Newsletter Vol.3, #42—November 18, 2007

Matthew 12 ⁹He went on from there and entered their synagogue. ¹⁰And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him. 

CHURCHES SHOULD NOT BE BOUND TOGETHER

F. B. Srygley

Every New Testament church was a complete body within itself and was independent of all other churches. No church had any authority over any other. The work of the elders stopped at the church in which they lived and labored. These elders had no authority to take charge of the missionary money or any other money or means of any church except the one over which they were "overseers." Each church was complete within and of itself. The Baptists talk much about church independence and then bind churches together in associations, conventions, and other denominational organizations unknown to the New Testament. It will be remembered that some time ago Mr. Freeman, of the Baptist and Reflector, made a great ado over the fact that he thought he had found a restaurant in the Central church of Christ here in Nashville – while it turned out to be a restaurant in the church property, run by an individual without profit, for the benefit of the poor and needy. But if it had been, as he claimed, run by the Central Church and entirely unscriptural, it could have injured no church except the Central Church that was running it. This shows the wisdom of God in making every local church independent of all other local churches. I told Mr. Freeman at the time he had better be looking after his Baptist denomination. I knew then that if it was an unscriptural thing, the Baptist denomination needed his attention worse than the Central church of Christ, even if it was wrong in the matter of feeding the hungry. Mr. Freeman made the point that the restaurant at the Central Church paid no taxes, and yet it competed with men in the restaurant business who had to pay taxes. I told him the Baptist denominational printing house here in Nashville paid no taxes, and yet it competed with other printing companies that paid taxes; but, even after all my effort to correct him, he made no apology to the Central Church or to the public for his religious prejudice. Now, I want to call Mr. Freeman's attention to the fact that the Central church of Christ has never had a public swimming pool where men and women go in the water with little on except their birthday suits. The following recently appeared in the Daily News-Journal, a secular paper of Murfreesboro, Tenn.:

NEW POOL GROWS IN POPULARITY; IS SOCIAL CENTER.

"The Tennessee College swimming pool is rapidly becoming one of the most popular places in the city and each day and night crowds throng the new pool.

It is sanitary in every respect, this being assured by the water drained out and the pool thoroughly cleaned twice weekly. A disinfectant is used when the pool is cleaned, making it doubly certain that it will be absolutely sanitary. A Nashville inspector, after a recent inspection of the pool, declared his hugest approval of it.

Many persons, who formerly went to the river, now seek relief from the hot weather at the college pool – not only from a standpoint of convenience and sanitation, but persons may enter the pool for about the same money that is used for gas in transporting them to the river.

The pool is also becoming the center of many social activities, as almost daily swimming parties are held there. Excellent protection at all times is assured children and those who do not know how to swim, as lifeguards remain on duty every minute the pool is open. The new swimming place is a real asset to the recreational life of Murfreesboro, and deserves and is receiving the heartiest of support."

This pool is owned by the Tennessee College, a Baptist school for women. This puts Mr. Freeman in the awkward position of condemning a restaurant to feed the poor because be thought it belonged to the Central church of Christ, while being part owner of a college that operates a swimming pool for mixed bathers. If this college is owned by the Baptists of Tennessee, then Mr. Freeman is part owner of it, for he is a Baptist of Tennessee. As far as I know be has offered no objections to it; but if he did, he could not escape ownership if he belongs to the Baptist denomination and it owns it. This shows the danger and troubles of denominationalism. Surely Mr. Freeman will not undertake the defense of public swimming pools. He cannot defend them on the question of modesty. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." (1 Tim.2:9.) This does not say they should adorn themselves "in modest apparel" at all times except when they are patronizing a Baptist swimming pool. But they say, "times have changed," and so they have; but the word of God is the same. Immodest, unadorned men and women together in the same hole of water are the same in some respects as they were in Paul's day. Will Brother Freeman speak out against this crying evil that has even broken out – in one of his Baptist schools?

This condition should show my brethren who are trying to be only Christians the evils of denominationalism. Churches should never be tied together, even in as good a work as preaching the gospel to the heathens. Elders of one church should not try to get hold of the money that has been contributed by others to direct for them in foreign fields or other places. No missionary society should be started by elders of a church or by any individual.  We should have no one-man missionary society. Churches should not be tied together to support schools or homes for the aged or for any other purpose.

[F. B. Srygley in his Contending for the Faith column, Gospel Advocate LXXIII, 49 (Dec. 3, 1931)