A "Middle Of The Road" Breakdown -- No. III.
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Firm Foundation for publication.)
The third article in THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD series written by Bro. Roy H. Lanier was published in the Firm Foundation of Feb. 26, 1957. As we continue our study of his articles, I wish now to note some things said in this one.
"Benevolence Under Elderships"
A portion of Bro. Lanier's third article is given to a discussion of this topic. I am in agreement with him that the work of benevolence done by the church should be under the oversight of the elders of said church. However, I do not agree with him as to what may be put under an eldership. Concerning this matter he says:
"Usually there is need for some organization within the church to accomplish its purposes, and when such is needed, the organization is under the oversight of the elders. By organization I do not mean an autonomous body within the church; I mean an orderly arrangement of the forces of the church which will enable the church to do its work most effectively. Whenever the organization becomes an autonomous body over which the eldership has no oversight and authority, it ceases to be within and a part of the church; its action is not the action of the church, but is acting in competition to the church."'
While Bro. Lanier declares he means only an "orderly arrangement" when he speaks of the "organization" that may be needed by the church, it becomes evident that he means much more than that. He is not opposed to a human organization for the work of benevolence if it is put under the eldership of a congregation. The only thing he opposes is an "autonomous body" that is not under the oversight of elders. An "autonomous body" means a self-ruling or self-governing body. If one of this kind is set up that is not subject to an eldership, as is Childhaven, Tennessee Orphan Home, Boles Home and others, Bro. Lanier is opposed to such. Note the fact that he does not oppose another "body" in addition to the church; he opposes only an "autonomous body." If the "body" is placed under the elders, he is willing to accept it. So, as I said in the beginning of these articles, Bro. Lanier is in the road of human institutionalism for the work of the church. He wants the human organization put under the elders, while Bro. Guy Woods has contended for them whether under the elders or not. However, the "unchangeable" Woods now contends that such cannot be Scripturally placed under the elders but must be an "autonomous body". Both men, as you can easily see, are defending human organizations. Bro. Lanier says the extra body or extra organization may exist all right, but must not be an "autonomous body" — it must be placed under the elders. Men who are riding the "Middle of the Road" Bandwagon are accepting human organizations to do the work of the church just as definitely as are the more liberal brethren who hold the "extreme right" view. They are not opposing human organizations for the work of the church, but they are opposing only "super-organizations" as was expressed by one sometime ago. If an "organization" does not become "super," it is all right. Keep it under the eldership, and everything will be fine. Such is Bro. Lanier's position, and it is just as unscriptural as the "extreme right," and perhaps even more so, for when men set up a human organization to do the work of the church, they have performed an unscriptural act. When they place it under the elders of a congregation, they have performed another unscriptural act, for there is no divine authority to place any human organization under the elders of a church to do the work of the church.
Upon the basis of the argument presented by Bro. Lanier, I wonder how he would object to a Christian Endeavor Society, a Ladies' Aid Society, and other such societies operated by the Christian Church. If the Christian Endeavor Society is made subject to the elders, Bro. Lanier will have to accept it. If the Ladies' Aid Society is placed under the elders of the church, he cannot object to it. If a Dorcas Society is placed within the framework of the congregation, he can never raise his voice against it. It is only when such Societies become "autonomous", when they operate independently of the elders of the church, that Bro. Lanier can reject them. Our fight against the Christian Church for organizing such societies has been wrong all the time, according to Bro .Lanier, and we should begin apologizing to them immediately. Furthermore, if Bro. Lanier will accept a benevolent organization as Scriptural if placed under the oversight of elders, will he pursue the same course with the Missionary Society? If a Missionary Society is not an "autonomous body" — if it is placed under the elders of a church — Bro. Lanier cannot oppose such and hold to his present "Middle of the Road" course.
To further develop the idea Bro. Lanier says:
"To illustrate: our Sunday school, or Bible school work, is an organized effort of the church to edify itself. It is an organization in the sense that it is an orderly arrangement of the forces of the church which enables the church to do its work most effectively. But suppose those who have the responsibility of carrying on the Sunday school work. the teachers and their assistants, should get the idea that they are hindered and limited in the work they wish to do because of the oversight of the elders and they decide to form an organization in the sense of an autonomous body."
And suppose, Bro. Lanier, that the teachers and their assistants should decide to form another body which is not autonomous, and then put that body under the elders. Such is exactly what you have in the field of benevolence. Suppose in the Bible class work, they form a human organization, set up its officers which are to be in charge, as president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer, get it incorporated or chartered, and then put the whole thing in subjection to the elders. Will you accept it? That is what you will have to have in Bible School work before you have anything that will "illustrate" the thing you are defending in benevolence. Until you have that you have nothing comparable to the organizations you are trying to defend. And to complete the comparison, you would have to solicit the brotherhood to send their members to this particular congregation to have them edified and send their funds to pay for it. I don't believe Bro. Lanier is quite ready for that sort of "orderly arrangement," but he must get ready for it if he holds to his present position concerning the work of benevolence. If the work of benevolence can be done by such an arrangement, the same is true of the work of edification and the work of evangelism.
"Benevolence Under Boards"
Our attention is next called to a study of "Benevolence Under Boards." In the introduction to article No. 3 Bro. Lanier said:
"And I have said that I cannot go along with other brethren who believe in and encourage the care of aged and orphans under self-perpetuating boards which are not under the oversight of any eldership."
Then in the first paragraph under the above topic we have this statement:
"By benevolence under self - perpetuating boards I mean homes established by brethren and which are under the oversight of a group of men selected by the founders and perpetuated by the board itself selecting men to fill vacancies as they appear."
It will also be remembered that Bro. Lanier, in his first article, said: "I am opposed to caring for orphans under a board." So we have the matter pretty definitely stated. Bro. Lather opposes orphan care "under a board." He also opposes such care "under a self-perpetuating board." So he rides in the middle of the road and endorses Tipton Orphan Home, Tipton, Oklahoma, and the Home for the Aged, at Gunter, Texas, and other such organizations But when he does so, he endorses caring for the needy "under a board." He even endorses such care "under a self-perpetuating board." If this can be proven, then there will be no mistake that Bro. Lanier is defending human organizations for the work of the church.
We shall first notice Tipton Orphan Home as an orphan home that he endorses. This home is provided by a human organization. Its charter shows that a number of men entered into a contract "for the purpose of forming a corporation." A "corporation" is a chartered organization. So it is an organization. It does not claim to be the church. Hence, it is a human organization. This corporation, or organization, has its purposes set forth in the charter. Among other things it tells us the corporation has the right of "holding, owning and acquiring, by purchase, gift or devise, real and personal property." This is found in Article 4 of the Amended Articles of Incorporation. Article 6 states that "the number of directors to be elected at the first meeting of the trustees is four." Thus we see that it has a Board of Directors. It is under a board. Furthermore, the certificate is signed by "Earl Todd, Presiding Officer." Then the following statement is made:
"Earl Todd, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, says: that he is the presiding officer above named, that he has read the foregoing certificate and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts set forth therein are true, as he verily believes"
This is signed: "Presiding Officer, Earl Todd."
So in the arrangement for Tipton Home, we have a human organization, as a chartered corporation, set up to provide the home. This corporation which provides the home has a Board of Directors, and one man is the Presiding Officer of the Board. If Bro. Lanier is against caring for orphans "under a board," he will have to give up his defense of Tipton Home. To take the human organization, with its Board of Directors and Presiding Officer and place it under the elders of the Tipton church does not change the human organization. And it does not eliminate the Board and Presiding Officer. If this sort of organization is not placed under the elders, Bro. Lanier opposes it, but put it under the elders, and he thinks it is Scriptural.
But, as he also endorsed the Gunter, Texas, Home for the Aged, we wish to look at it. Remember that Bro. Lanier is against "self-perpetuating boards" for the work of benevolence. A copy of the charter of this Home lies before me. It is a "corporation" — chartered organization
human in its origin. The corporation "provides a home" for aged men and women. In Article 5 of the charter we read the following:
"This corporation shall be administered by a Board of seven directors, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum. The Board of Directors shall be self-perpetuating, in that in the event of the death, resignation, or disqualification for any reason of any of the members of such Board of Directors, the remaining directors may select a successor to such person or persons to serve in the stead of the person or persons so deceased, resigned or disqualified and the person so selected shall succeed to all the rights, powers and authority vested in his predecessor."
Thus we learn that the "corporation" for Gunter Home is "administered by a "Board of seven directors." We also learn that the Board is "self-perpetuating," that is, when one director is removed by death or other causes, the remaining members of the Board select his successor. This is the very thing that Bro. Lanier says he is against. He declared himself to be against "self-perpetuating boards" for benevolence. He says he is against homes "which are under the oversight and control of a group of men selected by the founders and perpetuating by the board itself selecting men to fill vacancies as they appear." That is the very thing that Gunter Home is. He is going to have to endorse "self-perpetuating boards" or give up his defense of the Gunter Home. If such a "self-perpetuating board" were placed under the elders, it is still a human organization. This is certainly more than the "orderly arrangement" Bro. Lanier had in mind when he referred to our Bible classes. The charter lists the names and addresses of the original seven directors. They lived in six different towns or cities in Texas, and only one of them was in Gunter. The powers and authority which they possessed are shown in Article 8 of the Charter, from which the following statement is quoted:
"The directors of this corporation are empowered to employ a superintendent of said Home for the Aged, for such salary and upon such terms as such directors may deem fair, just and proper. The superintendent, with the Board's approval, shall be empowered to employ such other employees as may be necessary to properly, and efficiently operate said home."
The affairs of the home are thus shown to be under the direction of this Board — this self-perpetuating board — that Bro. Lather is against. Why not discard such human organizations and let the church do the work?
Putting such an organization under the elders of the church will not even begin to make it Scriptural.
(To Be Continued)