What It Is All About
The able and veteran editor of the Firm Foundation, for whom I have great respect and affection, and to whom I am indebted for some favors during the years, puts it in the form of a question. He writes a very readable editorial on "What Is It All About?" It has reference to the "discussion going on in regard to the activities of the churches, or some of the churches, as to the method or manner of carrying on evangelistic work in needy places, especially in distant lands and foreign fields."
He is not sure that there is any such thing in existence as the centralized control and oversight the Gospel Guardian has been fighting, and seems inclined to believe that we are wasting ammunition on a straw man. If there is any such thing in existence, he is against it. "Of course, the New Testament gives nothing of the kind, for my part, I did not know that any church was doing this." "If there are trends or tendencies" that point in this direction, "then warnings are in order." He commends "the brethren at Lubbock" for their liberality and good work and accepts their disclaimer of any guilt of "any such thing" he "did not know that any church was doing." The position of the worthy editor' reminds me of the old woman who was giving her nervous neighbor an elementary lesson on how to rest. "When ah rests, ah sets kinda loose lak." It seems to me that he is settin' kinda loose lak on this question. He usually knows what it is all about, and where he stands when an issue arises among the brethren, and what he says carries weight. I have not forgotten those articles he wrote some years ago about "The Christian Wildcats" out at Abilene which kicked up such a ruckus. He was not too squeamish about "kindness and courtesy" and if he made no "efforts at being funny", he was anyway. As is usual in such cases, many good brethren got a big kick out of it, even if they did not agree with him, while others on the receiving end of the line, and without much sense of humor, wanted to turn him over to the devil for being everything that a Christian ought not to be. Personally, I got some good laughs, some good lessons, and attended the next football game that came my way. I think the "Christian Wildcats" are still biting and scratching for victories.
As touching this controversy, I think I know what it is all about as far as I am concerned. At least I know where I hurt. Some things are "going on in regard to the activities of the churches, or some of the churches" which are contrary to what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding such activities. Brother F. B. Srygley expressed it this way:
An individual can send his means directly to the preacher who is on the field preaching the gospel, and so can a church, provided it sends it directly to the preacher. If two or more churches put it into the hands of any kind of a board, though the board may be made up of elders of one of the churches, we have a very nice beginning for a missionary society to try to take charge of the churches. Much of the missionary machinery of this country started exactly this way.
I lift this quotation from an article on "Institutions", written by brother Srygley and reprinted in the Gospel Advocate on the editorial page of the issue of September 21, 1950. The "1950 style" of the Advocate is improving. We are encouraged to believe that our labors have not been in vain. "What is it all about?" Well, too many of the churches are sending their "means" to "the elders of one of one of the churches" instead of sending it "directly to the preacher who is on the field preaching the gospel" like they did it in the New Testament. I'm afraid that "we have a very nice beginning for a missionary society to try to take charge of the churches", since "much of the missionary machinery of this country started exactly this way." It ought to make the editor of the Firm Foundation tighten up a little in his settin' it seems to me. He assures us that "the brethren at Lubbock... do not oppose brethren sending direct to the work in Germany." That is very gracious of them, and I am sure that the other churches genuinely appreciate their tolerance in this respect. I really do not know what they could do about it, if they did oppose it. But that is not the issue at all. This thing of one church becoming a clearing house for other churches to work through in doing foreign work, is sure to lead to something unscriptural, if it has not already arrived. "If there are trends and tendencies toward"— well, brother, there are and you can just scratch out the "if". "Warnings are in order" and that is exactly "what it is all about."
The editor of the Firm Foundation asks a question and assures us that it is "certainly in order" and I agree with him. The answer to it should furnish an answer to anybody who needs it to the question, "what is it all about?" Here is the question:
What type of cooperation, if any, among the churches, is recognized or authorized in the law of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament? Inquiries of this sort, or of anything else relating to the kingdom of Christ are certainly in order at any suitable time and place provided the proper spirit is manifested and an unselfish interest in the good of others and the general welfare of the church is evident.
I think this is a "suitable time and place" to answer that question. As to whether "the proper spirit is manifested" I can only promise to do the best I can, and cannot guarantee that it will please everybody, even including the editor of the Firm Foundation. Even Christ and Paul said things some people did not like. They even thought that some things they said did "much injury and no good." I think I can be at least as nice as brother Goodpasture, brother Brewer, cousin Glenn Wallace, and brother Showalter, when he was trying to tame the "Christian Wildcats." As far as "an unselfish interest in the good of others and the general welfare of the church," is concerned, you'll have to take my word for it. What do you think I'm getting out of this fight? It has brought me neither money nor glory. If I were out to please men, I certainly would not be saying things that subject me to the abuse I have received since this thing started, and I am neither whining nor complaining. This isn't the first fight I have been in, and it probably will not be the last, unless the Lord takes me to that peaceful realm, where the will of God is done so perfectly, fights are unnecessary, before the next one down here starts.
To the question. "What type of cooperation, if any, among the churches, is recognized or authorized in the law of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament?" It is a good question and the answer is found in the New Testament in the "activities of the churches" described therein. As far as I have been able to learn through the years of my study of that holy volume, churches sent out preachers who were capable of doing the work they were sent out to do. Men of this caliber did not need any oversight, they needed support which they sometimes got, and which they sometimes didn't, but they did the work. Churches that sent them out endorsed and commended them. Churches that supported them sent their "means" directly to them. Philippi sent once and again to Paul in Thessalonica, and "other churches" sent to Paul in Corinth. These are clear examples from the proper source "as to the method or manner of carrying on evangelistic work in needy places, especially in distant lands and foreign fields." I understand that we have some smart elders in Brownfield, Lubbock and Memphis, but I do not think they can improve on the divine plan. If this "sponsoring" business is the way it ought to be done, why was this "method not employed in the New Testament?" Brother Showalter knows what is in the New Testament. If he knows of a church in the New Testament "sponsoring" a "work in needy places, especially in distant lands and foreign fields," and the "type of cooperation" whereby other churches sent their "means" to the "sponsoring" church, instead of directly to the man" in distant lands and foreign fields", he should not lose any time telling us about it in the Firm Foundation. Such an example would do more to "set the brethren right" than merely lecturing them on "the kindness and love of God." This will really be discussing the subject. If I am wrong in this matter, I hereby authorize him to "berate" me a little. I think he would be justified in it.
To date in this controversy I have been accused of being a factionist, loving myself and hating the brethren, engaging in bitter personalities, using ridicule and sarcasm, making slurring remarks and trying to be funny, and other like things. My idea is that my admirers in reverse could better employ their time and their space by citing me the authority "in the law of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament" for some practices we are calling in question. Berating me will not serve as an acceptable substitute. Departures from the New Testament pattern cannot be justified by my meanness. It is not the power of God unto salvation. "Then discuss the subject and do not berate the man,"