Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
December 21, 1967
NUMBER 33, PAGE 1-3a

Lemmons Is Worried Again

Eugene Britnell

Brother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, has been called the "spiritual enigma" of our time. With the arrival of each issue of that journal, I begin to wonder what his editorial will contain. Some of his articles are as plain, scriptural and timely as any man could write. I am thankful for the truth which he teaches, and I am aware of the contribution which he must be making toward a more sane and scriptural course of conduct among Christians and churches today. However, I cannot fully enjoy and appreciate his good articles for wondering what he may say next week and realizing that he may repudiate or negate what he is saying.

In his editorial of September 26, 1967, he has much to say about brethren who have gone "board crazy." He takes the position that all of the work of the church should be under the oversight of the elders and that Boards are unnecessary and unscriptural. Hear him.

"Many brethren seem to think that most any work of the church can be set up separate and apart from the supervision of the Elders of the church under a Board of Directors and that there is nothing wrong with it. We have always maintained that the church is all-sufficient to do any work that God gave the church to do. We believe that the church is its own missionary society, and we believe that the church is its own benevolent society. We continue to maintain that if a thing is the work of the church, that it should be done under the Elders of the church."

In taking this position, brother Lemmons stands diametrically opposed to the position of the Gospel Advocate; but he is exactly right! In fact, his statement and entire editorial sounds exactly like what one would expect to read on the pages of the Gospel Guardian. Of course when such teaching appears in this journal, it is rejected by some, including brother Lemmons, as "anti-ism".

In the second paragraph of his editorial, brother Lemmons said:

"While there may be some slight differences between separate corporations operated under Boards of Trustees and the Missionary Society, the similarities between the two are entirely too great to ignore."

Let it be clearly understood that brother Lemmons is saying that there is a parallel between a Missionary Society and such Boards as those over Southern Christian Home, Tennessee Orphan Home and similar institutions. This is exactly what we have been teaching for years. I have a tract entitled "Missionary and Benevolent Societies" in which I list sixteen points of similarity between a missionary society and a benevolent society. Thousands of them have been circulated, and faithful brethren continue to use them.

Among the "questionable practices" which he says comes through the "floodgate" which is opened by those who believe in the "righteousness of a separate corporation under a Board of Directors" he mentions the "House of the Carpenter." In case you are not familiar with that new social program which Lemmons calls a "rescue mission operation," it is sponsored by the church in Boston, Mass. He refers to an article which he carried in the same issue of the Firm Foundation in which the Boston church announced the appointment of a new Director by the Board of Directors. The Director is Denton Crews, a man who was educated at David Lipscomb College. (That sounds about right, doesn't it?)

Brother Lemmons questions both the WORK and ORGANIZATION of that Boston arrangement. He said:

-We do not believe that churches can ignore the scriptural pattern for the government of the church and for the supervision of its work without laying themselves open to all kinds of unscriptural boards and arrangements.

"We seriously doubt either the advisability or the scriptural justification for many of the projects churches are undertaking. If the church has the responsibility some brethren claim for it, then it should go into every business in the world in order to supply 'the whole need of the whole man.""

Not only does brother Lemmons oppose the Boards, but he has written in opposition to the "social gospel" trend in the church today. In his editorial of August 8,1967, he tells of hearing a young preacher say that it was "the whole duty of the church to minister to the whole man." He then said, "We do not believe it. This, actually, is the heart of the social gospel. And we are going to have more and more trouble with advocates of the social gospel." He is exactly right, and again I must remind the reader that this is exactly what we have been preaching for years.

But here again we can observe brother Lemmons' inconsistency, for he and his paper have promoted the social gospel, second only to the Gospel Advocate! In the January 10,1967 issue of the Firm Foundation, he printed a picture and description of the new building of the Hermitage Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee. On February 11,1967, I wrote him the following letter:

"Dear brother Lemmons:

"On the front page of the Firm Foundation of January 10,1967, you printed a picture of the new building of the Hermitage church in Nashville, Tennessee. The second paragraph says:

'In the second and third phases of construction, the auditorium will be expanded to a capacity of 2500 and additional classrooms and recreational facilities constructed.'

-Do you approve of church sponsored and supported recreation? If so, will you please give the scripture which authorizes such. If you do not approve, then why don't you speak out against it rather than advertise it?"

He never replied to my letter!

Even though he continues to print articles and advertise for churches which are engaged in the social gospel, he is speaking out against it. I must give you the benefit of another paragraph in his editorial of September 26. Read it carefully.

-There seems to be a determined effort on the part of some to make the church a 'this worldly' institution. This social gospel may be all right for man-made churches that originate with men and will die with men, but this is not the main purpose of the church my Lord shed his blood to make possible. If this is the purpose of the church, and if these are the primary works of the church, then institutions that may engage in these works can certainly be established without the necessity of the death of Jesus. Jesus died to purchase something more precious than that.-

Amen!

Brother Lemmons continues to emphasize the parallel between the Boards and a Missionary Society. Hear him:

"We must never forget that the church is a spiritual organism, that its prime purpose is the care of the souls of men and the preaching of the gospel to the lost. This work is to be done under the ELDERS of the church without a missionary society and without various Boards of Directors of separate corporations.-

If I read him right, he is again condemning the social gospel concept, and contending that the orphan home Boards are unscriptural and parallel to a Missionary Society.

Brother Lemmons is anxious to hear more preaching on the mission, organization and government of the church. He said:

-There is a great need, we feel, for more preaching on the mission of the church, and that preaching should be scriptural. There is need for preaching on the organization of the church, and the government of the church, and that preaching should be scriptural. We wonder sometimes if brethren who think that present day preaching is not relevant, feel that the New Testament pattern is not relevant. It has been a long time since we have heard a good sermon on the New Testament pattern of things.-

Well, bless his heart, he has been running with the wrong crowd! I can name hundreds of preachers who preach frequently on the mission and organization of the church, and any one of them will be more than glad to preach to him. In fact, there is a man right there in Austin, Texas, who preaches a lot about the pattern and he will be happy to preach brother Lemmons a sermon on the subject - and it will be scriptural! His name is Robert Farish.

Incidentally, why doesn't brother Lemmons preach on the pattern himself? When I get to wanting to hear something and no one else will preach it, I preach it myself! I have heard brother Lemmons several times in recent years and have heard his meetings advertised but I don't recall hearing a lesson on the New Testament pattern.

The truth is, preaching on the pattern has become a mark of identification, and in the minds of some a stigma, in the church today. A man can announce that he is going to preach on the work or organization of the church and many who don't even know him will brand him an "anti" and a hobbyist before they ever hear him. I know that from experience! This is a clear indication that the liberal brethren no longer preach on these subjects. I'm truly glad to hear brother Lemmons urging brethren to preach more on "the New Testament pattern of things." When they do, they are going to find that there is no authority in the pattern for the Boards, the social gospel, sponsoring churches and many other practices in evidence among churches today.

Brother Lemmons closes his editorial with these words:

-If one work of the church can be done under a 'board of directors then all of it can, and there isn't any need for the instructions given in the Bible at all. Isn't it time brethren think on these things?"

Yes, it's time for them to think. In fact, it's getting later and with some too late! Before closing this article (and it is getting long) I want to call attention again to brother Lemmons' inconsistency; that which makes him so difficult to understand.

In the September 19,1967 issue of the Firm Foundation, he wrote an article entitled "The Divisive Nature of Hobbies." In it, the very teaching which he did in the article which I have reviewed is branded "hobbyism"! Let us notice a few of his statements:

"All hobbyists insist that they are contending for purity of work and worship." Is that not exactly what he was doing in his article of September 26th? Is he a hobbyist? If he will contend earnestly and consistently for what he has taught he will be a hobbyist in the eyes of those who believe in Boards and promote the social gospel. If not, why not? When we teach the same we are thus branded. He says that hobbyism has "quit trying to save the world and is interested only in straightening out the brotherhood." Well, when he informs brethren that their Boards are unscriptural; that they have an erroneous concept of the nature and mission of the church; and challenges them to preach more on the pattern, is he trying to "straighten out the brotherhood"? If he is, he stands self-condemned!

And if he is not, why are we thus accused when we teach and plead for the same things?

He says that hobbyism is "devoid of brotherly love." Perhaps he should know, for what some brethren call "hobbyism" is the very teaching he has done!

We would like to ask brother Lemmons why it is divisive, sinful and hobbyism when WE plead for the New Testament pattern on the nature, mission and organization of the church, but is not when HE pleads for the same thing? Why the double standard? About the only difference in our teaching on these points is that we are consistent in ours and he may apologize for his next week!

— Box 3012, Little Rock, Ark. 72203