Reasons (?) Why Some Brethren Object To The Missionary Society
As the years go by and the progress of the present controversy is noted, one becomes amazed with some of the flimsy reasons some brethren offer for objecting to the Missionary Society. It has become obvious that that group of brethren which attempts to hold on to human institutions through which to do part of the work assigned to the church, has no solid basis on which to object to a human institution called a Missionary Society through which the church might discharge its work in evangelism. It also has been made manifest that many of these brethren are so wedded to their human benevolent organizations and church-supported educational organizations that the thought of giving them up has never entered their minds. These brethren have put themselves in the unenviable position of trying to file strenuous objections to the Missionary Society, while endorsing the same type organizations in benevolence. The obviousness with which their arguments against the Missionary Society could be applied to the institutions which they would defend and preserve has made these brethren uncomfortable no end. Lest eventually they be forced to apply the same arguments to their own institutions, and lest when they do so, they he overwhelmed with their own argumentation, these brethren have of late been toning down their objections to the Missionary Society.
In fact, it has been apparent for some time that some brethren have no valid objection at all to the MS. Within the past five or six decades, during which gospel preachers hardly have concluded a single series of meetings without a sermon on why we do not use mechanical instrumental music in worship, we have neglected to teach sufficiently on the adequacy of the Lord's church, and on why we do not employ human institutions to do the work of the church. Therefore, a generation has arisen that really does not know why a MS is wrong. They have been taught they must object to it, but just why they must object they have not been adequately. So these brethren often give very absurd reasons as to why they object to the MS.
Several brethren with whom I have talked, as I tried to show the illogic with which they defend one human institution to do one work of the church, and oppose another human institution to do another work of the church, have answered "Well, you are assuming that I think it (i.e. the Missionary Society) is wrong." it has surprised me to learn in spite of all the preaching that has been done on what is wrong with mechanical instrumental music in worship, there are still so many brethren who could not state what is wrong with it. With so little preaching having been done on what is wrong with the MS, I suppose we should not be astonished to find that many actually do not know what is wrong with it. If we were now going through a tumultuous period of conflict over the MS, I am positive that we have many brethren who would go along with the crowd (as was done in the split before), and therefore would endorse the MS. There is no doubt that many would do so. I wonder: Would those that would go along with the crowd (as was done in the split before), and therefore would endorse the MS. There is no doubt that many would do so. I wonder: Would those that would endorse the MS more likely be among those that are now called "Antis," or would they more likely be among those that endorse every other kind of organization man can conceive to supplement the all-sufficient church? Need I give an answer?
There have been several, as I before said, who do not object at all to the MS. Many more have endorsed it "in principle." I am sure that other brethren could add to the list of known brethren who have stated they have no real objection to the MS. Then there are many others, who, though they would not openly state they think the MS is all right, by the statement of the reasons (?) for their objection to the MS, indicate they actually have no solid objection to it. There are many who object to the MS simply because they have become prejudiced against it. They could not, to save their life, file a valid objection to the MS. And if they cannot, we should not be greatly surprised to learn that they cannot file a valid objection to benevolent societies. Below are some of the reasons (?) brethren have given as to why they oppose the MS.
(1) 'Old Brother David Lipscomb opposed it." A few months back two Texas preachers were discussing the present issues. In an effort to show what is wrong with benevolent organizations, the brother who opposed such organizations asked the brother who endorsed them to explain why he objected to the MS. The opposing brother then attended to show that the same objections could be made against the benevolent organizations. But instead of stating Biblical reasons why the MS is wrong, the institutional brother simply said "Well, I don't know anything wrong with it (i.e. the MS), except old brother David Lipscomb didn't like it." Now would it come as a surprise to you to learn that this brother who could give only this reason (?) for opposing the MS would not oppose benevolent societies? Since 'old brother David Lipscomb" is now dead and not here to oppose benevolent organizations, therefore, our brother endorses them. I wonder if brother ________ of Houston. Texas would have opposed the MS if perchance "old brother David Lipscomb" had endorsed the MS. Is this gospel preacher going to admit that his convictions are formed by what "old brother David Lipscomb" either opposed or defended?
(2) "It's benevolent work. of course!" Two other Texas preachers were discussing present issues. The question "Well then, what is wrong with the MS?" was asked of the institutional brother. Without a moment of hesitation, he very confidently replied. "Why. it's benevolent work of course! " The MS was formed in 1849 'to promote the spread of the gospel in destitute places of our own and foreign lands." its constitution says. The National Benevolent Association was not formed until 1887, And the 'United Christian Missionary Society, the organization in which these two societies were amalgamated was not formed until 1919. So far as I know, for nearly 70 years the MS operated without engaging in benevolent work. Would our preaching brother have endorsed the MS before it began to participate in benevolent work? His objection implies he would not have done so. His statement seems to imply that the MS only became wrong when it began to engage in benevolent work. The MS has as much right to expand its field of work so as to include the benevolent work of the church as it does to engage in evangelistic work in behalf of the churches. Actually it has no right to do either.
(3) "It costs too much." Other brethren have undertaken to attack the MS on the basis that costs too much. This only would make it inexpedient — if no other objection could be made against it. These brethren assert that it costs too much to "oil the organizational machinery" of the MS. However, a pragmatic argument of this type was one of the main arguments made in defense of the MS. The society advocates maintained it was cheaper to preach through the society than it was through local churches. They said "Certainly one Society is more efficient than ten; and that it is nearly ten times less expensive no one will deny." (Lard's Quarterly, Vol. 2, pg. 443).
Now if these brethren object to the MS on the basis that it costs too much "to oil the organizational machinery," suppose they tell us how much it costs "to oil the organizational machinery" of some of the benevolent organizations. At least the MS is open and above board enough to tell us just how much oiling the machinery costs. The Benevolent institutions do not care to break their expenditures down into exact percentages for some reason. In the October, 1956 bulletin of the UCMS, every dollar spent by the society is divided into percentages. 4.13% was listed for Administrative costs. Is this the percentage of operational cost that makes the MS wrong? If so, suppose the benevolent societies among us tell us what their operational costs are. In the 38th Annual Report (for 1957-58), the UCMS, Administrative costs are listed as having been lowered to 1.68%. If Administrative costs of 4.13% makes the MS wrong, does lowering Administrative costs to 1.68% then make the MS right? Some brethren's argumentation would so imply.
I repeat: Will "our" benevolent institutions tell us what their Administrative costs are? Perhaps they too will be wrong because they cost too much. Few if any of them can compete with the MS in operational efficiency. The man that tries to show what is wrong with the MS on the basis of cost alone is playing right into the hand of the defenders of the society. That it is cheaper is one of their main arguments in its defense.
(4) "Its abuses." A brother who lives and preaches in Kansas City told me repeatedly in a taped discussion conducted at the Vivien Road meeting house that the one and only thing wrong with the MS is "its abuses." He said that the MS, as originally formed, before it ac-(mired its "abuses" would be all right. Of course, he did not tell us just what year it had acquired sufficient abuses to make it wrong. He was very careful to state that he would not endorse the UCMS because of these objectionable "abuses," but the "right kind" of a MS he said he would endorse. Of course, no one would expect a brother who thinks like this to have any scriptural objection to a benevolent society, or to congregationally supported colleges. However, I should state that the other institutional brethren in Kansas City counted this brother a liability to their cause. Yet it appeared to me that this brother was more consistent than the others. He was willing, as also is J. D. Thomas of Abilene Christian College (author of We Be Brethren,) to accept the logical concomitants of his argument. In fact, there are now many other brethren (some debating brethren too) who believe churches may support colleges, but who will not now affirm their practice. They are not quite ready for this part of their "package deal" to be discussed openly. Others certainly will be pressed in due time into these same conclusions, though now they appear to be so extreme to them.
Our Kansas City brother never could state just what these "abuses" of the MS were in such a way as to condemn the MS, yet exonerate the benevolent institutions. Neither can any other man. There must be some objectionable features characteristic of the MS and that are not and cannot also be characteristic of the benevolent societies, else they both are either right or wrong. "They stand or fall together. Let someone itemize the "abuses" of the MS that make it wrong, if they think they can do so without indicting the benevolent societies with the same abuses.
(5) It "violates (a) and contradict (s) the principle of the autonomy of the local church." (J. D. Thomas, We Be Brethren, pg. 137). Brother Thomas further says "It is admitted by all of us that the Missionary Society is guilty here, and THIS IS REALLY THE ONE AND ONLY THING THAT IS WRONG WITH IT — however this is sufficient to make it sinful and wrong" (Pg. 137). Now brother Thomas, the defenders of the MS do not admit its guilt at this point, just as the defenders of the benevolent organizations do not admit their guilt on the same point. It would be interesting for someone to write up a list of charges against the MS in an effort to show wherein it violates the autonomy of the churches in such a way that the same charges cannot be made against the benevolent societies. In both the MS and the Benevolent Organizations, the planning, directing, overseeing, financing of the work are placed in the hands of the overseeing board, and taken out of the hands of the elders of the congregation. It is certainly true that this is a violation of congregational autonomy. But this violation is as characteristic of the benevolent organizations as it is of the MS.
Brother Thomas said the violation of autonomy is the one only thing wrong with" the MS. That simply means if this "abuse" were eliminated from the operation of the MS, there the MS would have one more ardent defender in the person of J. D. Thomas. ACC Professor. Too, if one will study the charges made by brother Thomas against the MS in his effort to prove it violates congregational autonomy, he will find that every charge either (1) misrepresents the MS: or (2) is equally applicable to the benevolent institutions. It is obvious that brother Thomas would have no objection to the evangelistic work assigned to the church being turned over to the MS, if the MS were stripped of this one abuse (i.e. violation of autonomy). Now what reason do we have to expect a man with these convictions to have any objection to benevolent organizations or centralized works of any form?
(6) Its "delegate set-up." Brother Tom Warren thinks he has found a valid basis on which to object to the MS, without objecting to the institution "as such." He says the delegate feature of the organization is what makes it wrong. (See page 119 of Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes by Thomas B. Warren). He reasons that if two churches sent their delegates with instruction to vote "Yes" on some proposal, and one church sent its delegate to vote "No" on the same proposal, a "Yes" decision would be bound on the church which voted "No." This is the one and only thing wrong with the MS according to brother Warren. But brother Warren obviously forgets that in the benevolent organizations churches are bound (if they operate at all through the benevolent organization) by decisions in which they had no voice at all! At least the MS gave the churches some say in what was done. According to brother Warren, it violates congregational autonomy for churches to have only one vote, but it does not violate congregational autonomy if churches have no vote at all! And this rare gem of logic comes from the man whom Roy Deaver called "the greatest 'thinking machine' I have ever known." Be it remembered that the churches had the same right to participate or not to participate in the MS work as they have to participate or not to participate in the benevolent society work.
In reality brother Warren has no objection to a church doing its evangelistic or benevolent work through a board. He just objects to the "delegate feature" of the MS. Through this delegate feature a church can be bound by a decision with which it did not agree. And he says this is the only thing one can find wrong with the MS. Though brother Warren does not expressly say so, he obviously would agree that the work of the church could be done through the MS, if action were only taken upon unanimously agreed upon proposals. In this way, every church would get its wish. No church would be bound by a decision with which it was not in exact agreement. Brother Warren misses the most important point of what is wrong with the MS.
What Is Wrong With The Ms
Brother Warren challenges any of us to point out what is wrong with MS, without making mention of the delegate feature. He says:
"Here's the job I would like for some of these objectors to try their hand on; list the component parts of the Missionary Society as it was when it started — `without the abuses which now characterize it.' Then let them point out the component part which made the Society unscriptural. And bear in mind that it must not be this delegate-legislative matter which I have already spoken. They cry: 'That was just an abuse.' It will be interesting to see them try that, although I doubt that I will ever have the pleasure of seeing any of them try it." (Lectures, pg, 119).
Now brother Warren should not be such a pessimist. He might yet live to see someone attempt what he thinks is impossible. In fact, if brother Warren would just read some of the criticisms made of the society during the last 50 years, he would see not only where some accepted his challenge, but successfully did what he said is impossible.
It is amazing that so many different institutional brethren all know "the one and only thing wrong with" the MS. Yet they do not mention the same thing.
What is wrong with the MS? The same thing is wrong with the MS that is wrong with instrumental music, infant membership, sprinkling, sponsoring church set-ups, benevolent boards, etc. They all exist without divine authority! If one wants to say 'this is the one and only thing wrong with the MS," he should say "There is no Bible authority for it," instead of saying "it costs too much," "Its delegate feature," "Its abuses," etc. Why chop off the limbs of a noxious tree, when one can dig at the tap root? To say the delegate feature is the only thing wrong with the MS makes about as much sense as to say the water bowl is the only thing wrong with sprinkling, or that the piano bench is the only thing wrong with mechanical instrumental music.
The institutional brethren are afraid to say the MS is sinful because it exists without divine authority because they know some 'narrow-minded brother" somewhere will then ask for the divine authority for the benevolent organizations he defends. Being unable to present scriptural authority for his benevolent organizations, he feels it would be safer for him to make some lesser charge against the MS, of which charges he feels more capable of exonerating the darlings of his eye, his benevolent organizations.