Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
December 24, 1953
NUMBER 33, PAGE 1,5b

McGarvey On -"Mission Work: A Word For Peace" -- (Concluded)

Robert C. Welch, Louisville, Kentucky

In this series, an article by J. W. McGarvey has been presented together with discussion of the principles involved in the missionary societies, and now in various schemes being developed in church work. The article was published in the Gospel Advocate, February 11, 1891. His premises have been discussed, and his conclusions are now presented:

"First, that so long as any of the bodies of brethren banded together for missionary purposes shall confine their operations to soliciting and expending money to send the gospel abroad, they are not to be subjected to adverse criticism; and if, in addition to the rightful work they do or attempt to do something wrong they should be censured for the wrong, and for that alone. It is quite certain that some of these organizations have in former years done some things which they should not have done; and if some insane proposals which have been made recently by men of little influence, should be acted upon, it would be difficult to censure the action too severely. Of this however I apprehend no danger. Of all the dangers before us, perhaps the least to be feared is, that free born disciples will in this day of liberty, put their necks under a yoke of ecclesiastical bondage. The tendency of the age is in the opposite direction."

This paragraph shows that McGarvey had the idea which most of the advocates of the society had who were of a conservative trend. He thought that the missionary society was right as long as it functioned on correct principles, but that it could become wrong by abusive practices. Enough has been said to show that he was incorrect in thinking that the society had a right to exist. He recognized the fact that there were extremists who advocated rash practices; but he had no fear that they would be put into use. He forgets that it was such people who actually brought the society into existence. Those middle-of-the-road brethren like McGarvey and Lard would never have thought enough of a society to start one. He was mistaken about men of liberty not putting themselves under the yoke of ecclesiastical bondage. It is true that they are throwing off the yoke of creedal bondage. The denominations are forgetting their creeds, they have no precise faith in anything. Even the Christian Church has lost any faith it ever had in the perfection of the scriptures. But they are still bound strongly as ever in ecclesiasticism. There are middle-of-the-road brethren today who think that some proponents of the charity and missionary schemes have gone to extremes; but they think that there is no danger. They think that time will bring those proponents into line. They think that to criticize the workings of these systems is to impugn motives of the proponents and adversely affect the growing enthusiasm for charitable and missionary work. Dear undecided brother, turn your back and see your picture in the works and influence of McGarvey. Did he make a mistake in such a position? You may be following in his footsteps.

"Second, that in view of the conscientious opposition of many brethren to some of the missionary organizations now in existence, the agents of such organizations should conscientiously abstain from so pressing their claims upon these brethren as to give them just ground of complaint. For example, when a portion of a congregation is thus opposed to cooperating with a certain society, the congregation as such should take no action in the premises; for in doing so it violates the law of love in despising a portion of its membership. In all such cases the contributions can be taken up privately without just offense, and this course should be adopted without hesitation or complaint."

It is a well known fact that the societies did not follow this rule which was well put, even if he was incorrect in his premises that the society had the right to existence. His contention was that a society had the right to ask churches for contributions, but that the church was not bound by any scriptural law to make the contribution; hence, the society and its advocates should not stir up strife in any congregation by insisting on the church making such a contribution. Advocates of church supported charity homes, church supported schools, and universal missionary programs, say that these things have the right to exist, but that no one church is compelled to support them. Yet they have been known to insist upon the churches supporting these schemes to the point of disruption within congregations. Think well, brother, before you insist upon what you describe as an expedient, to the extent of discord and division among brethren.

Remember that even an advocate of societies warned against such promotion of the societies.

"If brethren on both sides, and on all sides of the pending controversy will accept the practical conclusions, and abide by them, there will at once be an end to the unseemly, and sometimes disgusting exhibitions of party zeal which are now disturbing the peace of many communities, and bringing the cause of truth into reproach. I have assumed in what I have written, that all of us are in favor of doing mission work: I have no doubt that this is true; though I know that a very small majority of us are taking no part in this blessed work. It should be the constant and united aim of all teachers, whether by tongue or the pen, to arouse to activity and zeal in the work of all the brethren and sisters everywhere. Thousands of them are languishing spiritually for want of this activity and the controversy which is rife among us is doing much to keep them inactive. Let me conclude by saying, that the cause of missions now has two most deadly enemies; and it is doubtful from which we should more fervently pray to be delivered; they are first, that class who are constantly stirring up opposition to such work as is now being done; and second, a class overzealous for missionary societies who are constantly urging them to do things which they have no right to do. Let us try to muzzle the latter, and to conciliate the former."

He was willing to give such men as Lipscomb credit for being in favor of missionary work, even though he did criticize the societies with great determination. When brethren today criticize the practice of church support of one of these independent agencies, the proponents of the system immediately cry that such brethren are against helping the orphans or preaching the gospel. When brethren criticize the Lubbock Plan of missionary work, they wail that those brethren are opposed to carrying the gospel to the Germans. When brethren criticize the church support of schools, the proponents' railing cry is that those "boys" do not believe in "Christian education."

This writer wonders if McGarvey would still say that a most deadly enemy to missions is the class who oppose the missionary societies. He has the impression that if McGarvey could have lived to see his every restriction violated by the societies, and the fears of the opponents fulfilled by the societies, he would have become an opponent of the societies himself; and would have viewed with sorrow the words of encouragement he at one time gave the ecclesiastical monsters.

One of the great scholars among Christians of all the centuries failed to see that one digression from scriptural authority would lead to the abandonment of scriptural authority in all matters; thus he became a defender of, and a party to, the great digression of the past century. The grave problems in church work today are not questions to be settled by scholarship. These problems must be solved by sincere brethren everywhere with a determination: to follow the scriptural pattern in all church work; and to refrain from deviation from, or from going beyond, that pattern in the work of the church.