Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
October 27, 1966

"Brotherhood News"???

Jack Gibbert

In the June issue of "Carolina Christian" (CC) it was noted that "A group of Christians in Japan is planning to build a church building by collecting cancelled postage stamps and selling them to collectors."

In the September issue of the same magazine we note the following, "An explanatory note. In this column in June we carried a report of a church planning to raise money to build a church building by selling old stamps. To this item we have had a good degree of protest because it seems that some understood that we were endorsing and encouraging a church raising money by unscriptural means. But it should be understood by all that neither the composer of this column nor the editor of the Carolina Christian either approves or disapproves of every action that is involved in news items. It is our aim and purpose to pass on to our readers "Brotherhood news", and not pass judgment on the scripturalness of the news itself. Whether right or wrong, the action in the news item under question happened in the brotherhood, it was interesting news, it was reported as news... and that is all."

It is interesting to note that the CC has never left any doubt as to their convictions in articles or news items when any faithful churches or brethren are mentioned, i.e., Dec. 1964, page 4, "The work in Orangeburg was seriously injured some time back by 'anti' influence." Oct, 1964, page 12 finds a congregation not wanting to be confused with "another here which does not believe that the church can support orphans homes nor participate in congregational cooperation in preaching the gospel". Sept. 1964, page 3, "The church here has great potential. The 'anti' element is now completely gone". And on and on goes this type of thing, leaving no doubt in the mind of the reader that the editors and writers are in no way in sympathy with faithful brethren who oppose the modern church splitting societies.

But, here is a ray of hope for the church in the Carolinas. (1) because there was "a good degree of protest" from brethren who I didn't know still protested anything; (2) because the columnist showed in print the obvious "spineless" condition of the CC by admitting they print items under "Brotherhood news" that they do not necessarily approve of. This might snap some people out of the spiritual sleep they have committed themselves to. The CC desires to have subscriptions sent to "non-members" as a means of converting them. If a "non-member" reads this "Brotherhood News" and sees all the schemes, projects, and social gospeling announced in it they are (like me) going to get the idea that the CC endorses this sort of rubbish. Now, I wouldn't want "sinners" to get the impression I endorsed something I really didn't, I would want them to read news items I endorsed, and if I had an item that I opposed I would be sure to insert a paragraph exhorting the "erring" brethren to mend their ways before it is everlastingly too late.

This brother has left us in the dark regarding his position on this matter. As he doesn't want to "pass judgment" I must assume that he feels it is an "unsettled matter" or falls under "expediency". If it is scriptural or unscriptural then they have "a word that judges them" and our brother need not judge. On behalf of the brethren who protested this action I would like to offer my services to the CC to write an article which would indeed "judge" the scripturalness of such actions. I have God's word to do the judging for me and I won't hesitate to say that I am sure that such action is not in keeping with the teaching of the Lord. If the pages of the CC are open to items that the editor does not necessarily agree with then surely in view of recent "protests" he will permit a full airing of the truth.

I might suggest that my "non-judging" brother write an article explaining just what his convictions are on this matter and if the CC won't print it I feel sure the Guardian would be interested in it. But "Caution" my brother, if your convictions are not in harmony with the Bible you will find yourself swamped with mail and your article answered in the same magazine because it "truly" will print articles that the editor doesn't agree with. The difference is that the "Guardian" will permit those who disagree with a position, to answer it.

-107 Scott Drive Myrtle Beach, S. C.