·
It is a “Good” or “Worthy” Work
1.
“Editor’s
note: Some of our readers may recognize this article as one they have seen in
some other religious journal. Ordinarily
it is contrary to our policy to publish an article which has already been
published in a paper with circulation comparable to our own, but in this
instance we feel that the subject discussed is of such importance, and the work
being done at Maude Carpenter Children’s Home is so worthy, that we gladly make
an exception.[1]”
2.
“You
may reason: I had nothing to do with the creation of the home, it is not my
problem. But it is our problem. Every Christian is obligated to do his part
in good works.[2]”
3.
“’And
let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they
be not unfruitful,’ was Paul’s admonition to Titus. (3:14.)[3]”
4.
“The
churches in Kansas, in the main, have been under the influence of Sommer’s
teaching for generations, opposing the doing of work of this nature. The best way to convert these congregations
to do good is by showing them the way; give them an example of what should and
can be done.[4]”
·
The Expediency Argument
1.
“Now
there were two basic arguments given in order to try to justify this board of
directors. The one that probably was
given most was: The Bible doesn’t say how to do it. People would say, ‘Now, the Bible tells us to
help orphans but the Bible doesn’t tell us how to do it. So, it’s just like when the Lord told us, ‘Go
into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,’ He didn’t tell us
how to go. So we can go by car, we can
go by train, we can go by airplane, we can go by whatever means we need
to. He didn’t say how. Similarly, the Lord told us to care for
orphans and he did not tell us how, so this institutional board is just a
method by which the church can take care of its need.’ That was probably the argument that we heard
most and it was put in the realm of expediency.[5]”
·
The Hypocrisy Argument
1.
The
hypocrisy argument essentially goes as follows: if an advocate of
institutionalism can point out some perceived inconsistency in an
“anti-institutional” individual’s application of Bible authority, then
institutionalism must be correct.
2.
“He
[the preacher] announced the Vacation Bible School and emphasized
strongly that NO refreshments would be served because such was not the purpose
of the VBS. All during the week of the
school Willie felt terrible. Why?
Because all the children had REFRESHED themselves by drinking water. Willie reasoned that HE was guilty of serving
refreshments to the children and to make it worse he had been purchased out of
THE CHURCH TREASURY.[6]”
3.
“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.[7]”
No comments:
Post a Comment