What I Believe To Be Wrong With The Herald Of Truth
A few years ago at the beginning of the fight on the scripturality of the Herald of Truth, it proposed a perplexing problem to me and to many others, I am sure. The problem was, 'Is it right or wrong?" If right, I wanted to be for it, but if wrong, to be strongly opposed to it. After hearing debates, reading articles pro and con, and studying the scripturalness of the set-up, I was convinced that it was wrong. I still feel that way and in this article I shall endeavor to show why. There have been scores of good articles on this subject in the Guardian, but I wish to point out a few simple facts and arguments that convince me the set-up is wrong.
First, though, permit me to point out a few things that aren't wrong with the Herald of Truth so there won't be any misunderstanding that I am not opposed to every aspect of it.
1. It isn't wrong because it is a national broadcast or international broadcast. We all believe it is right to broadcast the gospel and the number of miles it goes out is immaterial.
2. It isn't wrong because the broadcast comes into the vicinity of other congregations. The church here had a daily broadcast until recently and I broadcasted into the vicinity of several congregations each day.
3. It isn't wrong because of preaching the gospel. I have heard some fine sermons. Just the other day while I was driving to preach a funeral, I heard Brother E. R. Harper preach a wonderful lesson on the reign of Christ.
What Is Wrong?
We have discussed some features of the Herald of Truth that are not wrong within themselves, and now we come to the presentation of some things that are unscriptural and sinful about it. Let us notice them as follows:
It Is Wrong Because The Highland Eldership Is Overseeing Something Bigger Than The Work Of The Highland Church. The Herald Of Truth Is Not Exclusively Highland's Work. Without The Other Churches That Help Subsidize Almost Altogether, Highland Church Could Not Even Begin To Put On Such A Broadcast. Thus, The Broadcast Is The Work Of Many Churches Under The Oversight Of A Local Eldership. The Scriptures Teach Plainly And Explicitly That The Oversight Of Elders Is Limited To The Work And Activities Of The Local Church. I Peter 5:2 Reads, "Feed The Flock Of God Which Is Among You, Taking The Oversight Thereof ..." Observe That Peter Said The Flock Of God Among You, And Not The Brotherhood. The Highland Elders Are Overseeing A Brotherhood Project. As The Old Adage Goes, "They Are Too Big For Their Breeches." Something Definitely Is Wrong With One's "Seer" Who Can't See That The Highland Elders Are Tending Something Bigger Than The New Testament Authorizes.
But another Scripture that helps to substantiate my argument. Paul told the Ephesian elders, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God ..." (Acts 20:28) As in I Pet. 5:2, this passage shows that the oversight of elders is limited to the local church.
It Is Wrong Because Churches Of Christ Are Paying The Highland Church To Do Their Radio Preaching For Them.
Many brethren are calling it cooperation, but it is more like subsidization. Highland is saying that if you (the various congregations) send us so much money, we will put on the national broadcast and benefit everybody. So, a thousand churches, or more, pour in the money and the Highland church gets the job done. They broadcast for the entire brotherhood. Now then, if such a set-up is right, why can't these same churches send Highland money to conduct gospel meetings throughout the country, build meeting houses, take care of the needy, send out missionaries and a host of other things for the brotherhood that could be enumerated? If churches can send to Highland to do one, why not the others? I haven't seen an answer to this argument yet, and I won't either. Some may offer a few quibbles, but not an answer.
God designed and purposed the church (Eph. 3:11) and gave it a work to do. This work was given to the local church which is autonomous, independent, and sufficient to do all that God gave it to do. When a local church becomes a "super-duper" church, such as the Highland church has become, then it is bigger than the framework of the New Testament church which God designed.
1. It is wrong because there is no scriptural authority for such an arrangement. Where in God's word do we find that churches have the right to pool their money in one church to do a brotherhood work? It is not there. I'm not talking about churches sending to another church or churches in need to help them carry on their local work, but I'm talking about a Scripture, a command, example or necessary inference, which justifies churches sending to another church to do a brotherhood work. That is the set-up of the Herald of Truth and I would just like to have some Scripture to prove that it is right. About the best brethren can do is to quote the Great Commission and say that it doesn't say how to carry it out. Well, as has been pointed out over and over again, that would justify the missionary society. Too, if the Great Commission justifies the Herald of Truth arrangement, why would it not justify all churches sending to Highland to do everything else in the field of evangelism? What proves too much proves nothing, and certainly nothing is proved by quoting the Commission. Brethren are just pressed for a Scripture, so they latch on to the Great Commission as the missionary society brethren did when asked for a Scripture to uphold the missionary society. The issue involved in the Herald of Truth is not the Great Commission, but organization. We all know that the Lord did not specify how the Commission was to be carried out, but the Scriptures do specify the organizational set-up to carry it out. Certainly the local church is left with the choice of how to carry out the Great Commission, but we do not have the choice to start an organizational arrangement that is bigger than the local church.
We are hearing a great deal about "expediency" in defense of the Herald of Truth. But before a thing can be an expedient, there must be a law. Where is the law allowing congregations to pool their money under one eldership? When that law is found, then the Herald of Truth would be just an expedient of preaching the gospel. But let's get the law before we "holler" expedient. Brother Woods tells us that all that is involved in the Herald of Truth is the cooperation of several churches with one church taking care of the details. There is much more involved in the details than Brother Woods would have us know. We have already pointed out what is involved in the details. But if Brother Woods' reasoning is right, I pose this question: What would be wrong with several churches "cooperating" in hiring preachers, building meeting houses over the country, conducting gospel meetings, taking care of the needy, etc. with just one church taking care of the details? Brethren, if it can be done in the radio and television work, it can be done in the others. The principle that allows one allows the others.
4. It is wrong because the contributing churches are surrendering their autonomy in work and funds. I don't mean that the Highland elders have any organic control over the various churches that contribute, but they do have control over the work and funds of the contributing congregations. The program is a work of all the contributing churches, but the various churches surrender the oversight of this work to one eldership. The decision of who is going to preach and the other arrangements necessary to put on the program is left solely to the discretion of the Highland elders. The money sent in by the contributing churches is likewise under the oversight of the Highland eldership. The churches have no say about it.
Now someone is saying that the autonomy is not less because the contributing churches send voluntarily. This point too has been answered over and over again. But may I suggest that whether it be voluntary or by force, autonomy is still surrendered. For example, the Baptist churches in the Southern Baptist Convention are in it voluntarily, but they have surrendered their autonomy in certain functions even though their membership is wholly voluntary. They can withdraw whenever they want too, just like the contributing churches to the Herald of Truth can withdraw their support whenever they so choose.
Some Personal Observations
I have heard a lot of talk and I have read of the great amount of good that the Herald of Truth is supposedly doing. No doubt, it is doing some good. But I doubt seriously if it is doing the good that is advertised. Many of the letters received are from members of the church. I have heard of very few that have been converted as a result of it. In this section of the country, I have heard of only two or three. Don't misunderstand me. I am not putting a price tag on souls, but I am persuaded that many, many more people would have been converted if the money spent on the Herald of Truth had been used to send preachers into the field. If the Herald of Truth is right, I maintain that is not the most practical way of getting the job done. We have a few more than 100 preachers outside the United States. If the money that is used to broadcast the Herald of Truth each year were utilized to support gospel preachers in foreign countries, as well as in virgin fields in this country, we could do wonders. Much more good could be done and it would be one step toward closing the breach between brethren.
It's a shame that the potential power we have cannot be exerted in the right direction instead of being curtailed by human schemes and innovations.