"Is The Herald Of Truth A Missionary Society?"
An article bearing the above caption will be found elsewhere in this issue of the Gospel Guardian written by Brother Logan Buchanan. Perhaps, I should modify this statement by saying that it was typed by him, for it is in the main an editorial which appeared in the Firm Foundation several weeks ago from the pen of its editor. The article in question is supposed to be an answer to my review of Brother Buchanan's defense of "The Herald of Truth." Our brother set himself forward as the champion of "The Herald of Truth" several weeks ago by mailing to most of the papers among the brethren a ten or eleven page article defending the same. At the request of the editor of the Gospel Guardian the writer of this article reviewed both Brother Buchanan's article and "The Herald of Truth" situation in a series of six articles. After the appearance of article number four, Brother Buchanan submitted another article of twelve pages purporting to be a response to the articles from my pen. In this article, most of the space was spent discussing what I had not said rather than the arguments which had been presented. This article will have appeared in print with my response to that portion which applied to me and Brother Tant's response to that part which applied to him before the present article appears. Now, we have a third article from Brother Buchanan. We had hoped this would be his reply to a multitude of matters presented, but no, it is simply an editorial written by Brother G. H. P. Showalter.
Brother Buchanan is a most peculiar controversialist. If he felt incapable of a defense of "The Herald of Truth," he should have left the matter to our venerable Brother Showalter in the first place. This would have saved much time and space. I have known Brother Showalter for a great many years and respect him completely. He is a brilliant writer and a worthy antagonist with the pen in whatever controversy he may enter. It is with much hesitation that Brother Buchanan's article is reviewed, because we feel that it should have been reviewed as Brother Showalter's own. We believe he is due that respect and courtesy. Since he is the editor of a well known religious journal, we of the Gospel Guardian felt that when he had completed his contemplated series Brother Yater Tant, editor of the Gospel Guardian, should pay his respects to them. Lest Brother Buchanan think, however, that we seek to repress anything that might be said in favor of the project which he defends, we shall review his presentation of Brother Showalter's article though we do not believe that this is quite the proper procedure. Our readers can see, however, that Brother Buchanan has not attempted to meet the material presented in our objections to "The Herald of Truth." He simply seeks to offset that which has been said by saying, "But look what Brother Showalter has said." Thus does he seek to throw behind his deficient argument the weight and the prestige of Brother G. H. P. Showalter and the influence of the Firm Foundation. Very well, we shall deal with Brother Showalter's article, but first note two other matters.
A Promise
I have challenged Brother Buchanan to write an article on, "What Is Wrong With the Missionary Society?" He promises to do so, but not now. He seems to think that my request is not timely or pertinent to matters being discussed. In this view, he is mistaken. When he sits down to write on this subject, he will find it most difficult to keep from condemning "The Herald of Truth" in his premises and conclusions. If he delves into the matter and overturns the fundamental principles of the society, he will upset his arguments for "The Herald of Truth." We think he should write such an article now. He says that he wants to quiet my "fears" that "The Herald of Truth" will become a missionary society. He has missed the point in my articles. I maintain that in principle there is no difference now. He can find as much authority in the scriptures for one as for the other. Why does he refuse the one and accept the other?
Restoration History
Our brother thinks he has "Brother Adams" in a real historical difficulty, for did I not quote an article on "Cooperation Meetings" written in 1850, and did I not charge that the "cooperation meetings became the society and divided the church" whereas, Brother Showalter quoted from the Millennial Harbinger, 1849 showing the beginning of the American Christian Missionary Society in that year. Brother Buchanan thinks this means that the "cooperation meetings" could not have culminated in the society. I quoted the 1850 article to show, as the context indicates, that our brethren today make the identical arguments for their "cooperations" that were made for the forerunner of the missionary society and later for the society itself. These are facts so well known to students of "Restoration History" that I hardly expected the reply that has been made. I wonder if Brother Buchanan will defend the "cooperation meetings" of that day as being scriptural? Did he mean that they were different from the society in principle? If our brother will read some history, and not rely so heavily on Brother Showalter, he will find that the "cooperation meetings" antedated the American Christian Missionary Society by many years; for instance, he can find in the Millennial Harbinger, 1836 p. 96 an announcement by A. Campbell of a "Cooperation Meeting" to be had on March 18th of that year at Wheeling (now West Virginia). On page 287, he can find an announcement of one to be had in Hancock County, Indiana. On page 333, he can find articles from T. M. Henley and Robert Richardson concerning certain aspects of said "cooperation meetings." On page 184, he can find an account of the "Cooperation Meeting for the Western District of Virginia" which convened at Wheeling on March 19th instead of the 18th mentioned above. That these meetings were the forerunners of and paved the way for the Cincinnati Convention and the formation of the American Christian Missionary Society no informed historian will deny. Yes, Brother Buchanan, these meetings antedate the society by almost 20 years. In the Millennial Harbinger, 1831 and 1832 may be found a series of articles by Alexander Campbell setting forth his views on the scripturalness and expediency of such "cooperation." Our brother should inform himself before he attempts to correct another on a matter of historical fact.
Brother Showalter's articles will be reviewed later in detail as planned. It will suffice to say now that he deals therein not with the fundamental principles underlying the society, but with other aspects of the matter. No one has argued that "The Herald of Truth" and other such "cooperations" are identical in every superficial respect. It has been argued that they are the same in principle. Let us note a comparison of them:
(1) Each is predicated on the assumption that the mission of the church cannot be fulfilled without the churches pooling their resources and operating through a single board of men in general evangelism. Each, therefore, is predicated on a disbelief in the adequacy of local churches of Christ functioning independently as the Lord ordained.
(2) Each proposes to exist as an agency through which many churches can operate to perform their work
(3) Each has its official board. The society has a board made up of members of different churches. "The Herald of Truth" has a board consisting of the elders of one church. The society simply calls it its board of directors. The elders of Highland Church are the official board of directors of "a cooperation" for radio evangelism whether they call themselves that or not. Furthermore, the board of directors of the society did not have any more authority than the Highland elders possess.
(4) The society has its contributing members. "The Herald of Truth" has its contributing members, over 1000 of them. It is doubtful indeed if the society at a similar age received anything like the money or involved anything like as many churches as "The Herald of Truth."
(5) The society had its "corresponding secretary" and "treasurer." "The Herald of Truth" has had Brother John F. Reese and Brother P. S. Kendrick. Brother Reese in his duties is an almost exact counterpart of a "corresponding secretary." One does not have to call his office by that name.
(6) The society had its money raising agents. So does "The Herald of Truth." Brethren Nichols and Willeford spend much time (almost one-half) in this work along with others.
(7) Brother Showalter says that the society "was not the church." Neither is "The Herald of Truth." It is a cooperation of many churches with the elders of one church acting as its official board of directors. He further says, "The societies were not formed by a church of Christ." Neither was "The Herald of Truth." See: J. M. Patterson (Highland elder), Firm Foundation, July 14, 1953. He says, "The whole idea was a 'brain child' born out of the minds of Nichol and Willeford." It existed first in Iowa as a local affair on a limited scale. It moved to the College Church in Abilene, Texas, on a temporary basis until Brother Nichols could see if he could get enough churches into the "cooperation" to make it a reality on a national scale. It was then moved to Highland Church.
(8) Brother Showalter wants to know about headquarters and offices. They are in Abilene, Texas, and I suspect are considerably more "plush" than were those occupied by the 1849 society.
In the name of all that is reasonable, why cannot brethren see that we have accepted every premise and every conclusion of our brethren of 100 years ago with reference to general evangelism. The only practical difference being that in our "cooperations" the contributors surrender all right to the management of their money while in the "cooperations" of 100 years ago, the brethren thought it more equitable to retain at least a voting privilege in the matter of management.
May it be repeated that the elders involved in our "cooperations" today have as much authority as was ever possessed by the executive board of the society; our "cooperations" are operating on a scale on which the society did not operate for many years after its formation; inherent in our "cooperations" are seeds of all of the bitter fruits borne by the society and given time and continued growth at the present rate of accomplishment will certainly mature.
Does the difference between the society and "The Herald of Truth" now appear so "vast"?
Conclusion
Churches can "cooperate" by each church functioning independently but concurrently in a common field for the accomplishment of a common purpose. Churches cannot scripturally combine to act through the eldership of a single church either in general evangelism or benevolence. For such "cooperation" there is neither command, approved example, nor necessary inference in the scriptures. Brother Buchanan has failed to produce adequate proof from the scriptures and has made no serious attempt to answer the arguments and objections that have been made.