We have already
examined the patterns set forth in the New Testament for the oversight of
elders (very brief examination) and the pattern for caring for the needy (again
briefly – we could also look at how true widows are to be cared for and the
strict stipulations placed upon them in 1 Timothy 5). When we looked at those passages and at those
quotes that summarized them so well, did you see the pattern for a middle-man
organization such as an orphanage or a missionary society? When the brethren
sent money to needy saints in other locations, did they gather it together,
send it to a sponsoring eldership or organization that would then distribute it
among different cities as need be? No! Funds were sent to the needy saints AT
those locations (and to the elders AT THOSE SPECIFIC locations if they had
them)!
·
Jerusalem Elders – Sponsoring
Eldership Argument
1.
Argument: Antioch sent relief to the brethren
in Judea (Acts 11:21-36); Romans 15:25-27, 31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2
Corinthians 8 & 9 show relief was sent to Jerusalem. The conclusion is that the Jerusalem elders
were the overseeing, sponsoring church for the aid sent to Judea. This argument is based on the assumption that
the incident in Acts 11 is the same one as in Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 16, and
2 Corinthians 8 & 9. Thus, the
Jerusalem church would become the “sponsoring” eldership.[1]
2.
What
is wrong with this assumption?
3.
Because
there are some major differences within the passages! For instance, different
needy: “Brethren…in Judea” (Acts 11:29); “Poor saints…at Jerusalem” (Romans
15:25-26). Different messengers:
“Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30); Paul, Titus and others (2 Corinthians 8; 1
Corinthians 16:3). There are other
differences, but do we need to continue to point those differences out?
·
Noah’s Ark – The Tools Argument
1.
Argument: God commanded Noah to build the
ark, but He did not specify what tools Noah was to use in building the
ark. Thus, Noah had free choice as to
what tools he would use while building the ark.
An orphanage or a missionary society is simply a tool for accomplishing
the command of God! Would we ask where Noah obtained his authority for using
tools?
2.
Question: Was Noah at liberty to hire a
construction crew to build the ark? Because that would actually be the parallel
to creating an organization to accomplish taking care of the needy saints,
taking care of orphans (already proven to be unauthorized), or evangelism. What size hammer to use is not the same as
creating an organization! In Genesis 6:22, we read, “Thus Noah did; according
to all that God commanded him, so he did.”
3.
A
true parallel to what tools Noah used would be a Bible, a song book, an
overhead projector, etc, but not another organization set up to accomplish the
work God gave His church.
·
Hypocrisy Argument
1.
Argument: if an advocate of institutionalism
can point out some area of perceived (or real) inconsistency in an
“anti-institutional” brother or sister’s application of Bible authority, then
the institutionalism must be correct or accepted.
2.
Supporting
Quote: “Another
Sunday the preacher took his text on dish dinners in the basement of the
meeting house. It seemed to Willie all
during the sermon that the preacher did not know the difference between the
church and the meeting house. What
really worried Willie was the passage he quoted to attempt to prove his
point. ‘What, have ye not houses to eat
and drink in?’ It seemed to Willie that if this passage made it sinful to EAT
in the meeting house, it also made it sinful to DRINK in the meeting
house. But the PREACHER was the first to
the fount when amen was said. And sometimes
before amen was said.[2]”
3.
Question: Is God bound to accept what we are
already doing simply because we are doing it? Is the establishment of Bible
authority based on what we are already doing?
4.
Consistency
is to be based on the Scriptures. In
other words, if what we are doing is inconsistent with the Scriptures, then we
must stop doing it. If we are doing one
thing that is inconsistent with the Scriptures, that does NOT authorize
something else that we WANT to do!
“And the first thing you know, each
thing they do, they justify on the basis of something they have already been doing. That is not how you establish authority for
anything. Everything we do in the Lord’s
work must be established on the basis of what the Scriptures teach, not on
whether it’s consistent with something we’ve already been doing. If the water cooler argument proves anything,
maybe it proves that the water cooler ought to have gone out.[3]”
“May I make another point with you:
Nothing is right (and let me make sure we say this right) – nothing is right
because it is consistent with something we’re already doing.[4]”
·
The Expediency Argument
1.
The
Argument: The
institutional approach (whether orphanages or missionary societies) is only a
method of achieving what God has commanded.
In other words, it is an “expedient” way to do God’s will. Since God didn’t tell us how to perform these
duties, the “method” is up to us.
2.
Question: Are we talking about a method of
achieving a goal or are we talking about reorganizing and giving the duties of
the church to an outside agency?
3.
“So
it’s not a matter of how, it’s a matter of whether the how is to be done under
the oversight of elders or whether the how is to be done under the oversight of
the board of directors. That was the
question. Let me ask all of you: ‘Which
have you read about in your Bibles, a board of directors as overseers of the
work of the local church, or elders as overseers of that work?’[5]”
4.
For
a thing to be an expedient method, it has to be two things:
a.
It
has to be lawful
b.
It
cannot be specified
Is the organization of the church
specified? Yes! That has been shown through the pattern of authority we
examined before. If the organization of
the church has been specified by the Bible, how can a separate organization be
simply a “method” of completing the work God has commanded (although you must
remember that the care of orphans is NOT a work of the church, but evangelizing
is)?[6]
[1]
Larry Hafley, “Set for the Defense – Jerusalem a Sponsoring Church?” Truth Magazine, 16, no. 38 (August 1972):
2.
[2]
Wayne Emmons, “Worried Willie, the Wayward Water-Cooler,” (Reprinted) The Gospel Guardian, 13, no. 42 (March
1962): 8-9, 13b.
[3]
Hall, 37
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid, 7.
[6]
Billy W. Moore, A Study of Authority,
pg. 49-51.
No comments:
Post a Comment