Let Brother Garrett Name The Point
The brother in Dallas whom I know not and understand less in reply to another Brother Wallace writes: "As the minister of the College church (an office that I politely ask Wallace to give scripture for) my Abilene brother may be too close to the forest to see the trees!" I am sure that Brother Glenn Wallace can take care of himself in the matter and uphold the truth. However I am moved to write a few words in answer to the parenthetical request above.
It is a shame some of these fellows worry over the linguistic characteristics of the Bible seemingly searching out some important matter the Holy Spirit supposedly failed to properly emphasize. It seems to me that when brethren have to look so hard to find something to write a book of lamentations about they cast reflection on the Holy Spirit for not making it plainer in the written word.
The brother wants scripture to support the "office" Brother Glenn holds as "minister" of the College church in Abilene. The question is illogical — an unqualified statement or question. Does Brother Garrett accuse Brother Glenn of holding an office and of being a denominational pastor? The Dallas brother seems to assume that it is wrong for anyone to perform a work in the congregation and be paid for it. If he does not assume that, it is the consequence of what he teaches. Brother Glenn has been appointed by the College church in Abilene to do evangelistic work in that immediate area. Does this appointment mean he holds an "office" in the church? If so Sister Phoebe of New Testament times held an "office" for she was appointed to do some sort of work. (Romans 16:1-2) Did Paul condone the women of the church holding an "office" in the church? The words of Brother R. L. Whiteside in commenting on Romans 16:1-2 best answer the question: "To select a person for a certain work does not necessarily make him an officer in the common acceptation of that term. To select a man to hold a series of meetings does not make him an officer and no one thinks so. Selecting a song leader does not make him an officer. Selecting certain women to attend to certain duties does not make them deaconesses in any official sense. 'Diakonas' therefore had no official significance. It is thought by some that she was the bearer of Paul's letter to Rome, but that is not certain. She evidently went to Rome on certain business for Paul urges the brethren to 'assist her in whatever matter she may have need'." (Page 293, Whitesides' Commentary on Romans)
Brother Garrett seems to charge that anyone appointed to do a work in the church holds an official office. If Sister Phoebe could be a servant (deaconess) without holding an official office in the church which would be wrong for a woman (1 Timothy 2:12) is it not possible that Brother Glenn can receive an appointment to do a work in the College congregation at Abilene without holding an official office? And in doing this work does not 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 give authority for him to be supported by the brethren of the congregation he serves? If not, why not?
If Sister Phoebe could carry on a work for the local congregation at Cenchrea without usurping the authority or having dominion over men then Brother Glenn can carry on a work for the local congregation without usurping authority or having dominion over the elders and congregation in Abilene.
In this matter like some of these other lamentable murmurings the antagonizers condemn all situations of a type because of the abuses involved in some situations of the type. It is true that there is a danger in local preachers becoming as denominational pastors but the abuse, the danger does not mean it is wrong for the elders of the local congregation to appoint and support individuals in a work of the church. It is the abuses we should attack not the truth.
Brother Glenn holds no office in the College church of Abilene unless he is an elder and I do not believe that he is. Brother Garrett was upset at Brother Glenn's article entitled "A Hobby Horse In Dallas" and wants Brother Glenn to make amends. I think Brother Garrett ought to apologize to Brother Glenn for inferring yea affirming that Brother Glenn is exercising dominion over the elders and over the congregation at Abilene — for if Brother Glenn were doing that he would be guilty of a severe sin. Can Brother Garrett prove Brother Glenn is exercising dominion over the College congregation in Abilene? If he cannot he ought not to have inferred such and he should apologize.
Brother Glenn is not "the" minister of the College congregation, but a minister there who happens to be the minister who is supported financially by that congregation. Every member of the congregation there who is working under the oversight of the elders is a minister in some form and Brother Glenn is one of these ministers — a minister of that congregation and the one, the minister, that the elders or congregation has appointed to be a full time worker for the congregation. I hope this helps to clarify the situation in Brother Garrett's mind. The issue that comes forth from Brother Garrett's parenthetical comment is: Does a paid minister or preacher or servant of the local congregation necessarily constitute an official office holder in the church? Does Brother Garrett affirm this? Let him name the point.