That "Majority Rule" Question Again
Elsewhere in this issue we carry an article by brother Connie W. Adams relating the sad story of "The Spring Creek Trial." This sort of thing is not new to the churches of Christ. It happened again and again around the turn of the century, when the digressive brethren all over the nation were forcibly taking over the buildings and properties of those who objected to their Missionary Societies and instrumental music. The plea of "majority rule" was made over and over again in the courts of the land — and usually with the court giving the property to those who could muster the most votes. Conservative brethren developed such a deep-seated antipathy to the very words "majority rule" that for fifty years hardly a whisper could be heard in defense of such.
But it is a revealing commentary on the uneasy and timorous confidence our liberal brethren feel in their position that they are now willing to resort to this discredited and malodorous device to win their cases in court. The Spring Creek travesty is not the first (nor will it be the last!) time brethren let prejudice and "expediency" cause them to accept and employ that which has been anathema among faithful Christians for so many years. We have personal knowledge of the same appeal being made in the Bakersfield, California, trial a few years ago and in the Tahlequah, Oklahoma, trial this spring. We may well anticipate similar appeals being made in the future when our liberal brethren realize that they have no other way by which to defend their case.
In this connection it is most interesting to call to memory the suggestion made by brother A. C. Pullias a couple of years ago (and carrying Gospel Advocate sanction and endorsement) to the effect that churches all over the land ought to revise and modify the "restrictive clause" that is carried in most deeds so as to exempt the orphan homes and other such benevolent organizations from the "missionary societies" prohibition. While brother Pullias has never been a practicing attorney, he does have enough background in the law to realize that liberal brethren would be in a highly exposed position if a court test were ever ordered on the question of whether or not the presently-supported benevolent institutions come within the scope of the prohibited organizations contemplated in the restrictive clauses.
It would not be too difficult to establish that the brethren who inserted the restrictive clauses in their deeds did NOT mean to exempt the orphan homes — for the very simple reason that no such homes were in question at the time most of the clauses were inserted in the deeds. These institutions came into existence later and were gradually promoted as "church" obligations with little or no thought being given as to their status in view of the restrictive clauses. We think it might be a very useful thing the next time one of these unfortunate cases comes to court for the whole trial to center around that point; and with appeals being made right on to the Supreme Court, so that the point might have a thorough testing. And if it can be established that the restrictive clause does not "restrict" benevolent societies, but only prohibits the support of evangelistic societies, then the uselessness of such clauses will have been pretty well demonstrated. In fact, we have long felt that for all practical purposes the "majority rule" criterion is the usual court standard for adjudicating church trials.
There is another aspect to these court trials, however, which we believe brethren ought to consider — the spirit of hatred and bitterness which they so often engender. If faithful Christians can remember always that they are "children of God," and can conduct themselves with dignity, humility and patience, they may lose many a church building (as they did at Spring Creek) but yet win the respect and sympathetic interest of the community — as apparently happened also in that Spring Creek affair. If that can be accomplished, such a victory in the community is worth infinitely more than any building of wood or stone could ever be worth!
Let brethren who find themselves involved in one of these situations keep always in the forefront of their thinking that they desire the building only as a means to an end — the service of God. And if they win the building at the cost of the respect and good-will of the community, they have paid too high a price. Their influence in the area will have permanently damaged if they end the case in possession of the building — and bereft of respect from the people of the town. By the same token, these church trials, often sordid and distressing as they are, afford a real opportunity for faithful men to set forth the simple New Testament teaching and contrast it with the "majority rule" contention of men who have forsaken the faith. They afford an opportunity to show the community the difference between men who are bent on serving God and men who are bent only on winning a victory — by whatever trick, stratagem, or device they may contrive.
From all we can hear of the affair the faithful brethren at Spring Creek won the real decision there — the favor of God and the favor of the community. We congratulate them.