INTRODUCTION: In our first article we showed how the present effort to put the colleges in the budgets of the churches is the expected revival of an old issue. In our second, we began a review of bro. Baxter's fallacious defenses of what he hoped to prove in his tract. We had only the space to deal with one, since it was so broad in its scope, and is based solely on the social gospel concept, namely, "RESPONSIBILITY 0F THE CHURCH TO TRAIN THE YOUNG." We now take up other fallacious defenses of the college in the budget.

II. "LET ALL THINGS BE DONE DECENTLY, AND IN ORDER." I Cor. 14:40: Here is what he says:

"Under the authority of this principle the Christian school is a decent, orderly way of doing a job that God wants done -- the training of our young people. The state requires that such a program of training he chartered (as it requires a license for marriage and the establishment of every home, and as it requires that trustees be named by the church in order to own property)." (Page 26)

I Cor. 14:40 is one of the most abused passages in the New Testament. It has been misused to try to prove the scripturalness of instrumental music in the worship, missionary societies, choirs, and many other such innovations. It will come as near proving that the church can subsidize a separate human institution to evangelize (the missionary society), as it will to proving the church can subsidize a separate human institution to edify (the "Christian" school). If it proves one, it proves the other, and no amount of quibbling and dodging on the abuses of the original principle of the missionary society can muddy the water for those who think clearly.

It should also be noted that bro. Baxter proceeds on the fallacious principle that we refuted in our previous article, namely, "the training of the young." He says, "This is a job that God wants done." We agree that God wants the young trained, but not trained in the arts and sciences and athletics with church funds under the oversight of human institutions. This is his basic assumption, and he can make his arguments look pretty convincing if one allows him this fallacy upon which to build his argument. But let us remember this; if we admit his assumption to be true, then ALL CHURCHES not only CAN but MUST contribute to the schools.

III. BRETHREN AGREE THAT TILE CHURCH CAN PAY EXPENSES OF BOTH YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS:

"It is generally agreed among brethren that the church can pay the expenses of both young men and women in Christian schools, when they or their families are unable to provide such expenses. This is merely buying the services of the school. It is important to notice that this use of existing Christian schools presupposes that someone else has given the funds necessary to start and sustain the school. Paying tuition charges does not even pay current operating costs, much less the Cost of buildings and other permanent equipment. If Christian schools are needed and can be used by the church to train its young, does this not establish a strong implication that the church might have some responsibility in starting such schools and causing them to be available when young people have need for them? If Christian schools are needed to train leaders for the church, does this not imply that the church needs to help get the schools ready to provide such training?" (Page 26, 27)

One cannot help but notice again his basic assumption, namely, that the church has, the responsibility to give the young the kind of training received at David Lipscomb College. He never proves this, he just states it as granted, but we don't grant it.

Another basic assumption in the above paragraph is that "it is generally agreed among brethren that the church can pay the expenses of both young men and women in Christian schools, when they or their families are unable to provide such expenses." This may be generally agreed among the liberal brethren, but it is certainly not generally agreed among all of us for the simple reason that there is no scriptural authority for it. The New Testament authorizes the church to provide the daily necessities for saints who cannot provide for themselves. A college education including inter-collegiate sports is not a "daily necessity." It is a good thing to have, but not a necessity. A Cadillac automobile is a good thing to have, but not a daily necessity that the church is authorized to provide for a member who wants one.

Brother Baxter proceeds from this baseless assumption to the unwarranted conclusion that if the church has the right to pay the expenses for one to attend such a school, surely it can build and maintain such, but he is wrong in both.

We could admit (but we won't) the premise brother Baxter assumed, namely, that the church can buy the services of a "Christian school," and his conclusion would still not necessarily follow. It does not follow that the church can build and maintain any thing from which it can buy services. The church can scripturally buy the services of a light company, hospital, bus line, airline, or railroad company, but does this warrant the conclusion that the church can build and maintain such?

IV. THE HISTORICAL DEFENCE:

"David Lipscomb and James A. Harding, in establishing the Nashville Bible School in 1891, held this view, for they solicited funds from congregations all over Tennessee and surrounding states. These contributions were the means of starting this Christian school, in which the Bible has been taught for more than seventy years to every student every day along with such other subjects as are needed to prepare young Christians for their places in life. This is the time-honored position held by our brethren, though in recent years many have forgot it. I know of no reason to abandon the solid ground of this historic position." (Page 27)

Brother A. M. Burton recently made the same argument in the Lipscomb Review. We quoted this in our last article. Neither brother Burton nor Baxter gave any documentation for their claim. I know of no historical evidence to support it, and evidently they didn't either, else they would have favored us with it. But I do have two quotations from David Lipscomb that very plainly contradict what these brethren claim. I give them here for your consideration.

David Lipscomb -- 1867 -- "So far as your bible college, your orphan school, and your bible lectures, the hymn book or Gospel Advocate, take work out of the hand of the church, that God has appointed the churches to perform, and give that work to an institution not of God but formed by man, they one and all are sinful and treasonable. So far as your Bible lectures take training and instruction of preachers out of the hands of the church, deprive the church of the benefit accruing from this work, they do harm and not good. So far as your orphan school takes the place of caring for and doing good to the orphans from the church, relieves it of its sense of responsibility in the work, by transferring it to a human organization, it does a work of immeasurable injury to the church and dishonors God." (Gospel Advocate, 1867, pp. 544, 545)

David Lipscomb -- 1878 -- "On the subject of schools we have yet to learn that the scriptures ever required a church to build up or manage schools any more than to cultivate farms. School teaching is not a whit more of a Christian duty than farming. Religion sanctifies both. But neither constitutes any part of religion as revealed in the Bible. To put the churches to doing either is to transcend divine authority and to pervert the churches from their legitimate work." (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 17, 1878)

Purely from a historical standpoint, I have more evidence for claim that David Lipscomb agreed with me, than these brethren have that he agreed with them; I have two quotations from Lipscomb's pen, they gave none. But I am not interested in canonizing the saints by trying to settle current problems by ancient brethren. If brethren Baxter and Burton had given a hundred quotations from Lipscomb and Harding proving their contention about them, what would it establish? It would prove nothing to be either scriptural or unscriptural. Human authorities do not prove divine matters. If our modern brethren could prove that Lipscomb and Harding solicited and accepted contributions from churches to build Nashville Bible School, it would only prove that they are all wrong. I respect these great men of the past, but not to the point of exalting their authority above God's. Inspiration warns us "not to think of men above that which is written" (I Cor. 4:6).

V. THE SCHOOLS STRENGTHEN THE CHURCH:

"Somewhere in this discussion it ought to be pointed out that wherever Christian schools have trained large numbers of young people, the church has prospered." (Page 28)

The basic argument in this quotation is this: Anything that causes the church to prosper can be supported out of the church treasury. But are these brethren ready for such a sweeping conclusion? I think not! The advocates of the missionary society claimed to build more church buildings, establish more churches, and baptize more people than those opposing them, and for this reason the churches should support it. What is the difference between this argument and brother Baxter's? Our liberal brethren always try to sweep such telling arguments aside by playing upon the abuses of the original concept of tbe missionary society, but such will not suffice for those who know anything of the missionary society as it was first conceived.

Aside from the fact that his argument would justify the missionary society, his claim is fallacious. The schools have not caused the church to prosper. He gives some impressive statistics in comparing Nashville with sections of the country where no schools have existed, showing that Nashville has many more members of the church. This he attributes to the presence of David Lipscomb College. Of course, it is another Baxter assumption that the church is strong in Nashville. It may be strong numerically, but it is very weak spiritually. It is headquarters for large portion of the present apostasy. It may have a large number of "church of Christers" in it, but it is almost a "mission field" for pure New Testament Christianity, containing only about 5 or 6 sound churches.

Another segment of this argument that should not be overlooked is the fact that brother Baxter has the Divine institution dependent upon the human. He says,

"Actually, the church has depended upon these schools for many years to play a major role in the training of preachers, elders, teachers, and others. Is it not right that the church should provide the funds for the training of its own leaders?" (Page 29)

I am sure brother Baxter meant no unkind reflection upon God, but his argument constitutes such nevertheless. To entertain any kind of an idea that God's Divine institution is in need of assistance from that which is purely human is related to blasphemy. These brethren oppose premillennialism that relegates the church to the position of an afterthought, but think nothing of making of it a cripple in need of human assistance to make it effectual. One gathers from these brethren that the most effective way to evangelize the world is to build colleges. One wonders why the Lord made no mention of such in the Great Commission!

VI. THE ORPHAN HOME ARGUMENT:

'Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphans' home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphans' home and the Christian school must stand or fall together." (Page 29)

About the only thing I can say about this argument is that they Jail together. Neither can be defended scripturally as objects of church support.

VII. TO KEEP THEM LOYAL:

"It is my Conviction that the schools need to be dependent upon the churches for their financial life blood in order for the schools to remain permanently loyal to the goals and principles which the Bible teaches." (Page 30)

The basic fallacy in this contention is that church support assures and guarantees scriptural loyalty. What proof is there of this claim? The answer is none. The churches supported the missionary society, but it didn't remain loyal to Bible principles. If my understanding were correct, Bethany College received church support, but it apostatized. We have known preachers who received church support for years, but who have left the church or turned infidel, It seems to me that brother Baxter should be capable of better reasoning than is manifested in his sermons now under review.

VIII. WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES THE CHURCH CAN DO:

"I might also add the observation that if the individual Christian should give to make such schools possible, the church has the same responsibility, for it is a good work and the church is the people." (Page 30)

The argument has been answered so many times that it is surprising to find brother Baxter still making it. I thought it had become obvious to just about everyone that there is a distinction between what the individual can do and what the church can do. I Tim. 5:16 is about the best demonstration of this to be found in the New Testament. It says, "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Here is a Christian with widows he can and should support. Paul says, "Let them (not the church) relieve them, and let not the church be charged." Here is something the individual can do that the church CANNOT do --is forbidden to do. Other arguments, equally as telling could be made, but they are not needed. This one will convince those who are willing to listen.

IX. LET THE ELDERS DECIDE IT:

"However, I am a firm believer in letting the elders of the church have the major role in deciding what contributions should be made to which causes. The elders of the church are more mature than the average Christian, they have had more experience and training, and they have more information about the various needs. Through their experience they can better weigh the various calls for help. The ideal would be for Christians, usually if not always, to contribute all that they are capable of contributing to the treasury of the church, allowing the wise, informed, experienced elders to dispense these funds for every good work that advances the Cause of Christ . . . All matters pertaining to spending of the money in the church treasury are to be left to the judgment of the elders. They in turn need to realize that the treasury is not some restricted, limited fund, but that it can be used for the accomplishment of every purpose which God has laid upon His church." (Page 31)

The above paragraph contains a common error among our liberal brethren; they try to give elders more authority than does the New Testament. It matters not how wise, mature and experienced elders may be, they have no authority to decide to do anything out of the church treasury but what God has authorized, and they have no authority to do that through a human board, such as David Lipscomb College. Brother Baxter says the elders should realize that the church treasury is not some restricted fund, but one that should be used for every good work that advances the Cause of Christ. What if the elders decided that the missionary society, Red Cross, or the United Fund are good works that advance the cause of Christ? According to brother Baxter, they would be within their rights to support them from the church treasury. He cannot hold to the above argument and condemn church support of anything the elders decide is a good work that advances the Cause of Christ. This is the ultimate in liberalism.

Conclusion

It is impossible to read brother Baxter's tract without being impressed with his concept of the schools; to him they are nothing more or less than seminaries similar to what the denominations have. Notice the following statement:

In view of the God-given requirements to nurture our children in the chastening of the Lord and to provide trained elders, deacons, preachers, teachers, and the like, for leadership in the church, what feasible, workable, effective method can today take the place of Christian schools." (Page 30)

So far as brother Baxter is concerned, the schools are "church of Christ seminaries" which churches of Christ should maintain for the development of their professional workers. This is a sad day for the church! It puts the church under the domination of a human institution. If the "elders, deacons, preachers, teachers and the like" are all to be trained in the church of Christ seminaries, it becomes evident what the churches will do and believe. They will do and believe what they teach up at the seminary. These brethren are creating a church of Christ denomination, and there is no way they can get around it. The finished product will make the First Christian Church with all of its liberalism institutionalism, and modernism look like a fledgling. This is the sort of thing these brethren have fought in years gone by. The change that has come over them in the last twenty years is both amazing and heartbreaking. Brother Baxter alludes to the "conservative brethren" as those "who have become 'so frightened of Rome that they have run past Jerusalem.' " These liberal brethren have become so brave in their run from Jerusalem that they have caught up with Rome! If they keep going they will pass her!

(NOTE: My next article will deal with brother Baxter's efforts to tell us what is wrong with the missionary society. Watch for it.)

________________

PROPAGANDA

The efforts of some of our liberal brethren to hinder brethren from reading papers like TRUTH MAGAZINE and to prevent them listening to preachers who teach against human innovations remind me of a, statement I read the other night in a book on Communism: "Their propaganda campaign was next to agrarian reform in importance. To be efficacious propaganda must be one-sided. Those exposed to its fiery tongue must never be allowed to hear any other tongue. The curtain which crashed down on Asia had the same impact, though of bamboo, as the Iron Curtain had in Europe." Dooley, Deliver Us From Evil, p. 64.

Protection of their effort to propagandize is the reason some preachers advise brethren to refuse to read religious periodicals like this one. And with their bamboo curtain they can be as successful in ruling the minds of the uninformed people in the church, as have been the Communists in Asia.

--Cecil Willis

Truth Magazine VIII: 10, pp. 9-12 July 1964