Brother Lemmons On "Voluntary Cooperation"
Last spring we wrote three articles under the caption, "Present Issues — And A Suggested Solution," which were published in successive issues of the Firm Foundation. Brother Reuel Lemmons, editor of that journal, graciously agreed to publish the material at our request; and in doing so made some comments on each article as it appeared. These three articles, along with Brother Lemmons' comments, will now appear in the Gospel Guardian. We suggest that you read the first of the series (on the front page, this issue), then read Brother Lemmons' comments (also in this issue) before finishing this editorial. We'll take time out for you to do that!
The entire point of Brother Lemmons' article, if we rightly apprehended it, is that as long as cooperation is "voluntary" it is utterly impossible for the "church universal" to be activated by such. He says:
"The word 'voluntary' forever makes 'activating the church universal' impossible." ..................................
"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 .... It would be impossible to produce Roman Catholicism through voluntary cooperation." (Emphasis his. — F.Y.T.)
Brother Lemmons is flying in the face of all history when he denies that "voluntary cooperation" produced Roman Catholicism. The apostasy was a gradual development, moving by almost imperceptible degrees from decade to decade and from generation to generation. Certainly there must have been some who bitterly opposed and fought each departure. And probably each additional innovation found some who would not accept it. But who can deny that the innovation was introduced, and finally fastened upon the church with an unbreakable tenacity, by the thousands who voluntarily accepted it? It was NOT "compulsion" but "voluntary cooperation" that eventually enslaved the church to Romanism.
Brother Lemmons contends that "voluntary" action makes it forever impossible to "active the church universal." But "voluntary' action is the only kind of action that can activate the church universal! There must be CHOICE on the part of the church in order for moral responsibility to exist. If a squadron of soldiers with fixed bayonets comes each Sunday morning and by force and violence seizes the total collection, and then turns that collection over to a Missionary Society, that victimized congregation has NOT violated God's law. But if that same congregation, in the absence of all coercion, "voluntarily" surrenders her funds to the Missionary Society, then she has violated God's law. By her "voluntary" action she has exercised choice, and has chosen to participate by her contribution in a type of organized cooperation which is not authorized in God's word.
If a thousand congregations under the ruthless control of a military dictator were each compelled to submit arbitrarily to the rule and authority of a single man, that would NOT be an activation of the "church universal;" but if these same thousand congregations voluntarily surrendered all control of their funds and activities to the will of a single man, agency, society, or eldership, that would be an "activation of the church universal." Can not Brother Lemmons see this? And whether he can see it or not, can not all other intelligent readers of this paper see it?
Brother Lemmons honestly feels that the whole controversy is a lot of bother and noise about something that does not exist. He feels that the danger of "activating the church universal" is an "imaginary evil which does not exist among us." His entire case is built on the assumption that as long as the centralization of power is "voluntary," and the pooling of funds under a single eldership is willingly done, there is not, and cannot be any activation of the church universal. Read his editorial again and see how completely he trusts this one point as an impregnable safeguard against apostasy.
How Wrong He Is!
Does he not understand that ALL the Christian churches are acting "voluntarily' when they associate themselves together in the Missionary Society and affiliate with the International Convention? Does he not know that the Southern Baptist churches are acting "voluntarily" when they co-operate through the Southern Baptist Convention? We opine that many a Baptist congregation has had far less "pressure" put on her to line up with the convention than scores of faithful churches of Christ have had put on them to "line up" with Herald of Truth. We know of more than one which has been subjected to such pressure; and some have been split asunder by it. No doubt the promotional brethren are fully convinced they are doing God's will, and are acting wholly within the province of that which is authorized. But whether they realize it or not, and whether Brother Lemmons realizes it or not, they have contrived a plan, a method, a "modus operandi" for activating the church universal.
All that is now necessary to accomplish the fact is for congregations to "voluntarily" cooperate with their project.
Our second article (with Brother Lemmons' comments) will follow next week.