(Editor's Note: Reprinted from FIRM FOUNDATION, Feb. 25, 1964.)

Last week we began a reply to a tract written by our good personal friend, Brother Batsell Barrett Baxter, and given wide circulation by the Hillsboro church in Nashville. The burden of this tract was to promote what Brother Baxter called the opinion of the college in the church budget. We feel that he should not preach what he confesses to be an opinion, when it is evident that that opinion will divide brethren. Even though strong personal ties of friendship bind the two of us closer together than most, I could not be true to my convictions if I did not withstand him on this matter.

Accordingly I began in last week's Firm Foundation a review of the tract that is entitled "Questions and Issues of the Day." Brother Baxter began his attempt to convert his hearers and readers to the college-in-the-budget idea with the orphan home issue, then proceeded to the anything-the-individual-can-do-the-church-can-do supposition, and finally wound up with the full-fledged college-in-the-budget appeal. (My emphasis--C. W.) Last week I dealt with the orphan home argument. This week I will deal with the other two.

Under heading V in the tract Brother Baxter asks a question: "What can the individual Christian do with his money that the church cannot do?" He attempts to answer the question by pointing out that Christians are the church -- day and night, and the conclusion is drawn that since all that we are and all that we have belong to the Lord, it follows that what we do the church is doing and what the church can do is as broad as what the individual can do. So far as we know, this is the same course as that followed by all college-in-the-budget brethren. We do not believe the Bible warrants this conclusion. In fact, Brother Baxter agrees, saying: "It is true that Christians have certain private, personal responsibilities, such as providing clothes, food, shelter, recreation, and other of the routine necessities of life for their own families." Then, by his own admission, here is the answer to his question. Here is something the individual is obligated to do which the church is not obligated to do.

He seems confused over church obligation and individual obligation. He argues that the church is just a group of individuals, and does it to show that the church is obligated to support any "good work" that any Christian is obligated to support. Yet he recognizes what he calls "private, personal responsibilities" to support certain good works like the Heart Fund. Then he comes to a bold statement on page 23, that the church is equally obligated with the individual to support "any good work." The government is a good work, and Paul teaches us to support it in a financial way; may the church do so? Is it obligated equally with the individual to do so? I think not.

The golden rule may obligate me to lend money to a friend to keep him from going broke. Since I am a Christian and therefore part of the church is the church equally obligated to lend money to my friend to keep him from going broke, This is a good work, but I can think of no scripture that would obligate the church equally with me to do it.

Brother Baxter goes ahead to say that the scriptures give no instructions to the church as to what it is to spend its money for. Yet, he freely admits that the church is authorized to take part in three things: evangelization, edification and benevolence. Now, if these three things are what the church is to do, these three things are the things for which the church is authorized to spend its money. If the church is obligated to support colleges, then it is up to brother Baxter to show that the colleges can be classified under one of these three heads and the colleges are dealing with the class of people for which the church is authorized to spend its money.

The conclusion is reached that funds from the church treasury can be used for anything that carries out a function or purpose of the church, and then names the above three, which is consistent with the scriptures. But then he says, "The primary issue is, does this proposed expenditure advance the cause of Christ?  If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, then the church can do it." Let us examine this briefly. Marriage is a good thing, and it advances the cause of Christ, but this does not authorize the church to support it from the treasury. Planning the conception, birth and rearing of children is a good thing. But this does not authorize the church to underwrite these things or to make monthly contributions to them, simply on the basis that these are good things. Good government, without persecution is a good thing, but this does not authorize the church to make monthly contributions to it either just because it is a good thing.

There are many good things that individuals can support that churches would have a hard time finding scripture for. I think Americanism as it is taught in the liberal arts colleges is good. I believe their athletic contests are good; I even believe playing the Methodist and Baptist schools is good, and I support it as an individual, but I don't contend that the church has an equal obligation to do so.

Some years ago a church in Long Beach, California hired a "Youth Minister" to conduct the youth program of athletics and social activities. Many of us thought that church was flirting with digression, if it had not already arrived. But if Brother Baxter is right, that church was scripturally correct. Why not encourage every congregation to have its baseball team and its bowling team? And why not these teams play the Methodists and the Baptists in Civic leagues? This would give the churches a better name, and a better community image. And that would be a good thing. And the Lord would want that. In many sections it would counteract a lot of prejudice, and open a lot of doors. And the Lord would think that a good thing. Brethren, this position tampers with the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. It would destroy the image all of us have had of the church from reading the scriptures through the years. It is not true that anything the individual can do the church can do.

Brother Baxter defines a Christian school, then quotes 1 Cor. 14:40, "But let all things be done decently and in order," then draws the conclusion that 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. Then this is made the basis of a plea for the college in the budget. Does it follow that the church did not have a decent orderly system of training the young until the first Christian school was organized? I wonder if Paul had Christian schools in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 14:40. And I wonder still more if this does not stretch the application of a passage of scripture to justify a point much further than my brethren are in the habit of stretching them.

Here is an example of the tricky reasoning in the tract: "If Christian schools are needed and can be used by the church . . . does this not establish a strong implication that the church might have some responsibility?" Please notice the "if's" "mights" and "somes" used when reasoning. This is in contrast to the bold positive manner in which his conclusions are drawn. If he had a single scripture to support his position, he would not have to do this. He refers to this college-in-the-budget position as "time honored historic position." I wonder if that means it is true? Would Brother Baxter be as anxious for us to hold David Lipscomb's "time honored . . . historic position" on civil government as he is that we accept the college-in-the-budget position? One is as sacred as the other.

Jesus did not set out to save the world through worldly wisdom. If he had he would have made provision for the establishment of fine arts colleges, for it is the purpose of these colleges, among other things, to increase the worldly wisdom of the students. But Jesus intended for his program of saving souls to fit into any society under any government. The people determine the condition of society but the Lord determines the mission of the church. Its mission is to save the souls of men, and to edify them spiritually in preparation for life in Heaven. The social condition and the form of government of certain countries may make the work of the church more difficult, but this does not justify the church in taking over the educational and governmental operations. If there was ever a time and situation when churches were justified in taking over the educational and governmental operations, it would have been in the days of the apostles and the century following. The individual Christian may work for betterment of social and governmental environment. They may contribute money to such ends. They may build fine arts colleges to further such efforts, but for the church to forsake its God-given mission and to spend its money and energies in trying to reform educational and governmental systems is a step that I am not prepared to take.

Brother Baxter's tract is the result of hosing sight of the mission of the church. Why can't brethren be content to minister to the spiritual needs of people without tampering with their physical needs. The apostles ministered to the needs of people without establishing liberal arts colleges through which to do their work. Why can't we? Social conditions were rank in Jesus' day. The apostles didn't even tell owners to free their slaves, but rather went about saving the souls of owners and slaves alike. They did not teach the church to underwrite a slave-freeing program. I think the apostles, as Christian parents, would have gone about their individual tasks to make the best arrangements possible for the education of their children, but nothing in the Bible indicates to me that they would lead the church to forsake its divine mission to channel its monetary strength into great educational institutions. They did not teach the church to channel its financial strength into' liberal arts educational organizations dedicated to social reform. I do not think they would do it today. Those who do so today contradict the actions and the teaching by inference of the apostles.

While putting the matter in the realm of opinion, Brother Baxter begs us who differ to let them saddle the colleges upon the church treasury without our opposition, because our opposition may divide the church. He is willing to make instrumental music and the missionary society matters of faith. But he isn't willing to say a disregard for 1 Tim. 5:16 is a violation of the faith. When God said for the church to preach the gospel, he thinks that is a matter of faith; but when God said for the church to take the burden of caring for certain indigent people, he thinks this is not a matter of faith. What rule does he use by which he measures this way? God said for fathers (parents) to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Is that a matter of faith? When Baxter says for the church to help all parents rear their children thus, rich and poor alike, is that in the realm of opinion? Since it contradicts. Eph. 6:4 I think it must be a matter of faith.

And this brings me to the WHO of 1 Tim. 5:16. Baxter says, and correctly so, that the WHO here is the church. The church in 1 Tim. 5:16 is not obligated to help anybody who is able to do this duty himself. Neither is it obligated to help anybody who has relatives who can do it. Paul would let a man starve before he would feed the lazy man. The church is not obligated to help any other class of people than the indigent. A home for indigent people under the oversight of a church is a scriptural object of charity for the church. A home for orphans or the aged who are able or have kin that are able to help them are not subjects of church charity. "Our" Christian colleges serve pupils from homes able to educate their children. The church has absolutely no more scriptural obligation to assist in their education than churches have to assist in feeding and clothing my children when I am able. Baxter's position would obligate the churches to help the rich the same as the poor. This violates every scriptural principle touching on the point. If he argues that no one will send children to a college that charges enough to build and maintain the college,, I want to ask him one question: Why are churches asked to do what parents refuse to do and which the Lord commanded them to do? Brother Baxter, is it right to ask churches to pay a price for educating a child which the parents refuse to pay? What scriptural right do you have to ask the churches to pay the cost of the education of a student in David Lipscomb College whose parents are able to give that school a million dollar building?

On page 30 of his tract, Brother Baxter asks his readers to answer two questions: "First on the basis of what command, what apostolic example, or what necessary inference is this (Baxter's) position wrong? Second, in view of the God-given requirements to nurture our children in the chastening and admonition 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?"

The first question I believe I have answered.

Here is the answer to the second: First, let parents accept the duty the Lord laid upon them, not the church, to rear their children according to Eph. 6:4. Let the rich, and those barely able, quit looking to the church for a handout, so they can enjoy their own goods and the satisfaction of their own appetites. Next, let the churches be satisfied to be churches, and to do their work of saving the souls of the lost, edifying the saved, and caring for the indigent, and to do all this work under the elders whom the Holy Spirit appointed to have the oversight of such work.

This answers question No. 2. The blame for substituting some other solution than this scriptural one lies with someone else -- not with me.

Again, in the question of the college in the church budget, it is not a question of WHAT to do; it is a question of WHO is to do it. It is strange indeed that Bro. Baxter, regarding benevolence of 1 Tim. 5:16 in which it is specifically charged that the church is to do it, contends that the church cannot as a corporate body do it. Then when it comes to education, which Eph. 6:4 plainly says is the responsibility of parents, Brother Baxter says the church as a corporate body is obligated to subsidize it. You can't take this kind of liberties with the faith once delivered to the saints. We agree that Christian education is a good work, and that God, perhaps, wants it done. We repeat, however, that it is not a question of WHAT is to be done, but of WHO is to do it. Please keep in mind WHO is to do this work. In this case the scriptures do not teach the church to do it. The liberal arts college is an arrangement that families have for carrying out Eph. 6:4, but it is not the business of the church. To ask the church to pay tuition that the individual regards as exorbitant, and because of which the individual won't pay, and yet to ask the church to do it is simply subsidizing the rich man. This contradicts every principle of the scriptures that deals with whom the church is to help.

I want it to remain crystal clear with the reader that this is merely the first skirmish in the determined fight to capture the treasury of the local church for the operation of liberal arts educational institutions. (My emphasis--C. W.) It will be said repeatedly that this position is the historic position brethren have taken. We deny that more that a few of them have taken it, and in the second place we deny that those who took that position were in harmony with the scriptures. We do not believe the Bible teaches the position held by these college-in-the-budget brethren, and we gravely fear the consequence of the church if it is led down that pathway.

I wish to express again my personal regard for Brother Baxter. He is a close friend whom I hold in the highest esteem. I regret, more than words can express, that he is being used as a spokesman for an element bent on tampering with the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. However, when error challenges we are determined that it shall not prevail.

Truth Magazine VIII: 10, pp.16-19 July 1964