Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 7
August 18, 1955
NUMBER 15, PAGE 8-9a

"Only In An Emergency"

Cecil B. Douthitt, Brownwood, Texas

One of the most ridiculous editorials that I have seen in any paper appeared in the Firm Foundation of July 26, 1955, under the heading, "Only In An Emergency." Here is the first sentence in that editorial:

"I have listened first with amusement, and then with fear, to the argument that New Testament churches cooperated only in an emergency."

The statement is not correct. The editor misrepresents those who differ with him on some points of church cooperation; he accuses his brethren of teaching that which they do not teach; he is a false accuser.

By way of illustration: If I say that Brother Lemmons teaches that the New Testament churches met only on the first day of the week, I speak not the truth; I misrepresent him; I accuse him of teaching that which he does not teach; I am a false accuser. If I say that Brother Lemmons teaches that New Testament churches met to observe the Lord's supper only on the first day of the week, I speak the truth; I do not misrepresent him;

I do not accuse him of teaching that which he does not teach; I am not a false accuser.

When the editor accuses his brethren of teaching "that New Testament churches cooperated only in an emergency," he does not speak the truth; he accuses his brethren of teaching that which they do not teach; he is a false accuser.

If he had said that he had listened "to the argument that New Testament churches cooperated" in sending donations to another church "only in an emergency," his statement would be true; he would not be a false accuser. But he can make the charge that somebody is teaching "that New Testament churches cooperated only in an emergency," then prove easily that New Testament churches did cooperate when there was no emergency, and thereby blow a smoke screen before the eyes of his readers and keep some of them from knowing the real issue and from seeing the truth. However, if he correctly stated the issue, and said that some are teaching that New Testament churches cooperated in contributions to a sister congregation "only in an emergency," he could not prove that his opponents are wrong; neither could he point out one passage of scripture that teaches that one New Testament church "cooperated" with another New Testament church by sending a contribution to it, except in a case of emergency, and he knows it. Why does he persist in advocating a religious practice for which there is no scriptural authority? Why does he accuse his brethren of teaching that which he knows they do not teach? Does he not know that the Holy Spirit lists "false accusers" with blasphemers and traitors? (II Tim. 3:2-4.) On what can he base any hope of attaining heaven if he does not repent of this false accusation against his brethren?

In his editorial he argues that everything the Bible teaches us to do in an emergency, it teaches us to do also in normal conditions; that God does not have two sets of laws — one for normal conditions and another for emergencies. He contends that we set aside or violate God's law for normal conditions, if we do something in an emergency that is not lawful under normal conditions. He asks this question:

"Since when does God have two sets of laws; one for normal conditions and another for emergencies?""

What on earth is the matter with the man? I thought that every editor who knows enough to edit anything knows that God has had since the day of Pentecost one law to govern our actions in normal conditions, and a different law to determine our course in an emergency.

Until a famine struck Judea the churches were not sending contributions to the elders there. They were using all their money in other ways in perfect accord with God's law governing their course in normal conditions. But an emergency arose; a famine struck the churches in Judea. What did the New Testament churches do in this emergency that they had no right to do and were not doing before the emergency? They sent contributions to the elders of the churches in Judea. (I. Cor. 16:1-2; II Cor. 8 and 9.) When they did this, did they violate God's law "for normal conditions"? What a silly question!

Perhaps another illustration will help the editor to get his eyes open: A brother is naked and hungry, not because of "an emergency," but because he will not work. He could work and earn a living, but he spends his time as a lazy busybody. What is God's law to the church under this "condition"? God's law requires the church to let this idler starve. (II Thess. 3:10, 11.) Another brother is naked, wounded and hungry, because he was stripped and beaten by robbers. (Luke 10:30-37.) An emergency exists in this case. What is God's law to the church in this case? Shall the brethren pursue the same course as in the case of the hungry busybody? Of course not. God has another law to govern their conduct now. They must make provision for the needs of this brother who is not able to provide for himself (James 2: 14; I John 3:17), and they can do so without violating God's law for normal conditions.

Notice this strange question in the editorial:

"If circumstances do not alter cases in so far as baptism, or repentance, or instrumental music are concerned by what rule of logic, or principle eternal, can one argue that circumstances do alter cases when it comes to cooperation between congregations?"

Bad grammar is not the worst thing in this editorial. Does the editor not know that circumstances do "alter cases in so far as baptism, or repentance, or instrumental music are (should be is — C.B.D.) concerned" in precisely the same way and to the same extent "that circumstances do alter cases when it comes to cooperation between congregations"?

Of course no man can obtain forgiveness from alien sins under any circumstances short of baptism. Nevertheless, circumstances do "alter cases in so far as baptism" is concerned. The baptism administered in Ephesus by Apollos was invalid; the baptism administered by Paul to the same men was valid. (Acts 19:1-6.) Why was one baptism invalid and the other valid? Because the "circumstances" were different. Circumstances did "alter cases in so far as baptism" was concerned in Acts 19:1-6.

If a man should come and ask the editor to baptize him upon a confession of his faith in Christ (Acts 8:37), the editor would not hesitate to baptize him under these circumstances. If another man should come and ask the editor to baptize him upon a confession that he believed that God for Christ's sake already had pardoned his sins, the editor would refuse to do so under these circumstances. Why? Simply because circumstances alter cases "as far as baptism" is concerned. The editor does not believe his own silly "logic, or principle eternal."

Brother Lemmons objects to instrumental music under certain "circumstances"; under certain other circumstances he does not object to its use. He objects to instrumental music as worship to God, but he does not object to it as entertainment in the home. Why does he object to it under certain circumstances, but endorses it under different circumstances? Simply because circumstances "alter cases in so far" as instrumental music is concerned.

Circumstances alter cases in so far as the Lord's Supper is concerned. Under certain circumstances the church at Corinth could not eat the Lord's Supper. Under different circumstances that same church could eat the Lord's Supper. (I Cor. 11:20, 27, 28.)

Does the editor think that it is always scriptural, regardless of circumstances, for churches to "cooperate" by sending their contributions to other churches? Does he think it would be scriptural for all the churches in the world to "cooperate" by sending all their contributions to one church, regardless of circumstances? If he says he does not believe in that kind of "cooperation," then how can he say that circumstances do not "alter cases when it comes to cooperation between congregations"?

A few years ago a cyclone did great damage to a West Texas city. Residences were destroyed, an emergency was created by the storm, and churches there needed outside help. In compliance with divine example. God's law for emergencies (II Cor. 8 and 9), many other churches sent relief. The emergency ended, circumstances changed, and conditions became normal again. The churches all quit sending contributions to that area. Now, according to the "rule of logic, or principle eternal" of the editor of the Firm Foundation, these churches violated God's law when they stopped their contributions to that area; because his logic says "circumstances do not alter cases," and "Since when does God have two sets of laws; one for normal conditions and another for emergencies?"

The editor's "rule of logic, or principle eternal" reasons that God changes, "if circumstances change the rules that apply," and he says, "The only hope any of us have of going to heaven when we die is based upon the fact that God never changes, and that God's law will never change." Now, doesn't that make you think of the sectarian who argues that the thief on the cross and Abraham were saved without baptism, and if we cannot be saved without it, then God has changed? Or, the Holy Roller who says that Christians once performed miracles, and if God is not doing the same through Christians now, He has changed?

"I still say that the need of this age is for sound, sober, clear thinking," says the editor; and I still say that I never saw an editor more in need of some "sound, sober, clear thinking" than Brother Lemmons. If he cannot see now that his editorial is worse than silly, he is much slower of comprehension than I had thought.

Why does the editor try so hard to lead his readers to think that God's law for an emergency must apply to normal conditions also? Simply because he knows there is no scripture whatever for a church's sending a donation to another congregation, except in an emergency, unless God's law requires us to do the same things under normal conditions that it requires us to do in emergencies. He knows well that there is no scriptural authority whatever for these modern "sponsoring church" projects, unless the law of God that required the churches in Europe to send contributions to other churches in an emergency also requires churches to send money to sister congregations today when there is no emergency.

The editors and writers of some of the other papers have learned that God's law for an emergency may not apply under normal conditions, and they do not make much effort to prove by the scriptures that it is right for one church to send funds to another church under normal conditions; they try to prove it by what was done in the Music Hall in Houston, or the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, or clippings from the papers, or "Principle eternal" apart from all commands, examples and necessary inferences. And I think Brother Lemmons will soon trot back with the rest of them to paper clippings, old letters and the Music Hall.