Organization - And Division
Last week we made a few comments on this page about Brother Ed Harrell's newly published book, "Quest For A Christian America." In reading the book we were intrigued by one of the foot-notes (of which Ed's book has more than a Tennessee mountaineer's dog has fleas.) This particular foot-note (p. 171) contains a quotation from W. E. Garrison's "Religion Follows The Frontier" to the effect that, "The weakness of the Disciples in organization became their strength in maintaining unity in this crisis, for they had no court or convention empowered to put any church or individual out of the general fellowship."
Brother Harrell takes exception to Garrison's comment, and points to the obvious fact that a major schism in the group did occur, in spite of the lack of any centralized organizational structure. We think both points of view are valid to a degree. A strong organizational structure may at times prevent schism when the dissenting element can be coerced into compliance; and the same organization may precipitate division if the dissident ones refuse to bow to the authority and polarize sentiment against it. Whether division occurs or not will depend upon the strength of the organization, the attitude of all parties involved to it, and the depth of conviction in the dissatisfied element. Certainly, the monolithic structure of Catholicism has generally been able to hold that diverse and restless body together. But there have been notable exceptions, as witness the split between Orthodox and Roman churches, the Protestant rebellion against Rome, the emergence of the Old Catholics, etc.
In our own day and among our own people we have witnessed a strange and unexpected phenomenon this last score of years --- a great body of people without centralized organization in form trying to develop ways to act as if it were organized in function. The curious and anomalous thing about this is that the very brethren who are most ardent in promoting the "sponsoring church cooperatives" are apparently completely oblivious to the nature and implications of their projects. Logically, we should think they would be in better position than any others to recognize the dangers inherent in their promotions. But not so.
This week we carry articles from two brethren in Oregon (E. L. Flannery of Eugene and Jerry F. Basset of Cottage Grove) which give pertinence to what we are saying. There is a slightly hopeful sign in Flannery's quotation from Burton Coffman, but we opine the promoting brethren will hardly be slowed at all by his misgivings as to the value of the promotions. And, of course, they have no doubts of any kind as to their scripturalness. In fact, it has apparently never entered their minds even to wonder whether there is any scriptural principle they might be violating. Coffman, of course, shares their mental vacuum on this point.
Is the absence of a strong centralized organization any element of strength in avoiding division? Well, among the Churches of Christ this last twenty years we have not had any centralized organization in theory, but we have had in fact, It is a rather unwieldly and amorphous establishment, in which there is constant vying for dominance, but which (obviously for political reasons, for on basic convictions they are hopelessly divided) finds a common ground of unity in fierce antagonism to that considerable number of brethren who oppose all ecclesiastical or even quasi-ecclesiastical organizations greater than a local congregation. To be specific: there are thousands of brethren who loyally support "the orphan homes" but who believe the Herald of Truth is a wicked and divisive thing and ought to be ended; there is an impassible gulf between the Gospel Advocate brethren who contend that any orphan home (or other such enterprise) under an eldership is an unscriptural and perverted arrangement and the Firm Foundation brethren who believe any orphan home under a Board of Directors (unless all are elders of the same congregation) is the same as a "missionary society;" Batsell Baxter and most of his college cohorts are convinced that the churches ought to make regular contributions to the secular colleges, and don't hesitate to say so, but a vast number of the pro-Herald of Truth, pro-orphan home and pro-college advocates have vowed eternal and deathless opposition to this idea.
Yet, the whole ungainly hodge-podge collection can work itself into a frenzy of united hatred for any sincere brother who happens to agree with all three dissident positions: (1) the Herald of Truth is wrong, (2) brotherhood orphan homes either (a) under a Board of Directors or (b) under a local eldership are wrong; and (c) church contributions to secular schools are wrong! It is apparently acceptable for a man to take any two of these positions (it makes no difference which two) so long as he does not embrace all three. But if he takes all three, he is ready for the "quarantine".
Once again, we commend Ed Harrell's book. We think you will enjoy it (even though many of you may find it heavy reading). You will be amazed as he develops the story of "developing denominationalism" of a century ago
and you see it being repeated before your very eyes in the current controversy.
F. Y. T.