A Tale Of Two Churches
Both of these churches are known to the editor. In fact, he has held gospel meetings in each of them in past years. Each congregation is under the oversight of elders who are unanimous in their conviction that such cooperative combines as "Herald of Truth" are scriptural for evangelistic works, and such benevolent societies as "Boles Home" and "Sunny Glen" are scriptural adjuncts to the church for benevolent works.
Each congregation has within it certain faithful members who are conscientiously opposed to support of such projects. With these brethren it is not a matter of mere human judgment or opinion; they have become convinced from a careful study of the Bible that "Herald of Truth" and the institutional church supported "orphan homes" are a violation of God's will. It violates their conscience to give any support or encouragement at all to these ventures.
In each congregation these brethren let the elders know of their convictions.
Then What Happened?
The elders of the one congregation unanimously adopted a policy of NOT making church contributions to these controversial works. They agreed that ALL the contributions of the congregation could be wisely and fully expended in worthy and scriptural ventures in which the entire congregation could participate, with no violation to anyone's conscience. They announced that such would be their course in the present disturbed conditions of the brotherhood. Any who wished to make private, personal contributions to the orphan homes and the Herald of Truth were free to do so, and the elders themselves were going to make such contributions. But no church contribution would go to any of these projects, since some faithful and godly brethren could not in good conscience support them. They regarded the unity of the church, and the love of Christians for one another as being of far greater value and importance than any kind of contribution to any of the things under question.
The elders of the other congregation took an opposite course. All the earnest and sincere pleadings of brethren that church contributions to the projects be stopped were denied. The elders agreed to give a letter of dismissal to those who could not conscientiously support the orphan homes — but they obviously placed greater value on such contributions than they put on the unity of the church and the conscience of their fellow-Christians. Here is a copy of the letter given to one family:
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter will introduce Brother and Sister __________ and their daughter_______________________
All have been faithful members of the church for many years. Brother ___________ in the past, has taught one of our adult classes many series of fine lessons.
Their desire to transfer membership from the local congregation stems in part from their disagreement with the elders over financial support this church gives certain institutions, such as Orphan Homes, and Homes for the Aged, with whose organizations they do not agree.
Submitted with love and appreciation of this family.
The Elders:
As we said before, both churches are well known to the editor. So also is the family who was given the "letter of dismissal". The letter shows that the only real problem was church support of organizations which this brother believed to be unscriptural. This man has been a member of this congregation for more than a quarter of a century. He has preached for them on many occasions when they had no local man, or when the local preacher was out of town; he has worked with them up through the years, from the little old store building in the wrong part of town up to the present fine building in a good neighborhood. His money, his sacrifices, his hard work have all gone into this building — from which he is now driven by the adamant, unyielding position of those in authority. The thousands of dollars which in twenty-five years he has invested in building this congregation he now sees going "down the drain"! Thus a faithful family, long active and hard-working in the church, is ruthlessly driven out — told, in effect, that they must now either violate their conscience to remain in that congregation, or else get out!
What sort of thinking is this? What must be the qualification of an eldership which is unable to put the UNITY of a congregation above and beyond the "pressure appeals" of the institutions? This problem is being faced all over the nations. Some wise and godly elderships will follow the course of the first church we mentioned; other elderships, weaker and less spiritually minded, will follow the course of the second eldership. It may be possible that through the years of turbulence and discussion the congregations following the first course can remain united and faithfully working together. Congregations following the second course will almost inevitably divide and be rent asunder — by the ruthless, adamant, unyielding determination of unqualified elders to "rule or ruin", to compel church contributions to questionable things in spite of the conscience of those "for whose souls" they are to watch. There is food for long, long thought in this course!
— F. Y. T.