McGarvey On "Mission Work: A Word For Peace" -- No. 2
J. W. McGarvey was an outstanding scholar of his day or of any day. For that reason what he had to say on any subject was treated with great respect. This was true of the treatment of his writings about the missionary societies. His statements were studied carefully; but there were many who felt that his views were incorrect, hence they wrote articles of criticism and refutation. One of his articles was given the above title and was published in the Gospel Advocate, February 11, 1891. McGarvey favored the societies. Lipscomb, of the Advocate, was opposed to them on the very ground of their existence. He wrote several editorials pointing out the fallacies of McGarvey's position which would make very good reading today. However, the powers and practices of the societies today testify even more strongly against McGarvey's views than all the arguments presented at that time. Example speaks louder than word. McGarvey's article is being reprinted to let brethren see what his position was with respect to the society that they may compare it to the positions held with reference to other institutions and schemes being used today in lieu of the independent congregation's work.
He says, "I lay down the following propositions, which are so nearly self-evident that I think they will not be disputed." These supposed "axioms" were not nearly so basic and factual as he thought. Notice his first premise:
"1. Any number of brethren have the right, as individuals, to band themselves together and contribute of their means to send a preacher to any part of the world where preachers are needed."
He makes no attempt to prove the correctness of this premise by the scriptures, he considers it too "self-evident"; but search as long as you may, you will never find any hint of such a banding together of brethren in the scriptures. Brethren "banded themselves together" into churches or congregations; through these they contributed to preachers. (2 Cor. 11:8) They also banded themselves together in churches and contributed to the poor. (1 Cor. 16:1,2) But aside from the banding together known as a church there is none given in the scriptures for making these contributions. Those who do such things have stepped completely outside the realm of scriptural authority and are depending upon human wisdom and human authority.
This premise made by McGarvey is one that is overworked by brethren today in their advocacy of institutions and schemes for doing work which the church is commissioned to do in the New Testament. Individuals have the responsibility of preaching, teaching, and supporting the needy (Acts 8:4; Gal. 6:6; James 1:27) The church has responsibility in these works. (2 Cor. 8:1; Phil. 4:16; Eph. 4:12) But men today are advocating that brethren can band themselves together in something other than simple individual action and as congregations in supporting preachers, teachers of the Bible in schools, and the needy in charitable institutions. They have advocated that brethren combine their support for some of the mission fields apart from the funds of the local church contributions. They advocate the right of Christians to form an organization which is not a congregation to support and oversee teachers of the Bible. They advocate the right of Christians to form organizations other than congregations for the support of and oversight of charity cases. This is precisely the same argument, not just a parallel, made by McGarvey as the foundation for his justification of missionary societies. Will their arrangements lead to the same destitution of scriptural principles as did the society which was founded on the same human reasoning? Time will show. But that it is now time to re-examine the grounds of such endeavors certainly is evident. That an individual should exercise himself in supporting preachers, in teaching the Bible anywhere as in a school or factory, or relieving the needy is not questioned. But that any person or organization other than a church's elders should regulate and control him in any of these duties is questionable.
David Lipscomb dealt this argument such heavy blows that McGarvey felt it necessary to reply in defense of a principle he supposed was "self-evident." This reply is found in the Gospel Advocate, March 11, 1891. This is the first paragraph of his reply:
"I am sorry that my word for peace on the question of missions has not met with a more favorable response from the two papers in which it was first published, the Christian Standard, and the Gospel Advocate. I think, though, that the Advocate will think better of it when I shall have removed a misunderstanding under which it evidently labors. When I laid down the proposition that "any number of brethren have the right, as individuals, to band themselves together and contribute of their means to send preachers to any part of the world where preachers are needed"; I had no thought of intimating that this right could be exercised in violation of any obligation to the church or its elders. No right can exist that would justify a member of the church in neglecting to do his equal part in meeting all the expenses of the congregation, or in disregarding the rightful authority of its elders. The right which I claim is of course to be understood as subordinate to all the duties imposed on us as members of the congregation. I thought I would be so understood. Moreover, no man has a right, and no church has a right to send abroad unsound or unworthy preachers; and of course I did not mean any such right for an association of brethren. If I, in company with others, were to undertake such a work, the elders of my congregation would have the right, and they ought to exercise it, to remonstrate against the procedure as un-Christian."
I think it is now evident to all our brethren that the societies have violated this restriction made by McGarvey, which restriction he thought they would never violate. Those societies seek their contributions irrespective of the needs of the congregations to which the societies are connected.
Again in the use of this argument, our brethren who advocate present methods of missionary, education, and charity work, are following the path of the missionary society advocates. They insist that the church has its own charity work to do at home; but the cry of the charity home is, "Please do not forget us on each Fifth Sunday of 1953." The statement of one advocate of separate charity institutions was that, after contributions of a regular amount were made to the church, what he had to give beyond that amount was sent to several such "homes." That is a specious claim, but ponder it well. Who is to determine what portion of the individual's giving according to ability shall go into the church contribution, and what portion shall be used in such separate endeavors? Paul was writing to the members of the church at Corinth about its collection when he said, "Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come." (1 Cor. 16:2) How much does that leave the individual to give to his favorite charity? Surely, there are community and civic obligations which may require a portion of the Christian's prosperity. But his support of work which the scriptures teach that the church should do, should be given to the church collections rather than to some separate society or organization unauthorized by the scriptures.
Anyone who gives a moment's thought will realize that if some can be withheld from the church contribution to give to a cause that is liked, very soon that cause will be getting practically all of the funds if it has enough appeal, to the robbing of the church's treasury and the work it should be doing. Digressive churches do very little, or no, mission work now, they leave it to the society. Churches of Christ do very little local charity work, they give a pittance to the orphan homes. Very few churches train men practically to preach, they leave such work to the schools which are supported in the main by individuals. And now very few churches have direct contact with and direct support of preachers, away from their home congregation; they leave it to a few sponsoring churches to determine the spending of the funds. Surely, brethren, there is a parallel; surely there is a stopping place.
(To be continued)