Statement Of The Issue
Chapter II In order for brethren who differ to reach agreement on any point of doctrine or practice, the real point at issue must be clearly understood and carefully considered. If either side dodges or deliberately avoids the main issue, the breach usually widens and disturbance among the churches increases.
The actual point at issue in the present centralized control controversy has not been given much consideration.
1. What Is The Issue?
The scriptural answer to one question contains the solution to the problem: How may a church obtain and dispose of its funds? When the money question is answered, all other points of difference will adjust themselves, and the trouble soon will be settled.
a. The issue is not whether churches may cooperate or not; all agree that they can. The question is: Can churches cooperate by sending donations to a man-made missionary society or human benevolent society? Can they cooperate by contributing their funds to a sponsoring church for a work to which the receiving church and the giving churches are related equally?
Many of the promoters of these various types of centralized controlling agencies accuse brethren who disagree with them of being against cooperation, and they call them "anti-cooperation brethren." Whether they are ignorant of the real issue, or deliberately trying to avoid it, is not always clear.
b. The issue is not whether human benevolent institutions and man-made Bible teaching organizations have a right to exist or are doing a "good" work; that they do have a right to exist and that they are doing a good work, when teaching the Bible, is admitted generally. The question is: Do churches have a scriptural right to contribute money to these human organizations?
In defense of the missionary society, J. B. Briney and many others talked and wrote much about the good that the society was doing in the work of saving souls; and they tried to justify all that the society was doing on the ground that the Lord told the churches to preach the gospel but did not tell them how to do it. That was not the issue at all; the issue was: Shall the churches contribute funds to any human evangelistic organization? If so, which one and how many?
In defense of the human benevolent societies, Brother Gayle Oler and many others talk and write much about the good that these human organizations are doing in providing homes for the homeless children and old people; and they try to justify all that these charity institutions are doing on the ground that the Lord told the churches to visit the fatherless and widows but did not tell them how to do it. That is not the issue at all; he question is: Shall the churches contribute funds to any human benevolent society? If so, which one and how many?
c. The issue is not whether churches may contribute to another church that is so poor that it cannot supply the needs of its own indigent, "that there may be equality" or mutual freedom from want; all agree that this may be done. The question is: May churches send contributions to another church for the work of evangelization to which all the churches are related equally?
In both the Lufkin and the Abilene debates, Brother E. R. Harper completely missed the issue, as many other advocates of centralized oversight miss it; he talked much about how New Testament churches cooperated in that Judean charity work, but he ignored the fact that no church sent a contribution to any church that was as well off as the contributing church. He would not consider the fact that the scriptures distinguish between a church that is an object of charity and one that is not an object of charity, just as they distinguish between an individual Christian who is an object of charity and one who is not.
d. The issue is not whether a church may preach the gospel by radio or television or the printed page; all admit that it can. The question is: Has the Lord legislated regarding how a church may obtain its money with which to do its evangelistic work?
Brethren who disagree with the way the Highland church in Abilene is obtaining money for the Herald of Truth radio program have been misrepresented and falsely accused time and again by Brother E. R. Harper; he accuses them of being against the Highland church and her work, against her radio program and trying to "kill" the program. He has been told over and over that nobody is against the Highland church or her radio program; that the unscriptural way that she is raising money for the program is the issue. Yet he continues his false charges. Is it because he is too ignorant to understand what the issue is? or is it because he deliberately ignores the issue?
Brother Harper is not against Bible colleges; he is not against teaching the Bible in a college; he is not a "Sommerite"; but he is against a Bible college's soliciting and accepting contributions from church treasuries. Now, if he tried to teach A. C. Pullias and W. L. Totty that it is sinful for churches to contribute funds to Bible colleges, and if Pullias and Totty accused him over and over of being against Bible colleges; of trying to kill the schools; of being against teaching the Bible in a college; of being a Sommerite, regardless of the number of times that he stated the real issue to them; then Brother Harper would know that one of two things is true regarding Pullias and Totty: (1) he would know that they are too ignorant to understand the issue; or (2) he would know that they are deliberately misrepresenting him and avoiding the issue in order to protect a theory which they know they cannot defend. One of these things is true of E. R. Harper, and his trouble is not honest ignorance. When a man knows that an accurate statement of the issue, and a correct representation of his opponent would damage his theory, then something is desperately wrong with his theory, and with him, if he does not renounce the theory.
2. How May A Church Obtain Funds For Its Work?
Has the Lord legislated as to how a church may obtain funds for its work?
If he has not legislated relative to the way that a church may get possession of money for its work, but has left the matter to human judgment, then every church may employ any and every money raising method it may choose and that is not inherently sinful; or it may reject every known method and adopt one entirely new. If the Lord has not legislated on this point, but has made it parallel with methods of teaching the Bible or with the number of containers used in the Lord's supper, as some claim, then any church can get money for its work by operating a grocery store, soda fountain, cotton gin, saw mill or any other secular business for profit; it may sponsor a football game or stage show for profit; it may solicit and accept funds from anything and everybody it wishes.
If the Lord has legislated regarding the way a church may obtain funds for its work, then no church has a right to go beyond what is written and employ methods that are not included in the teaching of Christ.
3. Under What Conditions May A Church Contribute Funds To Another Church?
New Testament churches did send donations to a sister church. Has the Lord legislated as to the conditions under which this may be done? That is the issue.
If the Lord has legislated as to the conditions under which a church may contribute a part or all of its funds to the oversight of another church, the church that fails to respect the divinely appointed conditions is in open violation of God's word.
If he has not legislated in this matter, but left it to human judgment, then all the churches in the world may surrender every cent of their funds to the oversight of one eldership, and every man who would lift his voice against it is guilty of binding where the Lord has loosed and legislating where the Lord has not legislated.
For illustration: people were baptized, with divine approval in apostolic days. If the Lord has legislated as to the conditions under which a person may be baptized, the conditions must have the same degree of respect as the command itself. If he has not legislated on this point, then infants, idiots and all others may be baptized, and every objector becomes guilty of legislating where God has not.
4. Parallel Examples: The Vatican In Rome, Highland In Abilene.
A few centuries after the church was established, a "group" of church leaders concluded that their "ability" and superior "leadership" not only justified, but also "obligated," their trying to gain control of resources of the churches all over the world for a work to which all the churches were related equally. They succeeded, and the Roman Hierarchy inevitably resulted. If the Lord has not legislated concerning the conditions under which a church may send donations to another church, then all the churches had a perfect right to place all their resources under the control of the church in Rome, and Romanism is no sin as far as centralized control is concerned.
A few years ago "a group of elders" in Abilene, Texas, tumbled into the pit-fall of this same Romish philosophy. They concluded that their "ability" and superior "leadership" obligated them to try to gain control of resources of churches all over the world for a work to which all the churches were assigned by the Lord. Though they have not gained the same degree of success as the Roman "group of elders," they have hoodwinked the elders of about a thousand churches into the practice of that rotten Romish philosophy. This reprehensible claim that their own opinion of their "ability" and "leadership" "obligated" the Highland elders in Abilene to seek control of the resources of other churches (as stated in their own words in the Gospel Guardian of Jan. 6, 1955), will be discussed more fully in a later chapter. The point here is this: If the Lord has not legislated relative to the conditions under which churches may send contributions to another church, then both the Vatican Church in Rome and the Highland Church in Abilene are right in their identical efforts at centralized control, and no man has a right to object.
How may a church obtain and dispose of its money? Has the Lord legislated on this point? That is the issue.