The Paper And The Program
Brethren continue to be plagued by the old dodge that there is no difference between the orphan home, the Herald of Truth, or the college, and the religious paper. In organization there may be no difference. But there can be, and is a vast difference between motive, practice and support of these organizations. I know of no one who is opposed to the existence of radio program, orphanage or college, when operated independent of the church and not as substitute for the churches in function. Those who in times past opposed the colleges operated by brethren did so on the basis of their engaging in religious work which the opponents thought to be the scriptural function of the church, and not on the basis that they thought it wrong for brethren to operate a school.
These brethren who want their organizations to do the work of the churches and be supported by the churches try to justify these things by the fact that brethren who oppose their practices do so in papers which are published by organizations of brethren. But the organization is not the thing in question; instead, it is the position which the organization holds in relationship to the churches of Christ, its motive for existence and the nature of its function. Even if it be granted for argument's sake that the organization for publication of a paper is unrighteous, it certainly is no justification of the existence of other similar unrighteous organizations. Hence they have not justified their position, but have merely said that we are all violating the will of God together.
This may appear to be a justification of the organization, and only a criticism of its methods. This is not true, however. The missionary society exists only for the purpose of functioning in the realm of and in substitution for the churches. It would not exist but for this purpose, hence its very existence is unrighteous.
Herald of Truth was conceived and dedicated to the proposition that it would serve to activate the churches in radio and television preaching. Its purpose for existing is to function in the realm of and in substitution for church function. Hence, with such a purpose for existence its very existence is unrighteous. This no more condemns radio and television preaching than it condemns evangelism as the missionary society is criticized.
Most of the so-called orphan homes and similar organizations which brethren have established have dedicated themselves to the proposition that they are doing the churches' work of benevolence, at least that the churches are doing their work through them. The very existence of an organization, with such a motive and dependent upon such motive for its existence, is unrighteous. This by no means denies the right and duty of the church in benevolence. Neither does it deny the right of individuals to carry out their individual duties in benevolence by formation of organizations for its execution.
The schools and colleges, at least the majority of them, were not begun with such motive. They have departed from their first motives and practices. Now, nearly every one of them holds to the theory that they are in existence for the purpose of receiving support from churches because they are doing the churches' work. If their existence depends upon this relationship, then they should not exist. If they do it but do not depend upon it, they should either cease their practice or cease to exist.
Does the religious paper fall in the same category? It does if its very existence is to function for the churches, substitute for the churches in this phase of work, or be supported by the churches. If it functions merely as a printing and publishing house, giving space to those who are fulfilling individual obligations of teaching, providing materials which either individuals or churches may purchase, it is neither functioning for, nor as a substitute for, the churches. It falls in the same category as any private, honorable business. It is easy for an organization which publishes a paper, provides education, or furnishes care for the needy to envision itself as the savior and benefactor of the church. Organizations in the three fields have done this. But this does not have to be.
E. R. Harper ranted and raved for a long time in his effort to show that the paper, had an organization as bad or worse, than that of the Herald of Truth. The orphan home addicts have tried to make much of the fact that the paper was published by a "corporation." They even attempted to prove that their organization was right because some churches had formed corporations for the holding of property! This was done as a bit of sophistry in reply to the proof that they did have a separate organization; the proof being their corporate charter. Their efforts are in vain unless they can show that the organization functions as an adjunct to or in substitution for the church.
The fact that there is a state chartered corporate body does not keep other systems from being organizations. There is a notion going around now that for the papers to be acceptable they must be owned and published by an individual. My gasoline is bought from a station which is owned and managed by an individual, yet he hires other people to work for him hence the station becomes an organization. The same is true of those papers which are owned and managed by an individual. He does not do all the writing, nor all the work involved in its publication. They just happen to be organizations without corporate charter from the state.
No paper has the right to speak for the church. No organization has that right. No individual has that right. Those who control its publication may determine what goes into the paper, just as they determine what is spoken. By this personal prerogative it may be devoted to religious matters and to things which have to do with the church just as they determine what goes into their conversation. The only difference being that one is oral the other is written.
The church as God designed it is not dependent upon any organization; neither is it obligated to any organization; publishing house, missionary society, college, orphan home, Herald of Truth, or otherwise. And no organization has the right to expect such a relationship with the church.
Brethren have worked together in the work of the Lord ever since the New Testament example of Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Timothy, Silas, and Luke. Some of these were co-laborers in writing some of the New Testament letters. The man is unable to read his New Testament with any degree of understanding who will oppose brethren working together in preaching or writing. But this is a far cry from deciding that this gives them the prerogative to speak as an organization for the church or to substitute for the church in any of its own work. The paper which does this is wrong; some papers and their publishers do not take this position, neither in theory nor practice. The Herald of Truth Program proposes to do just that, and it does it. Herein lies the difference.
— 1932 S. Weller, Springfield, Mo.