Is Peace Possible?
Read carefully the article from the able pen of Brother Cecil B. Douthitt which appears on the front page of this issue concerning the "box-in-the-vestibule," about which we have had some things to say lately. Next week Brother Douthitt will have another article "A Successful Unity Meeting" which, along with this one, will be deserving of most serious and prayerful study. We urge you to read both articles with the most earnest attention. Brother Douthitt in vivid and persuasive phraseology shows the extremes and absurd chaos that conceivably might come from the "box-in-the-vestibule" method of trying to solve a grievous problem in the local congregation. And nobody doubts for a moment that the preposterous picture he presents COULD happen — and very likely WOULD happen — if brethren were not acting in good faith!
We proposed the "box-in-the-vestibule" idea only as one possibility for sincere and honest brethren to try to live and work and worship together in some degree of harmony. Admittedly, it is not ideal. Supporters of Herald of Truth, homes for unwed mothers, "church-related" colleges, and various other benevolent and missionary organizations had MUCH RATHER see them all lumped together into the budget of the congregation, and contributions meted out to each from church funds. Brethren who honestly and conscientiously oppose church contributions to these institutions had MUCH RATHER remove all reference to them, or all consideration of them completely from any place in the thought of life of the congregation. And to these brethren the "box-in-the-vestibule" would be something they had MUCH RATHER not have! It would be a constant embarrassment to them. And unless brethren on both sides sincerely and tally act in good faith, this idea would be doomed to failure from the very first. The one group would no doubt follow the picture outlined by Brother Douthitt in the front-page article, with-hold a part of their normal and usual church contribution, insist on more and more and more "boxes" for various projects, and generally make the plan unworkable. And brethren opposing them would be irritated and exasperated by the continuing presence of "the box," and would probably bring pressured on the elders to throw the thing out and "let the church be the church!"
But when brethren who love one another, and who love the Lord, are determined to make a serious effort to maintain peace and harmony within the congregation, we see no reason why the "box-in-the-vestibule" would not work. Conceding freely and with full agreement that the plan is NOT IDEAL, we still ask, is it unscriptural? Does it violate any teaching of Christ or the apostles? Obviously, it COULD be so administered to violate such teaching. If constant announcements were made concerning it. pressures brought to bear on members to put their contributions in the box, normal church contributions diminished in order to "feed the box" — all these, of course, would be a misuse of the idea, and would show a lack of good faith.
But the "box" as we envisaged it, would simply be ONE BOX (not a dozen or so) into which any interested person might drop a contribution for whatever project or organization or institution he wanted to help. It might be some orphan home, the Herald of Truth, the American Red Cross, some "church related" college, or any one of a dozen or a hundred other "good works." His contribution would be in an envelope with a clear indication as to which or what institution he wanted it sent to. All these funds should be handled by somebody other than the elders, and who is neither designated by nor answerable to the elders in the handling of these monies. In other word(s), a clear and positive distinction should be made between these funds and the funds of the church, and everything possible should be done to prevent anybody's confusing the matter. The "box" monies are NOT church contributions, and it should be clearly understood that they are not.
Would this plan work? We do not know. We simply proposed it as a possibility. If it is unscriptural, it should be dismissed completely and without a moment's hesitation. That it has drawbacks and bad features we fully understand. It is NOT what any of us would prefer. But, as of now, we do believe it is worth trying. At least, let it be put into effect while brethren devote themselves to a careful and complete STUDY of the word of God on these matters. And, once we all come to an understanding of exactly what God's will is, then, surely, there will be a willingness on the part of all to follow it.
Has anybody else some other constructive suggestion by which honest brethren who are now widely divided could meet and worship and work together — without any violation of anybody's conscience?
God's word is understandable; it is authoritative. What we want is some workable plan by which some degree of unity and harmony may be maintained while brethren study the Scriptures to the point where they come to a consensus as to the will of the Lord in the matter.
— F. Y. T.