Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
July 25, 1957
NUMBER 12, PAGE 4

Interlocking Directorships

Editorial

On another page in this issue we give space to another fine editorial from the pen of Brother Reuel Lemmons. It appeared last month in the Firm Foundation, and is still another excellent contribution that journal is making in an effort to stem the tide of "liberalism" and "modernism" being advanced by the Gospel Advocate. The articles by Brother Guy N. Woods in recent months have gone far, far afield in his strained efforts to establish his contention that the church, as such, can NOT do benevolence (specifically caring for orphan children and widows) but MUST work through some separate organization to accomplish this work.

We think Brother Lemmons has answered this foolish notion most effectively in his editorial entitled "Interlocking Directorships". We do not see how Brother Woods can make any kind of sensible rejoinder to it. But what, then, is the difference in the position of the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Guardian Brother Lemmons states it in the following paragraph:

"It should be pointed out that the right of such an arrangement to exist, (i.e. a congregation under its elders maintaining a home to care for 'its own orphans' — F.Y.T.) and the right of several churches to contribute to such a work are two different questions entirely. One is the question of whether the elders of the congregation have the right as elders to supervise a work that all agree the church should do; and the other is a question involving congregational cooperation."

The Gospel Guardian and the Firm Foundation are apparently in complete accord on the first of these questions, and stand united against the foolish and absurd position of the Gospel Advocate that it is impossible for a congregation to "visit the fatherless and widows", but that some sort of a separate organization or society must exist for that purpose. This new doctrine, only lately "hatched" by the fertile mind of Brother Guy N. Woods, is the latest device of the "institutional" brethren to defend their human organizations to do the work of the church.

But the difference between the Foundation and the Guardian comes in the second question suggested by Brother Lemmons, i.e. in the realm of congregational cooperation. There is a bit more involved in it, of course, than cooperation alone. Perhaps the following questions will help to clarify and pin-point the differences:

1. Do the elders of a congregation have scriptural authority to make provision for orphans and widows who are NOT the obligation of their congregation, and perhaps of no congregation at all? Foundation says yes; Guardian says no.

2. Do the elders of a congregation act as elders when they form a corporation to engage in charitable activities, performing deeds of benevolence to those who are NOT the obligation of their congregation, and engaging in income-producing business ventures to raise funds for such charity as for example operating farms, dairies, apartment houses, buying and selling oil leases, renting our business properties, etc. The Firm Foundation, in defending such present practices, says yes; the Gospel Guardian says no.

3. Do other congregations have a scriptural right to cooperate in such a venture as that described in the above question by sending contributions to said elders? The Firm Foundation says yes; the Gospel Guardian says no.

It is at this very point that the Gospel Guardian finds herself in agreement with the Gospel Advocate contention that elders acting as described above are NOT acting "as elders of a local congregation", but are in reality acting as directors or trustees of another organization — a charitable corporation. It is in effect what the business world would describe as an "interlocking directorship."

We do not for one moment deny the right of such a charitable organization (call it Orphan Home, Old Folks Home, or whatever you will) to exist. It has every right that any such corporation would have to engage in commercial ventures, provide recreation and social activities suitable to its wards, provide for their educational needs as well as their physical. But such an organization is NOT the local church — neither is it the local church at work. It has no right to solicit nor accept contributions from a congregation; neither has any congregation the right to make contributions to such an organization.

And that, as we see it, is the status quo. The Gospel Advocate is wrong on two counts; the Firm Foundation wrong on only one.

And there is a way, which is safe and scriptural, which is not described by either of those two journals. It is the Bible way of each congregation providing for its own — and then other congregations sending help to that congregation when the burden of its own needy is too great for it to discharge. That is the plea of the Gospel Guardian. And that is exactly what happened in the days of the early church. (Acts 6; 11:27-30; I Cor. 16:1-4; II Cor. 8 and 9; Romans 15:25.26.)

— F. Y. T.