Concerning Brother Yater Tant's Proposition
On pages 164 and 165 of the Firm Foundation appears the first in a series of lengthy articles by Brother Yater Tant entitled PRESENT ISSUES — AND A SUGGESTED SOLUTION. Brother Tant requested the space and we are glad to provide it, because many have said that Brother Tant "has been falsely accused and misunderstood." No longer will that be true, if it ever was.
We appreciate the brotherly spirit that characterizes these articles. We commend it for his own writings in his own paper.
We appreciate his kind words concerning the Firm Foundation's traditional policy, and thrill at the mention of the name of the lamented J. D. Tant whose articles through a long lifetime helped make the Firm Foundation what it is.
We shall have some things to say, and shall endeavor to match his spirit. What we say shall be pointed, but kind.
In perusing the three articles we have really been astonished at the weakness of the entire position. We believe the reader will be likewise astonished and will wonder that such weakness has produced so much strife in the brotherhood. It will be evident that such a spark would not have produced such a fire without continual fanning.
We propose to examine every point given, with the sincere prayer and hope that such may help to clarify misunderstanding and bring unity out of division.
What is said about the authority of the Scriptures, and our ability to see them alike, and that we should love and respect each other as brethren is splendid. It is Brother Tant's responsibility as well as ours to respect this.
We agree that two basic convictions, faithfully held would make division impossible: (1) Acceptance of authority of the Scriptures, and (2) A conviction that the Bible can be understood. Please bear this in mind and weigh the proposals made in the three articles by this criterion.
We are not interested in carrying on a wrangle for twenty years. That is too long for somebody to be dead wrong, and if the question is one that affects the salvation of souls hundreds would die and be lost during the time. That would not make the struggle heroic.
If all the arguments made on "these issues" can be "summed up in one simple question: Is the 'church universal' a functional unit?", then there is no argument at all. We have never met a man in the church who believes that the "church universal" is to be a functional unit except as it functions in unity under Christ. We know of nothing that involves more than a relative few congregations of the "church universal" voluntarily cooperating in some good work. And there is perfect agreement everywhere that congregations can co-operate. There is, then, certainly nothing — if this is the whole issue — worthy of all the trouble that has been stirred up over this "problem." Brother Tant, you have already left your "basic convictions" to fight an imaginary evil which does not exist among us. The "specter" is really "shadowy." As long as cooperation is voluntary among us, some may co-operate in one work, some in another, and some not at all. The word "voluntary" forever makes "activating the church universal" impossible. Since this is the ONLYquestion really involved we could terminate the discussion right here — much short of 20 years.
Objection is made to referring to this position as "anti-co-operation." Yet, if "voluntary co-operation" will "activate the church universal," it must be destroyed. When "voluntary co-operation" is destroyed you have "non" or "anti" co-operation. If voluntary co-operation is allowable without violating "basic convictions," then the co-operative programs — some of them at least — which are now so violently opposed are scriptural. Only the abuses could be attacked — not the principle.
The entire section about activating the church universal; the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Campbell, and the Missionary Society is a bugaboo plain and simple, thrown in to make brethren fear that the orphan homes might some day activate the church universal under their domination. From the way churches that operate homes have to beg for help from churches that have sent them children, it doesn't appear that there is much danger in their activating the church universal.
Brother Tant intimates that co-operation such as we have today produced Roman Catholicism. We deny it. The utter fallacy of such argument is self-evident. It took more than voluntary co-operation to produce popery. In that day they not only had co-operation; they had elders, too. Shall you fight elders just because Romanism grew out of a perverted idea of elders and their function? Fighting one is as logical as fighting the other. It would be impossible to produce Roman Catholicism through voluntary cooperation.
A corruption of congregational organization ultimately produced popery. Centralized control results from centralized power. Where these exist there is no voluntary cooperation — there is compulsion. Organization is one thing and co-operation is another. It is possible to have voluntary co-operation without organization, and we do have it. If the brother fought unscriptural organization we would join him. When he would destroy voluntary co-operation, we must oppose him. The issue is not organization, it is co-operation.
For generations we have preached that there should be no organization larger than, or smaller than, the local church. This position had no bearing on the question of voluntary co-operation. If voluntary co-operation must (not can but must) produce a missionary society, their Brother Tant is a part of a missionary society and does not realize it, because he has been a party involved in congregational co-operation on various occasions. He need not worry, however, about being a missionary society because voluntary co-operation is not enough to make one.
It is a clever dodge to quote Pendleton to the effect that churches may do anything necessary "to get the job done," and to then infer that this obvious error covers the field of voluntary co-operation. It does no such thing. "Anything necessary to get the job done" is not scriptural. Congregational co-operation is scriptural. Nobody is in favor of "anything necessary to get the job done." A thing must first be scriptural, then expedient. Brother Tant is trying to battle something that simply does not exist.
In conclusion, let Brother Tant answer himself. He says, "If God had given the church universal as a functional unit, he would have provided it with an organization, officers, specific duties, etc., to equip it." Now, if we today do not have these essentials: "an organization, officers, specific duties, etc., to equip it," then we do not have that which even God would consider desirable and essential to make the "church universal" a "functional unit." Instead we have some congregations involved in some voluntary co-operation. Brother Tant answers his own question and refutes his own argument. Remember, he says the problem "is summed up in one simple question: Is the 'church universal' a functional unit?" By his own logic he has solved his own problem. Since we today have none of the "organization, officers, specific duties, etc.," which God himself would have provided if he had wanted the church universal activated, then it is evident, and Brother Tant has proven, that there is no question at all to be contentious about. This position is so weak it is non-existent, except in the imagination.