Charles Crouch's Defection
Sadness fills our hearts as we note the defection of Brother Charles Crouch. He has ceased preaching the truth about church co-operation and inter-congregational organizations in evangelism and benevolence. He has chosen to make his statement in the Gospel Advocate, a paper which he once criticized for its "closed door" policy against a complete study of issues. Thus he has abandoned this righteous principle also. Will he go along with the Advocate's church recreation and church kitchens and all the other liberal traits the paper espouses? He once was sharply critical of these things. However, once a man starts abandoning the truth there is usually no stopping place. The logic which will permit the start will make the whole thing appear reasonable to the man.
He justifies the Herald of Truth with these words:
"It is my conviction that so long as the principle of congregational autonomy is observed, and no inter-congregational organization is formed, no principle is violated when one church, or a number, assists another church in doing the work of the Lord. This conclusion does not deny the fact that each local church must do its own work." (Gospel Advocate, July 24, 1958).
As all the others have done he assumes, without attempting any proof, that congregational autonomy is preserved by all the congregations who have a part in Herald of Truth. To prove his assumption he must find whose work it is; for work is one feature of autonomy. And no matter which answer he gives, Highland or the contributing churches, he will find autonomy destroyed. He does not attempt to say whose it is. Highland herself says one and then the other. He says that each local church must do its own work. If Herald of Truth is Highland's, then the others are not fulfilling their obligation and have surrendered autonomy. If it is the work of all the contributing churches, then they have surrendered autonomy to a council or to another set of elders (Highland's) to make their decisions and to operate for them.
If he has an argument at all in the quotation it is, that churches are authorized to co-operate and that this obligation takes precedence over the work done which in this case is evangelism. Hence we come to his statement in the article that he once believed in "one specific pattern of church cooperation," but that now he believes in "a general pattern." Later on, however, he will contradict himself by stating that with respect to some things it is "specific." He wants it "general" enough to include his "cooperation" but "specific" enough to exclude the cooperation of the Christian Church. He says it "does not mean that ANY method of cooperation is permissible (such as the Missionary Society); any more than to say that, because we have a general pattern of teaching, ANY method of teaching is authorized (such as the Missionary Society)."
If the command to co-operate is general, we would like to know where to read such a command. Actually, all we know about what is right in co-operation is from specific cases of action which men have called by the name co-operation. He cannot find any such case as is characteristic of Herald of Truth in the Bible. He admits it in his statement that it is a "general pattern," and that Herald of Truth is an "expedient." Hence he has formed a general pattern from specific cases in the Bible and has gone from that to specific cases which are not in the Bible. That is the same line as the digressive arguing from sing to music to play; it is unworthy of a man of the reasoning ability of Brother Crouch.
He demonstrates a lack of discernment between method of action and type of organization. He compares cooperation and the Missionary Society to teaching and the Missionary Society. The Missionary Society is not a method of teaching; it must employ methods; but the missionary society is a type of co-operation. It is hard to believe other than that at one time he has known the difference. A general pattern of teaching would include all the methods of teaching utilized by the missionary society, but would have nothing to do with the content of the teaching or the organization which does the teaching. A general pattern of co-operation would include the missionary society as well as Herald of Truth and all other organizations for co-operation. There is no pattern which includes any of them.
There is another glaring contradiction between the statements quoted from his second paragraph and his further statements in justification of benevolent societies such as church supported Orphan homes. Notice again this statement; "So long as the principle of congregational autonomy is observed, and no inter-congregational organization is formed, no principle is violated when one church, or a number, assists another church in doing the work of the Lord." Notice his condition that no-inter-congregational organization be formed. Now notice his statement about the orphan home organizations to which the churches are asked to contribute; "Neither is it a question of "another organization' than the local church doing the work of caring for the needy." Thus he admits that church can have an-"inter-congregational organization" through which to operate in benevolence, but denies that one should exist when talking about other things.
This contradiction in their teaching is hard for them to justify. When we ask for them to justify the inter-congregational organization in benevolence, averring that we can justify the missionary society in evangelism on the same basis, they feel the weight of the parallel. He says "There are similarities, but similarity does not prove identity." Who has argued that they are identical? The argument has been made, and stands, that they are parallel in the essential features that make both unscriptural and wrong. They are parallel in being human societies, attempting to do the churches' work, receiving contributions from churches, thus destroying the independency of the congregations.
(Continued)