart that demonstrates how badly confused he is or that he is trying very definitely to confuse someone else. He has a "GP" — generic pattern in his vernacular — with two specifics in the field of benevolence 1) — local autonomy, and 2) — church support of orphan homes. But this is not a true picture at all. Local autonomy is not a "form of church government". It is but one principle that characterizes the government of the Lord's Church. God gave form or organization to the government he gave his church. That form or organization is the local church. It is definitely identified in New Testament scriptures. The choice in doing the work of relieving so far as the organization to do the work is concerned is not a choice between "local autonomy" and "church support for orphan homes". It seems Brother Thomas must know this. A human form of organization or government could have "local autonomy". Many of them do. This characteristic of government can be true of either the human or the divine. So far as I know Boles Home, Inc. runs its own affairs without any authority over them. But they are a human organization as everyone knows. Why didn't Brother Thomas represent fairly the alternates in his chart and keep the issue clear? Here is his chart: But here is the real picture of the issue before us in these present day problems:
Chart goes here We contend that the scriptures teach one and they do not teach or authorize the o her. One is found in the Word of God and the other is not found there. The local church doing its work of benevolence does not include such organizations as Boles Home, Inc. Both are organizations — they are coordinates — in the same class — or genus. Since they are coordinates, one cannot aid the other but is an addition to the other. This is the thing God condemns as sinful and wrong. Churches of Christ have absolutely no authority in the Word of God to build and maintain such human organizations as Boles Home, Inc. The divine plan in the chart above can be found in the scriptures but the human plan has no support from the scriptures whatever. God's church, organized as God designed it, can do the work that God gave it to do and should do it without building some other organization which God has not authorized to substitute for it.
Of course it is apparent to all that even in Brother Thomas' chart — the congregation has no control or government over its work or its resources when it turns either of them over to some human organization like Boles Home, Inc. Therefore the idea of local autonomy in the work he is talking about and churches doing their work through "church supported orphan homes" is within itself a contradiction. They go together like a "hen-pecked husband" and the "head of his house". He may have voluntarily surrendered his position but he lost it just as completely anyway.
(Next week — The Authority of New Testament Examples)