Down The Road To Papacy
The term "voluntary" has often been the defense of the sponsoring church arrangements and centralized programs. It has been argued that independence of churches has not been affected in such arrangements as that of the Herald of Truth since participation in the program is on an entirely voluntary basis. As brother E. R. Harper has eloquently put it, "When churches contribute to Herald of Truth they do not lose their autonomy, they only exercise it."
It is a strange theory indeed that whatever churches voluntary surrender they have not actually given up. Such thinking would justify the surrender of all of a churches resources and functions to the elders of another church provided such centralization was done on a voluntary basis. In any case, however, such surrender would contradict the Scriptures in Acts 14:23 and 1 Pet. 5:2. If one church in an area surrenders to the oversight of the elders of another church then all the churches in that area could do so. And if all in a given area could do so, then all churches everywhere could do so. The fact is that brethren in some places are already further down that road toward a universal bishopric than you may have known.
The boldest such centralization of authority to come to our attention lately is reported in The Capitol Letter, "Published Weekly by the Church of Christ, Sixteenth and Decatur Streets, Northwest, Washington, D. C." In the number of that bulletin from October 11, 1961, in the column "The Elders Speak" there is the following report by William H. Franklin:
"After a year of comprehensive study, we look now to another new congregation, in McLean, Virginia. Brother Wayne Poucher will be the minister."
In a later paragraph in the same column:
"Plans have been under way several months. Reports have been made to the elders during the past year. The most recent one included a request that they assume the oversight of this new work until officers are appointed by the new congregation.
They have agreed to do this — another example of the devoted Christian brethren of Sixteenth Street looking always to the fields that are white already to harvest."
The following week in the bulletin of October 18, 1961, in the column "The Elders Speak," by L. Warrick McFee there was the following report on the new work at McLean:
".... Over fifty attended their first worship service, following first session of Bible classes--two for adults and two for children, and contributions for the day totaled $208.00. We rejoice with them.
"At a business meeting following the worship services the congregation adopted a formal request that the elders of Sixteenth Street oversee the new work in general, until the new congregation can choose elders of their own. Our elders had previously agreed to such an arrangement providing the new congregation itself should so wish."
Now who will object to this arrangement of having one group of elders oversee two congregations? Let the "sponsoring church" defenders and those who defend such "assumption of oversight" as characterizes Herald of Truth remember that this new congregation made a "formal request that the elders of Sixteenth Street oversee the new work in general...." According to the reasoning of bro. Harper and others, the church at McLean did not surrender their autonomy, they only exercised it. Will such brethren object to such arrangement? On what grounds could they object if every church in the Washington, D. C. area should ask the same elders to oversee their work in general.
Churches all over the country have long considered Herald of Truth to be partly their own work while it was being directly supervised by the elders at Fifth and Highland in Abilene. These brethren in Virginia simply turned the work "in general" over to these elders of another congregation. Where will it stop? How about a universal bishopric?