Bryan Vinson And The Akin Foundation
It is strange but true that certain brethren feel that they can write every mean and vile thing they wish about another, but when their own names are mentioned even once in print they feel that their personal honor has been gravely assaulted, and demand space to reply. Elsewhere in this Issue appears an article by Bryan Vinson in which he attempts to reply to an editorial of January 30th. Please read both the editorial and the reply. Although we think Brother Vinson had nothing to reply to, he insisted upon the privilege and it is extended. His page-long reply to a single sentence is typical. Brother Vinson thinks he and the Akin Foundation "came under our censure" in the editorial. He is mistaken. We simply mentioned a fact. It is strange how the dog that is hit is the one that barks.
No churches were criticized by us, neither was Vinson, or the Foundation. A fact was simply stated that many churches and preachers were being subsidized by the Akin Foundation. That was, and is, a fact. It is a fact too generally known to need proof. One might as well be called upon to prove the sun is shining on a clear day. We shall identify neither congregations nor preachers. Vinson's admission that the Foundation is contributing to certain ones is admission enough. By his admission he is guilty. Why should he call for proof for an admitted practice unless it is to divert attention from more serious matters?
We asked for a public financial accounting of the expenditure of Akin Foundation funds in the interest of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and such a request is neither gratuitous nor presumptuous. If all were as it should be, there would be no need for the Vinson attitude. When he affects the church of my Lord by his money pressures, applied through grants of money, he is obligated to furnish such a statement. He would not consider it effrontery to suggest such an accounting if everything were as Christ-like as he would make it appear.
Certainly the Foundation is a private affair to be administered any way Brother Vinson's board desires. (We refer to it as "his board" because we are familiar with the manner in which the present board was named and how and why, and could even write an article on that if necessary.) It is not the private nature of the Foundation to which we object: it is the unscriptural way in which it injects itself (through the use of its money) into the affairs of congregations, some in the towns of, and some far removed from the residence of, any board member. This injection has reached the point where certain elderships have been compelled to request Brother Vinson and his board to keep their hands off local affairs. No board member doubts for a moment that names and places could be furnished While they loudly preach congregational autonomy they show no respect for it whatever. If the Foundation presently supports only three congregations in Texas, it is a very late and very temporary thing, and represents only a change in locale of operation.
Incidentally, the wording of the Akin Fund charter specifically forbids the contribution of Foundation funds to any other recipient than to a church. This would exclude contributions of any of these funds directly to a preacher, to a paper to support its circulation on gratis basis, or to a college. Brother Vinson, is the reason you are so touchy about publishing a report of Akin Foundation expenditures that It would reveal a violation — or near violation — of this trust?
A good example of the type of trickery so commonly practiced is Brother Vinson's mention of a renowned brother who received support from the Foundation for "almost a decade" and thus did not object to its right to exist. That is true. Nobody objects to the Foundation's right to exist. The brother referred to by Brother Vinson is our beloved Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and what Vinson did not reveal in his reference was that Brother Wallace was so strong in his objection to the way the Akin Foundation funds were being used, that he repudiated the whole set-up and voluntarily refused to receive another cent from it, forfeiting in this act his very living. This attempt to divert attention from the issue falls flat.
In a lame attempt to justify the movement in general, and, incidentally, an admission of involvement in it, Brother Vinson asks for a definition of a sect. This one may not satisfy all, but it will do for the moment: A sect is a small portion of the body of Christ that teaches error, or that stresses a parcel of truth all out of proportion to other truths of scripture In such a way as to form a grotesque. The best way to prove that any group of brethren are not a sect is for them to quit acting like one.
Brother Vinson, no one is going to be moved by your avowal that neither you nor any member of your board advocates division so long as the funds you administer are used to bolster, either directly or indirectly, causes, papers, preachers, churches or colleges that practice and instigate division. What you are speaks so loudly folks can't hear what you say. Feigning humility and playing the martyr will not fool anyone.
We have no desire to misrepresent anybody or anything. Life is too short and the rewards of such practice too few to engage in it. We do, however, become sick sometimes of the crimes perpetrated in the name of religion and the feigned innocence of the offenders. Any word written on this page we trust will not be construed as being vindictive and unchristian in spirit. Many things could be said that will not be said. And we trust that a partial answer will not be confused by any with an inability to answer. Thrusts and innuendos are not even noticed. We have no intention of taking advantage of anyone, but Brother Vinson had best let this rest here for the more you stir it the more it stinks.