Some Observations And Questions
The September 20, 1956, Issue of the GOSPEL GUARDIAN carries an article by Marshall E. Patton of Birmingham, Alabama, entitled "HOW TO ESTABLISH SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY." Editor Tant calls for his readers to point out any errors they think exists in Brother Patton's article, and that such a review will be published in full in the GUARDIAN. Brother Tant is to be commended for his desire to be fair by being willing to allow the presentation of opposing views. This open-forum policy of the GUARDIAN is certainly rather unique among our religious journals, but it should not be. A free church, as well as a free society, cannot long exist without a free press. Someone has said, "The Catholics have their infallible (?) pope; and we have our editors." Editors, go and learn what this means.
First, let me say that I have come to no final conclusion on the issues now facing the church except that more study is needed and more forbearance and brotherly love extended while we study. I will try to point out in this study some of the basic errors and inconsistencies of Brother Patton's article, as I see them. I'd also like to pose some questions for the purpose of provoking more intense investigation of these issues.
Three Ways
Brother Patton rightly affirms at the outset of his article that the question of authority is basic to resolving religious differences. He goes on to say that "scriptural authority is established in one or more of three ways: expressed statement, necessary inferences, and approved example." Now there is no question in my mind but that matters of faith, including the whole scheme of redemption, acts of worship, and such like, are established in these three ways. But, when you attempt to establish matters of expediency by expressed statement, necessary inference, or approved example it breaks down. Who can produce from the New Testament an expressed statement, necessary inference, or approved example for the church-owned meeting house, tuning fork, song book, or song leader waving his arm? Either we will have to admit some other authority for these things or else discard them as unlawful.
Law Of Expediency
Brother Patton could see the necessity for defending at least some expedients, so he sets forth the idea of there being "generic" and "specific" commands. He says that "when something is necessary to execute the divine order, but that something is not revealed" the command is "general." "If no choice is authorized," he says, "then it is specific." According to Brother Patton's chart, the "general" includes "expediencies," but the "specific" excludes "expediencies." I cannot agree with our brother here. Brother Patton has it that the "general" command to "sing" includes "memorize" or "song books." If the command to "sing" includes, let's say, "song books," then it would be absolutely impossible to "sing" without song books. It cannot be said that any command has been obeyed if we fail to do something which the command includes. Surely this is self-evident. So, if the command to "sing" includes the using of "song books" then no one can "sing" without them!
Further, Brother Patton says that the command to "assemble" includes, among other things, a "meetinghouse," (I suppose he means church-owned). Now, if the command to "assemble" includes a church-owned meeting house, then no one can obey the command without one, since we must have all a command includes before it can be said that we have obeyed it.
Hear the truth of this whole matter: No command includes the various expediencies that may be used, but only includes the right to use human judgment in choosing expedients enabling us to carry out the commands. In other words, in obeying His will, God allows human judgment the right to select the best available aids or enabling means, which, of course, are not sinful in themselves. It is my conviction, that of those commands of which it is generally conceded that some aids are necessary before obedience thereto is possible, that God allows human judgment to select aids helpful in carrying out these commands. Not expediencies themselves, but the right to use our own wisdom in selecting them, is what is included in the command, and this by necessary inference.
I want to point out another error I think I see in Brother Patton's chart. Under "specific" commands he has "gopher" wood, which was used in Noah's ark. He says "gopher" wood excludes "pine," "oak," or "cedar" from the expediencies. I can't agree with that. The "law of expediency" is the law of helpfulness. As far as the record goes God left Noah the right to choose the tools he needed to build the ark. Does Brother Patton believe that it would have been unlawful for Noah to have used oak mallets, oak hammer handles, pine ladders, or cedar scaffolding as expedients? All of these items would come under the heading of "expediencies." To use such things would not be adding to the will of God in matters of faith. Remember, we are now considering a realm (expediency) where God has specified no kind at all.
Since Brother Patton mentioned meeting houses, I would like to offer some further observations and ask some questions. We hear a lot about the sinfulness of extra organizations (apart from our local church organization with its elders and deacons) used in connection with our church work. What about the extra organization (legal corporation) which is formed to enable a congregation to buy and own a meeting house? If extra organization is sinful, as such, then what is the authority for a church-owned meeting house, which necessitates the forming of a corporate body composed of "trustees," to hold property for the congregation? Those who oppose church-owned buildings do so on the ground that holding church-owned property necessitates a departure from the simple New Testament church organization in that it necessitates the adding of "trustees" (an unspecified office, another kind when compared to elders and deacons), to the church officiary. What about it?
I have tried to set forth in this article what the "law of expediency" is and what it includes. It seems only fair to ask the GUARDIAN readers to consider it, and if they think I am in error somewhere to please point it out. I, for one, will be most happy to learn of it. Above all, let us continue open studies in a spirit of love. Only in this way can we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.
(My address: 5413 Baldwin, Temple City, California.)