Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
January 27, 1955
NUMBER 37, PAGE 8-9a

The Principle And Its Consequences -- No. 6

Jack Holt, Indianapolis, Indiana

In the previous article in this series Brother Kurfees thoroughly exposed the Missionary Society, and showed that the principle which provided for it was necessarily subversive of the divine order of local church independence. In recent issues of the Advocate some of her writers have made a puerile attempt to show what is wrong with the Missionary Society. To show how utterly they failed I need only remark that nearly every objection they made against the Missionary Society, was also made by the Christian Standard over forty years ago!

The article below written by the erudite M. C. Kurfees will be very enlightening, I am sure. It reveals the kind of society the Standard approved, and the things connected with the society that the Standard opposed. Now the Gospel Advocate, 1910 style, opposed the kind of society the Standard endorsed. When you read the article you can easily see why the '54 style Advocate, with its present policy, cannot or will not point out the errors of such a society. Brother Woods only condemned the abuses of the society in his futile endeavor to tell what was wrong with it. I exhort Brother Woods to read the following article. Then, if he will, he can tell us what is wrong with the Missionary Society as herein endorsed by the Standard.

"Voluntary Assemblies And Authority Over The Churches"

M. C. Kurfees

"Referring to missionary societies as 'voluntary assemblies' the Christian Standard says they are 'Pledged by the tradition of sixty years not to assume or attempt any control over the affairs of the churches or their members.' We respectfully call this statement in question, and remind our esteemed contemporary that, no difference how much these 'voluntary assemblies' have been 'pledged' for 'sixty years' or for any other length of time, they have been doing the very thing which the Standard here denies in its attempt to defend them as preferable to a delegate body. It is a notorious fact, too, that whenever the society is attacked as a subversion of New Testament church order, which provides for the absolute independence of the local churches, the advocates of the society straightway rush to its defense with the claim that it is merely a 'voluntary assembly' with no wish to interfere with 'the affairs of the churches or their members.' (History is, indeed, repeating itself. J.L.H.)

"This statement looks well on paper; and if it were borne out by facts the case would not be so bad. But the facts do not bear out the claim; and now, in the interest of truth and harmony, it is in order to state some facts and ask some questions. For instance, it cannot be denied that when the society gets hold of the money of the churches, it then selects, directs, and controls the missionaries precisely as it pleases, and the churches can have no voice in, and nothing to do with, the matter. In such a case, the church has surrendered the control of matters to the society, and can itself have no control as to whom or what its money shall sustain. Will our Cincinnati contemporary deny it? In the face of the fact. and in utter disregard of it, that a church, if patterned after the New Testament model, has its own divinely appointed board of overseers to look after its 'affairs. this so-called 'voluntary assembly' is allowed to take charge, and, so far as the matter of 'control' is concerned, the church steps aside."

Now what is the difference in this arrangement for a missionary society, and in the one that makes possible the Herald of Truth? In the Herald of Truth, the churches step aside and Highland has full control. Hear this declaration: "since this is a work of the Highland congregation, to maintain its autonomy or independence the elders must make the decisions." Again, "the elders of this congregation oversee every phase of this work." In both the society and the Herald of Truth the cooperation is voluntary, and neither claims to interfere with the "affairs of the churches or their members," except in the case of Highland which tries to impose a little discipline here and there. In the same booklet from which we obtained the foregoing quotations we find the following: "the Highland church merely asks sister congregations to have fellowship with her in this work." Again, "the radio broadcast is in no wise a "machine over the church." In the language of Brother Kurfees I must admit that "this statement looks well on paper, and if in Highland's case it is borne out by actual facts the case will not be so bad." The facts, however, do not bear out this claim. For instance it cannot be denied that when Highland gets hold of the money of the churches, it then selects, directs and controls the missionaries precisely as it pleases, "overseeing every phase of the work," and the churches can have no voice in, and nothing to do with the matter." Well, I suppose the society would have been justified if in some way or other it could have gotten a little of Highland's autonomy!

After stating that they can drop the program at any time they see fit the Highland elders declare, "they will never demand or infer that any other church refrain from carrying a like work. We understand the meaning of 'local autonomy'." The Christian Standard also understood "local autonomy." Hence, they did not forbid or condemn any church or churches from forming their own societies. Highland is really proud of her autonomy, and she seems determined to keep it if it costs every cent the contributing churches have! Highland is so afraid of destroying local church autonomy that they have decided to compromise, they will meet any church half-way. If you will send Highland your money, they will let you keep your autonomy.

Recent changes in procedure at Highland makes the application of one of Brother Kurfees indictments against the society, a better parallel against Highland. For instance, a few months ago it could not be said that Highland "selects the preachers"; it was the other way around. The Highland elders declare, "The Highland elders can and will drop this program any time they see fit." Yes, and the preachers may drop those elders any time they see fit. The Highland elders need to remember that they are still "on the other side of the table," and they had better walk the "strait and narrow" or those preachers may just go out and get another board of elders, any time they see fit. I wonder what this would do to Highland's autonomy?

Brother Kurfees anticipated some things that would be said in behalf of the society advocates and managers. He wrote:

"Never mind now about the good intention and benevolent and philanthropic purposes of the society and its friends, for that is not the question. We have nothing whatever to say about their motives, and do not wish to cast any reflections upon the praiseworthy object which we freely grant they have in view. We are not discussing the motives of men. We are dealing simply and exclusively with what they do; and at this point we are confronted by certain stubborn facts. (1) The missionary society seeks to get hold of the money of the churches. (2) When it gets possession of the money, its agents disburse it as the society may see proper, and the church has no voice in the matter. (Emphasis, M.C.K.)

"So far as the point here at issue is concerned, it does not change the fact to say that the church has confidence in such 'society officials' with good grounds for believing they will properly use the money. That is not the question. We are not discussing the integrity or reliability of anybody, not even the society itself, which is usually composed of good men, but simply what the society, called by the Standard a 'voluntary assembly,' does. The question is purely one of fact, and not of conjecture and speculation. That the society is in 'control over the affairs of the church' here cannot be successfully denied. No church that hands over its money and influence to be directed and controlled by the missionary society is doing the work which God has specifically assigned to the church itself; maintaining its independence, or the control of its own affairs. Every church in such a case has surrendered 'control of its affairs,' to others and this is no more than is done in delegate conventions. The Gospel Advocate merely makes the point that in all such cases the matter of 'control' of 'the affairs of the churches' has passed completely out of their hands and is placed in the hands of others. Will the Standard deny it?

"It does not meet the point to say that a church is left free and is not compelled to give its money to such officials, for the same is true of churches with reference to delegate conventions. A church in either case is free, of course, to stay out of the concern and have nothing to do with it; but in both cases — precisely in the one as in the other — a church that goes into it has surrendered all 'control' over its 'affairs' to the full extent of all that its money can accomplish. If not, why not?"

The following lines certainly do not sound like the Gospel Advocate, 1954 style. After you read the following you will no doubt be convinced that in this matter also the Advocate of '54 bears a marked resemblance to the Standard of 1910.

"Now while we shall be pleased for the readers of our Cincinnati contemporary to see these questions and those on the same subject in our two issues immediately preceding this one, together with whatever answer it may make, still, judging from its course heretofore, we hardly expect it. It is only on certain subjects that it seems willing for its readers to hear both sides. In all matters on which it has unquestionably espoused the side of truth and infallible safety, it exhibits a boldness and fearlessness which are really cheering. It has taken the true ground in delegate bodies, in which we heartily bid it Godspeed, and on the subject it not only freely and generously opens its columns to both sides, but it actually calls aloud to the advocates of the measure to come on with anything they have to say. GOOD! The Standard is both powerful and fearless when on the right side. But, in our issue of June 16, 1910, in the light of our contemporary's own statement — statements, however, which we felt sure it could not successfully defend, we respectfully and courteously propounded certain questions; but from its steady and significant silence, which remains unbroken unto this day, it seems, in this instance, as in others which we have pointed out, to have nothing to say but, '0 what are you going to do about it'."