"Parallel" And "Identical."
Brethren who are engaged in the promotion of institutions among us for the work of the church are constantly confusing the words "parallel" and "identical." If things considered are not identical, they declare that they are not parallel. An illustration of this is found in the GOSPEL DEFENDER of May, 1960. Bro. Lamar Plunket, writing under the title of SCARECROWS AND SMOKESCREENS, has the following paragraph:
"Parallel To The Missionary Society"
"This phrase was invented to prejudice minds. Those who used and still use it knew the missionary society split the church some years ago, and, as a result, would carry with it ugly connotations. There are many similarities between man and an ape. They have hands, feet hair, brains, walk upright, and both can be taught to drive a motorcycle, but they are not parallel. There is a vast difference between similarity and identity. About the only similarity between an orphan home and a missionary society is that both are made up of people. Most missionary societies dictate to the congregations, own church property, and demand funds. Orphan homes are dependent on congregations, own no church properties, and depend on the mercy of the brethren for funds. Moreover, the missionary society is encroaching on a work that belongs to the church — preaching the gospel. The church is its own missionary agency. It is obviously not its own child care agency. Most people will admit that it is right to help an orphan home individually, but all will deny that it is right to do the same for a missionary society. Are these parallel?"
In order to understand what this is all about, it is well that we get definitions of the terms "parallel" and
"identical." The following definitions are taken from Webster's New World Dictionary:
"Parallel: Having parallel parts or movements, as some machines tools, etc. Closely similar or corresponding, as in purpose, tendency, time, or essential parts." Page 1060.
The noun "parallel" is defined, among other things, as follows:
"Any person or thing essentially the same as, or closely similar or corresponding to, something else." Page 1060.
"Identical: The very same, exactly alike or equal." Page 720.
And the noun "identity" is defined as follows: "The condition or fact of being the same in
all qualities under consideration; sameness, oneness." Page 721.
From these definitions it is very evident that the words "identical" and "identity" refer to things that are
"the very same, or exactly alike." But the word "parallel" has to do with similarities in essential points. This word does not mean "exactly alike." There is a difference between the two words. In order for two things to be "parallel" they do not have to be "identical." But promotional brethren think if the things are not "identical", they are not "parallel."
Brother Plunket, in the paragraph quoted from his article, states that the term "missionary society" has
"ugly connotations" because the society "split the church some years ago." I wonder if he thinks the term "benevolent society" will not have "ugly connotations" because it is splitting the church now.
His effort to disprove there is a "parallel" between what was done then and what is being done now is directed toward a man and an ape. He says:
"There are many similarities between man and an ape. They have hands, feet, hair, brains, walk upright, and both can be taught to drive motorcycles, but they are not parallel."
This statement is ridiculous in the extreme. If "there are many similarities between man and an ape," then they are "parallel" for "parallels" have to do with "similarities" A parallel does not require that things be identical — exactly the same. Certainly man and ape are not "identicals." If they were, then both would be men or both would he apes. This is not true. But while they are not identical, they are parallel in certain essential features.
Brother Plunket gives a list of such features. They are parallel in that both of them "have hands, feet, hair, brains, walk upright, and both can be taught to drive a motorcycle." This does not make them identical, but it does make them parallel in these essential points. And all the twisting that any one may do will not change the points of similarity.
Furthermore, man and ape are "parallel" in that they are creatures in the animal kingdom — in this sense both are animals. I remember a sentence years ago in a text book that I studied. It was this: "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps." This does not mean that man is a beast. But the word "animal" is defined this way:
"Any living organism typically capable of moving about but not of making its own food by photosynthesis; distinguished from plant."
While a plant lives, it cannot move about by its own power, but it can make its own food by photosynthesis. Thus we have the difference between the "plant kingdom" and the "animal kingdom." Both man and ape belong to the "animal kingdom." In that sense they are parallel. A beast, a worm and a butterfly are not identical. A "beast" is not a "worm;" a "worm" is not a "butterfly;" a butterfly is not a "beast." But they all belong to the "animal kingdom." In this sense they are parallel. So a "man" is not an "ape" and an "ape" is not a "donkey." They are not identical. But they all belong to the "animal kingdom." In this sense they are parallel.
Likewise, a "missionary society" and a "benevolent society" are not identical. If they were identical — exactly the same — they would both be "missionary societies" or both "benevolent societies." But while they are not identical, they are parallel in that both of them are "human organizations" set up to do the work of the church. Not only are they parallel in that they are organizations, human in their origin, but also they are similar in many essential points. They are both under a board of directors, with their presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, and treasurers. Many other points of similarity could be given. The fact remains that they are "parallel." Since, as Bro. Plunket says, "There is a vast difference between similarity and identity," then there is a vast difference between parallel and identity, for parallels have to do with similarity.
We have this very enlightening statement made: "About the only similarity between an orphan home and a missionary society is that both are made up of people." But here he confuses the issue altogether. Just what does he mean by "orphan home"? If he means the place where children are kept, then nobody has ever claimed, as far as I know, that such a place is parallel with the missionary society. The thing that is parallel with the missionary society is not the place, building or shelter where children are cared for, but the "benevolent society" that provides the place of shelter for the needy. If by "home" he means the children who are cared for, then no one has claimed that such is parallel with the missionary society. But if he refers to the group of men who provide the home, then there is more similarity between that and the missionary society than the fact that both are composed of people. This group that provides the home is set up after the same fashion as the missionary society. They both are made up of people, the people in both cases compose a board of directors. Both of them have a president, a vice-president, a secretary, and a treasurer. These are parallels. And a benevolent society has no more right to provide benevolence for the churches than a missionary has to provide evangelism.
The claim that "most missionary societies dictate to the congregations, own church property, and demand funds" while the "orphan homes are dependent on congregations, own no church properties, and depend on the mercy of the brethren for their funds" carries forward the misrepresentation that confuses the mind of the reader. Again I ask, What does he mean by "orphan homes"? Does he mean the children own no property? Or does he mean the benevolent board owns no property? Just visit the grounds where the children are being kept, view the large farms that are being operated, behold the fine buildings that have been erected and ask the Superintendent, "Who owns this property?" Certainly, the children do not own it. But somebody does. Now, we would like to know who owns it. Since Bro. Plunket claims "the orphan homes" do not own property, then we have a right to ask who does own it? Furthermore, when the benevolent society has been operating as long as the missionary society, it may "dictate to congregations, and demand funds" to the same extent as the missionary society. The missionary board could make the same claim for their work that Bro. Plunket makes for the benevolent board — they could say they are "dependent on the mercy of the brethren for their funds." After all, they obtain such funds from churches and individuals, just as the benevolent board does, and have no power to force funds from anyone.
The old thread-bare claim that the "church is its own missionary society" but that "it is not its own child caring agency" is as ridiculous as ever. If the church "is not its own benevolent society", then God gave the church a work to do but provided no agency through which to do it. If a group of elders in a local congregation can arrange the details, provide the funds, and oversee the work of preaching the gospel to the lost, then it can also arrange the details, provide the funds, and oversee the work of benevolence that is the responsibility of the church. It is no more helpless as a benevolent agency than it is as an evangelistic agency.
He tells us that "most people will admit that it is right to help an orphan home individually, but all will deny that it is right to do the same for a missionary society." Then he concludes that they are not parallel. Here again he confuses "orphan home" with "benevolent society." Why does he not say "benevolent society" just as he says "missionary society?" There is no need to deny that we have such. There is proof in abundance that we do. But I know of many people who will deny that it is right to support individually a benevolent society set up to do the work of the church and dependent upon the treasury of the church for its funds. But is it true that "all will deny" that it is right to support a missionary society individually? This certainly is not true. Many promotional brethren are already engaged in the support of a missionary society individually. We have one already operating known as "The Gospel Press." When this was set up it was claimed that it would be on the same basis of the Gospel Advocate Co., the Firm Foundation Co., or the Gospel Guardian Co. It would be nothing more nor less than a publishing company, and it would not ask contribution from churches, but from individuals. I suppose it is still operated on this basis. I know they are still asking for contributions from individuals. But the "Gospel Press" is not parallel to the publishing companies mentioned. These publishing companies simply sell their services, in the form of books, printed materials and other things. But the "Gospel Press" does not sell service to anybody. It is simply a centralized agency to which contributions are made by Christians. This agency takes the money and buys services from those who do sell such. The Coronet Magazine, the Readers Digest and other publishers are selling the service. Gospel Press is not selling anything. It is doing exactly for these individuals what the missionary society is doing in the field of evangelism. The missionary society serves as a central agency to which churches contribute funds. The society then takes the funds and operates in the field of evangelism. The Gospel Press does not sell services. It is an agency between the contributors and the publishing houses that sell services. Individuals contribute their funds to the Gospel Press, and then this agency takes the funds and buys services from those who do sell, for the purpose of advertising the church. There is no need for promotional brethren to say they are against individual support of missionary societies as long as they continue to operate and support Gospel Press.