Individuals...Churches...Institutions
When do individuals make the church? Are they the church when doing the work of the church in one part of a speech, but when doing the work of the church in another part of the same speech can they cease to be the church? Two lectures have been heard recently which declared that what the members did as individuals was actually done by the church. Then later in the same speeches both made the assertion that the thing being engaged in was no part of the church and was not in any way connected to the church. They need to find out which way they are headed or they are going to meet themselves coming back. Brother Acuff made the blunder in his lecture on the winter program at David Lipscomb College this year. Then, following the same pattern exactly, one of the local preachers, Howard Allen, made the same blunder in a lecture program in north Alabama. I am not concerned about being consistent through the years so that no change is ever made. We need to change when we find we are wrong. But, surely, inconsistencies and contradictions should not be found in the same address.
These two brethren were making fervent appeals in behalf of church support of orphanages like Tennessee Orphan Home and Childhaven. Early in the speeches they labored to prove that the church and the individual are on the same basis in what they do. They did not merely argue that the church can do what the individual can do. They argued that since the church is made up of individuals that whatever one of those individuals does is in reality the church doing it. That argument has been shown time and again to be so weak that it is silly, yet they continue to use it as if it is the best they can produce. Such reasoning would enforce the conclusion that because one member of the church refuses to take the Lord's Supper, the church refuses to observe it. If one of the individuals goes into sectarianism or apostatizes, then the church has gone into sectarianism or has apostatized, according to such reasoning. But why should they labor to prove such a thing anyway? Who argues that it is right for the individual to contribute to one of these institutions which is making a claim upon church contribution? Their first premise is an assumption.
They need some proof that it is right for the individual to support such a system before they try to bring the church in on the same basis. It is a form of sophism; that of arguing in a circle. They assume that it is right for the individual to support a thing that is wrong in its practice of soliciting support from churches. This latter practice is the thing they are trying to prove to be right. Then they argue that it is right for the church to support that thing because the individual is doing it. If it is wrong for the churches to support an institution, no Christian has the right to support that institution which gets its support from the churches. If he does, he supports, and is a party to, a sinful practice.
But notice a second argument made in these same two speeches. They felt the necessity of these institutions, like the ones named, in order to have cooperation of churches in benevolent work. Yet they realized that autonomy would be destroyed if those institutions were connected to, or were a part of, the contributing churches. They were not prepared to deny the principle of complete independency and autonomy of congregations. Thus they made the assertion that the orphanages are not a part of, or connected to, the churches. Now, just look at the blunder they have made. Their first argument is that the church is doing what the individual does. But, members of the churches are directing and running these homes. Thus, according to their first argument, the churches are directing and running these homes. On the other hand, if they adhere to their last assertion that the homes are not connected to the church; then they must either give up their first argument, or concede that those who operate the homes are not church members. If they adhere to both of their arguments they make those who operate these homes strangers and aliens to the church.
If the church is the same as individuals; then, when individuals operate an institution, the church operates that institution; unless those individuals are not members of the church. If the church is the same as individuals; and, if the institution is not connected with the church; that institution cannot be connected with any individual who is a member of the church. Let the advocates of church-supported-societies extricate themselves from this dilemma if they can. Maybe they will have to ask help from brother Brewer who seems to be the champion of this theory that the church does what the individual members do. They must reject at least one of these three: that the church does whatever its members do as individuals; that the institutions are not connected to the churches which contribute to them; or, that the directors and operators are church members. They cannot have all three. The three are contradictory. Brethren Acuff and Allen have fallen into a trap as so many do who attempt to justify a practice which cannot be found in the scriptures.