Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

Since the elders of the church perform in a given locality over “the flock of God among them” and are limited in their rule to that flock, we need to understand how one comes to be a part of that flock under the rule of specific elders. There are basically two ways in which this may be done:

By Baptism

When baptized into Christ, people in the New Testament seemingly were considered a part of the church (congregation) where they were. This was done more or less “automatically.” The elders in that place would know them, be familiar with their circumstances, and would “take the oversight” of those persons.

This is done when the person involved meets with the church where he was baptized. The oversight of elders is limited to “the flock of God among you,” and “over the which the Holy Ghost made you overseers” (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:28). This cannot be stretched to include those persons who are baptized while in transit-the Ethiopian of Acts 8, for example-unless those persons remain with the church for some time-such as in the case of the 3,000 converts in Jerusalem, Acts 2.

By Expression of Desire

By Expressing such a desire when moving from one place to another. Many consider their “membership” to be “back home” in “the old home church.” They will not separate themselves from the church with which they are no longer identified. They may be in a place for years and yet not consider themselves “members” there. Who is supposed to be watching. for their souls? The elders “back home” cannot and yet the elders in the new place are told they are not “members” here. There should be some expression of desire to be a part of the congregation in the new place in order that one may enjoy all the benefits of the local church. This “transfer of membership” or “placing of membership” or “identifying of oneself” may be done in one of three ways generally. However, one of these is inadvisable and confusing. It may be done:

By Letters

By Letters brought from the congregation with which one formerly met. We do not advocate the sectarian idea of “moving one’s letter,” for there is no central office through which this sort of activity is controlled. However, there is good scriptural basis for using a letter to inform the congregation in the new area of the person who is coming into its midst.

Rom. 16:1-2.Some have suggested that the real reason for sending a letter to Rome was that Phoebe was going there from Cenchrea. Be that as it may, Paul writes to verify her position as a faithful child of God.

I Cor. 16:10-11. In this case, Timothy was moving to Corinth. His youth seems to have been a problem (1 Tim. 4:12) and Paul writes of his faith and ability in the gospel. As these folks moved from place to place, letters were sent with them to serve as credentials of their faith and service to the Lord.

This action protects the church from erring members who might just move from place to place. Some move to escape corrective discipline promised in the congregation for wrong-doing on their part. Some move simply to involve new people in some scheme or false doctrine they happen to be teaching. Some who are not faithful and who need to repent for error where they are do not have the courage, but will “start over” again when they move.

Elders should be willing to follow a similar procedure for those who are leaving in order that they may be recognized as being faithful immediately upon their arrival in a new -place. Great care should be given to those who are unfaithful.

By Informing Elders

By informing the elders of such desire. This may be done in lieu of, or preferably in addition to, a writing of letters. By stating directly to the elders that one wants to be a part of the flock under their direction, he voices his approval of and cooperation with those men.

An example of this type of activity is found in Acts 9. Paul went to Jerusalem and “assayed to join himself to the disciples.” They in effect refused fellowship to him until Barnabas came to his defense and convinced them he was a disciple of the Lord. (This example demonstrates the autonomy of the local church. Jerusalem had the right to screen its own members.) This example demonstrates the right of the local church to refuse fellowship to those who are not proven worthy of it. There is no hint that Jerusalem did not do the right thing in refusing to fellowship a man who had not treated the Lord and His church properly. This example demonstrates the need for a person to `join ” a local congregation when in a given area. Paul himself felt the need to “join” that church. This example demonstrates the need for some type of verification of each person coming into it. Barnabas had to come to Paul’s rescue and verify his fidelity to Jesus.

Members coming into a congregation avoid a great many problems and uncertainties when they inform that congregation with its elders that they intend to be members there. There is no reason why faithful Christians should not want this to transpire. People who do not want the elders where they are to be over them generally have some unholy reason for such. Even when one is going to be in a given locality for only extended temporary periods-such as for college, or prolonged business stays, or any situation where the stay in the local church is not considered permanent but is more than a visit-he should make it understood what his situation is and his desire to be a part of the congregation while he is there. Cf. Acts 9.

By Continued Association

By Continued Association And Meetings With The Congregation. This is a highly-argued question. What does the church (congregation) do with a person who does not identify with the group, but who constantly meets with them and takes active part with the church both in and out of the assembly?

Often people of this type will refuse to become a part of the congregation even when asked to do such. They will affirm that their membership is in another place. While they desire to worship here, they are to be considered members there they say. Does the church have the right to consider them as members anyway? Do the elders have responsibility to oversee them? If they err, should the church exercise corrective discipline?

As noted earlier, one of the ways suggested as a possibility for becoming a part of the flock in a given locality and coming under the rule of the elders is inadvisable and confusing. This is it. Surely one should begin continued association and meetings with the local congregation. But if that is all he does, it becomes more complex as to what the responsibilities of the congregation and the elders are toward that person.

However, there are certain statements in the New Testament which would cause one to believe that continued association and meetings with a congregation will place one under the direction of the elders of that church.

1 Peter 5:2. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” The word “among” in the original is en and means, “in, on, at, with, by, among” (Thayer, p. 209). Are these individuals “among you”? If so, the elders are to take the oversight. They do not have to wait for it to be given. They “take the oversight.”

Hebrews 13:7. “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: Whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” Elders who are in the position of regularly speaking the word of the Lord have the rule. Elders who are in the position of regularly serving as examples are those who have the rule and are to shepherd the flock. Cf. 1 Peter 5:2-3.

I Thessalonians 5:12. “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.” Elders who labor among the people and admonish the people are over the people.

Conclusion

As already stated, there is no authority for elders to make any attempt to exercise authority in a locality other than that where they have been appointed. By the same token, where they have been made bishops, they have authority to be rulers and those who are “among” them are to submit.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 442-443
July 12, 1979

By Steve Wolfgang

One of the many church bulletins which cross my desk regularly is The Discerner, edited by Robert McDonald and published by the church in Odessa, Texas, where he is the preacher. It is both informative and attractive in format, and, to judge from the frequently published letters from readers, evidently is circulated rather widely among brethren. Many of the articles in the last four or five months’ issues have pertained to the question of whether individual Christians have the right, or are permitted by the Scriptures, to support a college not supported from local church treasuries but which teaches religion or Bible courses. The October, 1978 issue contained a lengthy article by Leon Odom of Midland, Texas, entitled “Put Your Brand On Him” in which some historical circumstances are alluded to in order to establish the author’s point. Some of the historical allusions and allegations based thereon do not exactly square with the facts, and I had considered replying when I first received that issue but then put it aside to tend to other pressing duties. I have since been asked by the editor of this paper to respond; hence, this article. I write with neither personal acquaintance nor animosity toward either Brother McDonald or Brother Odom.

I wish to begin by emphasizing my wholehearted concurrence with one of Brother Odom’s points-that of the “labeling” of brethren generally, and the specific label of “Sommerite” in particular. If the only point Brother Odom wished to make was a simple appeal to brethren to quit “labeling” other brethren with whom they may disagree and instead enter into a Biblical discussion with those deemed to be in error, I would be happy to join with him in this effort and add a hearty “Amen” to his sentiments. But it appears to me that Brother Odom has gone well beyond this simple plea and becomes guilty of this very thing at several places in the article. I submit that Brother Odom commits the very error he condemns-branding brethren with whom he disagrees-in a pronounced absence of Biblical argumentation. We wish in this article to respond not only to the general issue of “branding” but to deal with the specific label “Sommerism.” Since Brother Odom’s article is only one of several such misrepresentations of Daniel Sommer’s position which has appeared in print in the last five years or so, it is perhaps time for reasonable response.

Perhaps a word should be said regarding the author’s familiarity with “Sommerism.” I was both born and raised in Indianapolis, which was Daniel Sommer’s home for more than 45 years, from 1894 until his death early in 1940, and where his children continued to live and publish the Sommer paper.(1) From an early age I attended with my parents and grandparents the old Irvington church during the time that Earl West and, then, Cecil Willis (the first two preachers I have conscious memories of hearing) were preaching there and writing their histories of controversy in the “Restoration Movement.”(2) About 1957, “when the institutional issues forced a crisis in the Irvington church… it became necessary for those who wanted to keep the Lord’s church from becoming a handmaid to human institutions to leave Irvington . . . . So the Wolfgang families moved. . .”(3) to the Emerson Avenue congregation (40th and Emerson). This congregation, recently moved to the new location, had been the old North Indianapolis church, where Sommer’s membership had been, and where he had often preached when not traveling in evangelistic work. Among the members was Sommer’s daughter, Bessie, and several people who had grown up hearing Sommer preach. The preacher there was Loren Raines, who began preaching under the influence of Daniel Sommer(4); it was here that I was baptized in 1962 by Brother Raines. More than a decade later, I wrote for my M.A. thesis at Butler University in Indianapolis a biography of Daniel Sommer. During the course of this research I used not only the files of Sommer’s paper, now in the library of Christian Theological Seminary adjacent to the Butler campus, but numerous boxes of Sommer’s personal letters, papers, and sermons, the record book of the North Indianapolis church, and several taped interviews of Sommer’s living children and associates.

Now, all of this certainly does not make me “the authority” on Sommer or his teaching. It does, however, establish some reasonable familiarity with Sommer and his work on the author’s part. In short, I am no stranger to the label “Sommerism.”

It needs to be made clear that this article is not written as a defense or vindication of Sommer or any views peculiar to him. Actually, though I have read a good deal of Sommer’s writings, I do not think any more of him than of Alexander Campbell, or Lipscomb, or McGarvey or any other “Restoration giant” (though I would admit to having a few personal “favorites”). I do not believe they were exceptionally brilliant above other men; nor do I happen to believe (as one “Restoration specialist” among liberal brethren begins his lectures by saying), “The greater the men the greater the movement.” I have no interest whatsoever in the vindication or veneration of any man, living or dead. I do happen to think that if brethren such as Brother Odom are going to insist on arguing their position historically instead of Biblically that they get their facts straight so that their historical interpretations and conclusions will not be unduly warped. If we are going to quote or represent those of bygone years let us at least do so accurately.

Brother, Odom is disturbed because he says there are brethren who have labeled him and those who share his opinions on colleges teaching Bible and religion “Sommerite” while presenting themselves as “pro-college.” Perhaps I do not circulate as widely among the brethren as Brother Odom (though I have been in more than 30 states in each of the last several years, traveling to and from meetings-mostly among brethren whom Brother Odom likely would consider “pro-college”), but I must admit having heard none of these charges. Brother Odom even says they have been bold enough to make these charges in print. Now, I have tried to keep up in the last few years with most of the journals published by brethren and with a good many church bulletins besides (I get over a hundred such publications weekly)-but I have seen none of these accusations.

It is interesting that in the midst of all the quoting of others in Brother Odom’s article, he did- not specify or quote anyone he says is doing all-the branding he abhors so much. If he would like to specify who it is he is indicting or provide documentation of such label-slinging we would be happy to join hands with him in opposing such a practice. But we find it difficult to do so until he tells us what article in which paper, or which self-styled “pro-college” brethren are labeling him and those like him as “Sommerites.”

Actually, what Brother Odom has done (try as he may to disavow it) is to paint those of us who do not share his opinions on the “college” or “Bible department” issue with the same broad brush as those he condemns as “liberal” or those who would castigate both of us as “Campbellites.” Apparently Brother Odom finds it easier to maintain his critical position by quoting (or misquoting) dead preachers than by offering a scriptural argument to support it. In addition, he evidently finds it necessary to label and lump those of us who do not share his convictions in this matter with those who would institutionalize the Lord’s church by arguing that we can do many things without scriptural authority. Such an approach is ultimately self-defeating, because arguments of this kind always raise questions in the minds of thoughtful people against a cause which apparently needs misstatements and misrepresentations of fact to support its conclusions.

Now, as if it mattered, what did Sommer actually teach in the matter in which Brother Odom cites him? Sommer’s position on Bible colleges took numerous forms early in his career. In some of his earlier debates he took the position that whatever money a Christian had left after providing “necessities” was “the Lord’s money” and should be given to the Lord’s church. This extreme position has been given much attention by some who do not realize that the occasion for Sommer’s remarks originally was the appeal of J.N. Armstrong for one of his several colleges in which he very boldly said,

“The starting of this work does not depend on your gift, for God’s hand is not shortened. Your salvation may depend on it, but the school does not. If you have means in your hand and are a servant of God, it is God’s means; and to be a faithful servant, you must use his means in the place where you believe it will do the most toward building the kingdom of God.”(5)

Sommer made many other arguments against schools which taught the Bible, some of which are used by present day opponents of such schools and some of which are not,since there seems to be almost as many different “Biblical positions” against a college teaching the Bible as there are different brethren opposing them.

However, by the 1930’s, which was very late in his life, Sommer was willing to concede that, even though he still opposed such colleges personally, he would preach, worship, and work with brethren who supported such colleges, so long as that support was rendered on a personal, individual basis, and did not seek the use of local church funds.(6)

For instance, Sommer said, after a “Rough Draft for Christian Unity” was proposed in the pages of his paper in 1931,

“. . . A few statements should be made about the proposal to fellowship those individuals who give toward orphan homes, church colleges, missionary societies and such-like humanisms. The `rough draft’ for unity proposes to regard such as risking their souls . . . . Thus I think, and thus many others think. ‘But who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls’ (See Romans 14:4).”(7)

That hardly sounds like Sommer had joined the ranks of “pro-college men,” does it? Sommer further stated;

“Can a man use tobacco and be a Christian? My answer has been and still is, I couldn’t, but I cannot speak for anyone else. Can a man be a member of an oath-bound order and be a Christian? My answer has been and still is, 1 couldn’t, but I can’t speak for anyone else. Can a man be a Christian and give money to build or support a man-made missionary or educational society? My answer has been and still is, I couldn’t but I cannot speak for any one else.”(8)

The following year, after making an extended tour of colleges in the South in 1933, Sommer said,

“The only change I specially noticed while visiting those schools was the disposition to speak of them as `adjuncts to the Home, rather than to the Church.’ When I heard this I generally said, `That is more reasonable, and the fourteenth chapter of Romans forbids that I should sit in judgment on how much you should do in educating your children.’ This means my sentence has changed in proportion as college advocates have changed . . .”(9)

Does that sound to you like Sommer was advocating “the old `adjunct of the home’ theory” as Brother Odom contends? The fact is, he recognized it as a much less rabid defense of the college than Armstrong’s. He may have tolerated the argument, but he did not personally agree with it or advance it, insofar as I have been able to find in his writings or personal correspondence. If Brother Odom can document his assertion I will be happy to see his evidence, but until then I must wonder whether Brother Odom is not one of the “most of them (who) don’t even know what Daniel Sommer’s position was . . .”

For the record, Sommer did recede from his argument against Armstrong’s on “the Lord’s money,” acknowledging that

“I concede Christians can divide their prosperity with a college, an orphanage, an infirmary, a secret order, a life insurance company, or even a political campaign fund, or a missionary society, or even the tobacco habit-for aught I know. And Romans fourteenth chapter informs me I should not, on that account, refuse to recognize them as brethren . . . To this I add, Christians can publish papers to advocate and defend the gospel of Christ, and can advertize in them worldy commodities good; bad and indifferent, also advertize commentaries for children that tend to turn attention from the pages of the Bible to humanly arranged pages-they can do all this, and I repeat that Romans fourteenth chapter forbids that I should, for those reasons, refuse to recognize them as brethren . . . can we afford to take the “risk” of establishing institutions He never mentioned, either personally or through his apostles? I cannot afford to do so! My convictions will not permit me to do so-not any more than they will permit me to join an oathbound society. Yet Romans fourteenth chapter and the beginning of the fifteenth chapter will not permit me to discard those from among my brethren who take such “risks.” In course of recent winter months I spent nearly twelve weeks among brethren in Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. I found them kind and reasonable. When they favored me with the privilege to address promiscuous audiences I spoke on subjects I thought would elevate, ennoble, purify and adorn. When I spoke to those of educational reputation I did not hesitate to indicate to them what I thought was their danger . . . In the meantime we should sing this song as offered by Bro. M.C. Kurfees:

How blest and how joyous will be the glad day,

When heart beats to heart in the work of the Lord;

When Christians united shall swell the grand lay,

Divisions all ended-triumphant His Word!”(10) 

This brings us to the point of this article. It is curious that Brother Odom offered no documentation for his interpretation of Sommer’s views, as he was well able and willing to do for other material presented in the article. And, there are some who would find it strange if not highly amusing (and I suspect that Sommer would be among them) to find those who support the college’s right to teach the Bible now branded “Sommerites.” But this is a relatively minor point of historical understanding which pales by comparison to a much more serious issue.

What is definitely not amusing is the ferocity with which Brother Odom and those of his persuasion seem bent on pushing this issue to the point of a breach of fellowship. Oh, I know that such an idea is vehemently denied, as it is on the tape of the 1976 Forum at Odessa provided me by Brother Grover Stevens. My question is, why should the issue of fellowship even be mentioned? If Daniel Sommer could hold his quite strong opinions as personal convictions and worship and preach with those who disagreed with him so long as their collective action in a local church was not involved, why cannot Brother Odom and his compatriots? Really, a question of “branding” does not disturb me nearly so much as the deeper issue of fellowship, since I react to one who wants to make me out a “Sommerite” in exactly the same way as I do one who styles me a Campbellite-which is simply to ignore such as one as a victim of either ignorance or malice.

A final point should be underscored: Though Brother Odom did not identify it by name, everyone remotely familiar with the issue knows that only one educational institution falls within the category of a school, rejecting support from church treasuries but accepting individual contributions, which teaches Bible and religion courses. That school is Florida College. While the school has no control (and no right to control) the actions of everyone, those in its official employ have taken pains, indeed, bent over backward, to do two things relative to this issue. (1) To make sure that there is no connection, either in substance or appearance, between the college and the church. (2) To respect the individual consciences of those who do object to the school, or its right to teach the Bible and religion courses, even when such is done only by individuals. There has been no coercion, vilification, or public ridicule of those who do not share the convictions of personal conscience held by the school’s staff or supporters.

Personally, (and, while I cannot speak for everyone, this holds true for those in my acquaintance) the above procedure has likewise been my practice. I can work and worship without any reservation with any brother who does not happen to share my convictions in these matters-so long as he does not push it to the point of division or reflect upon my faithfulness or dedication for not sharing his opinions. But to the extent that brethren Odom, McDonald, . are intent on making this a public issue in which they attempt to place blame for “Who Is Causing Division?” I suspect that they will find more than a few of the rest of us willing to oppose that effort.

My question to Brother Odom (and to Brother McDonald, who indicted those supporting the right of a college or business to teach the Bible along with those who make support of such colleges the work of the church in a recent article entitled “Who Is Causing Division?”) is: Why must the question of fellowship even be raised? Are you not willing to be as magnanimous in your holding of personal convictions as even Brother Sommer came to be? Finally, my admonition is for all of us to be less concerned with labeling our brethren than with making Biblical arguments to support our contentions. May the churches have peace and prosper.

Footnotes:

1. Sommer’s paper was published under various titles. When he became editor in 1886, it still bore the name given it by its founder, Benjamin Franklin (American Christian Review). It reverted to that name after Sommer’s death in 1940, when the paper was edited (until being discontinued in 1965) by his children, Allen and Bessie Sommer, who passed away in 1975 and 1977, respectively. During Sommer’s lifetime the paper bore the titles Octographic Review (1887-1913) and Apostolic Review (1913-1940). It is interesting to note that Sommer tried to blunt criticism of his paper as “an organization other than a local church teaching the gospel” by having the organization limited to the members of the family, with his wife officially the publisher of the paper until her death in 1924. 1 find this quite interesting in view of some of the arguments being advanced by the “no-collectivity-other-than-a-local church” group (if someone can come up with a better description for this position-especially one easier to type-I shall be glad to hear it!)

2. West’s work, of course, is Search For the Ancient Order (2 vols.; Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1954); Willis’ is W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith (privately published, 1964); both available from Truth Magazine Bookstore. For a reprinting of Sommer’s autobiographical articles, see William E. Wallace, Daniel Sommer: 1850-1940 (privately published, 1969). Wallace did much of the work for this volume while living and preaching in Indianapolis in the 1960’s.

3. Cecil Willis in Truth Magazine, XIX:1 (November 7, 1974), p. 10.

4. “About the Author,” cover of What Doth the Lord Require? by Loren Raines (Bedford, Indiana: by the author, 1977); Wallace, Daniel Sommer, p. 215; taped interview with the author, August 29, 1973.

5. The most accessible version of this quotation to readers of this paper is in Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, Texas: R.B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969), p. 74. Sears, a former dean of Harding College, is also Armstrong’s son-in-law.

6. The question of whether “Sommer changed” is an intriguing one. There is no doubt in my mind that part of Sommer’s statements regarding the colleges was due to some deceptive information given him by those controlling the colleges. With regard to church support of colleges, W. W. Otey and others later would say, “They all do it and they all deny it.” Sommer’s interest in restoring fellowship among severed portions of the “Restoration Movement” took an interesting turn about this time, due to his association with the influential Disciple, Frederick D. Kershner of Butler University. Seeing that restoral of fellowship between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ was futile, Sommer turned his attention about 1932 to re-opening avenues of discussion and sharing among “those who have kept the worship pure.” See Sommer’s several hundred letters exchanged with Kershner from 1929-1939 (Kershner Papers, Series IX, Box 27, Folder 139, Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis). Sommer’s children seemed to feel that, while there were some legitimate scriptural reasons for opposing the colleges, that personal antipathy stemming from a shooting incident involving two of Sommer’s sons, Fred and Frank, at Milligan College in the 1890’s played a significant role in Sommer’s opposition (taped interviews with author by Allen Sommer: June 14, 1972; July 13, 1973; and December 28, 1973).

7. Apostolic Review, LXXVI: 31-32 (August 2, 1932), p. 5.

8. Apostolic Review, LXXVI: 45-46 (November 8, 1932), p. 15.

9. Apostolic Review, LXXVII: 13-14 (March 28, 1933), p. 12.

10. Apostolic Review, LXXVII: 31-32 (August 1, 1933), p. 2.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 439-442
July 12, 1979

By Pat Higgins

Human nature being what it is, it is depressing to admit that we have been less than successful at anything. It is even more depressing when that failure reflects our influence, or lack of influence, on someone who is important to us. We would like to believe that when we teach someone the gospel, he will stay “taught” and faithful; when we make a friend, a good and true friend he will always be; when we raise a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, there is nothing that can destroy the faith of that child.

When the one taught drifts away from the truth, the friend turns against us, or the child is lured away by the pleasures of the world, we are filled with doubts and self-recrimination. It had to be something we did, or did not do. Somehow we failed. Our self-esteem suffers and we blame ourselves for failure in others, especially those close to us. It is important to learn that failure in others is not necessarily the result of a failure on our part.

It is noteworthy that when Simon the sorcerer strayed from the pathway of right, the Apostle Peter did not bemoan the fact that he had done a poor job of teaching Simon. He did not blame himself for Simon’s weakness. He told Simon to repent of his wickedness (Acts 8).

At one time Peter, a friend of Jesus, turned his back on the Lord, denying Him. Jesus did not assume the blame for Peter’s conduct; He had grounded and loved Peter no less than the other disciples. Jesus’ concern was for Peter to be converted and turn from his erring ways (Lk. 22:32-62).

When the prodigal son left his home and “wasted his substance with riotous living,” it was he who sinned. There is no indication the father had been too strict or too lenient, thereby causing the son to waste his life (Lk. 15:11-32).

Aside from the deep sorrow that comes from seeing a child of God fall, we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with self-imposed guilt. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the same influence has a different effect on different persons. Remember, it is the same sun that hardens the clay and melts the wax. Likewise, there are those who will not receive truth, who refuse discipline, and who rebel against authority.

Our duty is to unwaveringly present and uphold the truth “in season, out of season” (when it it easy, when it is difficult; when they accept it, when they do not). We must understand the basic reason for a Christian turning from the truth is that he “. . . will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim: 4:2, 3). Recognizing “sound doctrine” as that which causes the turning away, our personal pain should be eased and our self-esteem should be strengthened, knowing we have but fulfilled our obligation to the God of heaven.

We simply cannot bear the burden for those who react adversarial in the face of truth, discipline and authority which has been administered with love.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, p. 438
July 12, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

In this segment of our series we are shooting down a Hawk. Dove season is closed. We have no foul intentions. Brother Ray Hawk recently wrote a brother and asked several questions to which we wish to respond. Where did we get the letter? Let us just say that a little bird brought it to our attention – hope that we will not ruffle any feathers.

Brother Hawk’s Questions

“Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how the church can oversee, provide, and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 10 year old Christian that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the father and mother of that child would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the church arrange, provide, and oversee the home life and rearing of that child? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization rears the child? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the child is overseen, provided for by the church, and all arrangements are made by the elders, book, chapter, and verse for the child’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the church may help Christian orphans, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

“I wonder if you will show me book, chapter, and verse where a church ever paid a preacher from the treasury of the local congregation to be located with them? I can find where Paul robbed other churches, but this was in mission work at Corinth to preach and baptize people to start a congregation. If Gal. 6:10 is individual, wouldn’t Gal. 6:6 also be individual with reference to paying the local/located preacher? If not, why not? 1 have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church sends to the preacher and in benevolence one church may send to another church. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

A Parallel Paragraph

Let us construct a parallel to Brother Hawk’s opening paragraph: Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how a benevolent society can oversee, provide and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 70 year old Christian, a woman, that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the husband of that woman would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the benevolent society provide the headship and the domestic duties for the care of that woman? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization cares for that woman? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the woman is overseen, provided headship by the benevolent society, and all arrangements are made by the board of directors, book, chapter and verse for the woman’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the benevolent society may help Christian widows, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

Hawk’s Dislocated Comments On Located Preacher Support

Brother Hawk asks about support of a located preacher. Surely, he believes all things require scriptural authority; he doubtless accepts wages from a local church to be located with them; so, we probably use the same passage he uses.

If Galatians 6:10 is to the church, would not Gal. 6:7-9 also be to the church with respect to sowing, reaping and judgment? Would that exclude individual accountability? Further, if Gal. 6:6 eliminates the church’s right to support the preacher and puts it all on individuals, as Brother Hawk seems to intimate, then if Gal. 6:10 is to the church, that eliminates the individual from doing good to all men and to the household of faith. “If not, why not?” When Brother Hawk explains that, he will have his answer. But whatever the outcome about the individual or the church in Gal. 6:10, there is still no place for a human organization to do the work God assigned to the church.

“Clear Cut” Passages

Speaking of “clear cut” passages, perhaps there are some that will answer the following questions: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of evangelism? If so, where is it?” And another: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it?” Remember, we need some “clear cut” passages.

One Way Of Giving; Two Ways Of Dispersing

“I have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church may not send to a missionary society, but in benevolence a church may send to a benevolent society. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Conclusion

Most of Brother Hawk’s confusion is centered in two areas. First, he evidences a lack of understanding of generic and specific authority. Second, he fails to see that the controversy is primarily over who, the church or a benevolent society, is to do the work of caring for certain needy ones. It is not a matter of “how.” Therefore, a discussion involving these two vital points is in order. Truth Magazine will be happy to publish such a study provided that a magazine published by Brother Hawk’s persuasion will also publish the same study. Finally, I am sure that someone could be found to come to Jackson, Tennessee, where Brother Hawk preaches, and have an oral debate on these issues. But do not hold your breath. There is no church in Jackson, Tennessee that will endorse Brother Hawk in such a study as I have proposed. What a pity, especially since both Brother Hawk and myself “dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 437-438
July 12, 1979