Adams Answered On The Society

In the March 11 "Guardian" Brother Adams charges that the Highland Church believes and teaches that the ONLY WAY the "mission of the church" can be fulfilled is by "pooling their resources" and "operating through a single board of men in general evangelism", for says he, we "assume that that mission of the church CANNOT be fulfilled without the churches pooling their resources, etc".

Answer

The above is a false charge. The Highland elders affirm no such and I believe Brother Adams should produce the statement or apologize. No such assumption has ever been made by us. Our radio program is but "one method" or "opportunity" of preaching the gospel to many people. Even this cannot reach them all. It will take every resource at the church's command, in keeping with the Bible, to reach all the lost in the mission fields of our earth. We no more "assume" that our radio program is the "only way" of evangelization, than we do that the only way to do it is by each local congregation paying for its own time and meeting all its expenses without any help from others, no matter how small or poor the church. We believe local congregations should use all their local strength, be on radio, TV, send their preachers into the mission fields, publish good literature and see that the lost receives it, but to "assume" that any one of these is "the way" to the "exclusion" of all others would be foolish indeed.

Now, your entire article has been based upon this "false conclusion". You have the "conclusion" as your "first premise" I have studied "logic" in school and never have I seen nor heard any man who "quotes the laws of logic so fluently", begin his argument by making his "conclusion" (that which he is to prove) his first premise. Brother Adams, give us the names of the churches and men among us who hold to the statement in your first paragraph under your comparisons of the radio program and the Missionary Society. We believe our radio work is a privilege granted us under the general principle of "go teach all nations" just as our "Bible School" on Sunday morning is a privilege of the elders in carrying out our Lord's command to "teach them all things".

Calling Van Bonneau

It might be interesting, Brother Adams, to have Van Bonneau to make you a similar contrast between the "Missionary Society" and our "Bible School Work". He claims it is a "separate organization" through which the church is trying to do the work God gave the "church" to perform. Hence it would be a "separate institution" and would come under the term "institutionalism" according to them. He thinks the elders of the church are operating as a "board over our Sunday school". They claim that the "Sunday School" is an "agency" through which the "church" is doing "its work" and like you, regarding the growth of digression as it came from these various meetings, he thinks our "Bible Schools" on Sunday are about the "stepping stone" to a "denominational machine" which will after a while control "our Bible study program" as the "Southern Baptist Sunday School Board" is directing their work. Hence they are warning against it just as you "men" are warning against preaching the gospel over a "net-work radio". You may say, 0 but we do not have any such Bible School organization now. No, but the "Anti-boys" tell us that we already have the organization, The Sunday School, and this is the "path" that led denominationalism that way and they sound out the warning just as you "men" are doing about our radio program directed by a local congregation.

They therefore brand your Brother Adams as "Digressive" as you "men" are trying to create in the minds of the brotherhood about Highland. I wonder, Does the congregation where you are, have a "Sunday School"? Suppose you write an article, Brother Adams, showing our "Anti-Sunday School Brethren" where they are wrong in comparing your "Bible School Work" with that of the "Missionary Society!

They claim our "Sunday School" is a form of "institutionalism". Hence the church is doing its work through the "institution" of the "Sunday School".

Our Anti Brethren

They point out the fact that in "principle" they are identical in their operations both being "institutions" separate from the church, and therefore we are called by them "Digressives" because our "Sunday School" is the "Old United Missionary Society in Principle Come Back". They warn that it will become as denominational if not "killed now" as in such organizations among the sectarians. That it is the church doing its work through "institutionalism".

Question Brother Adams

Will you explain to our "Anti-Sunday School Friends" the difference in your "Bible School Program" and the "Missionary Society"? Will you explain to them why you are operating this "method of Church work" which the denominational world has made into "a human organization" that dominates the teaching program of their denominations? Brother Adams, do not try to explain the difference to me, I know the difference. Explain it so the "Anti-Boys" will see that you and the church where you are are not "Digressives". That you are not practicing "institutionalism". They are bent on destroying your method of teaching because they say you can't find where the Apostles ever had such a system of teaching as you do where you are: that you have a "separate organization" through which the "church does its work": that you can't find where the Holy Spirit ever directed any "local congregation" in doing its teaching as you do it where you are that you can't find any congregation in the days of inspiration, the record of which is found in the Bible, where it said they had classes as you do and since you can't find it anywhere yet you have them, you are Digressive: that you have an "organization" with your elders as the "board" operating this organization or "institution" through which the church does her work. To them your "Sunday School" is a form of, "Church Institutionalism". Do not just "laugh this one off". Please show "them" (not me) they are wrong and you may have answered your own "Society Argument"

Conclusion

Now when you "prove to them" that your Bible Study program is not a "separate organization" not an "institution"; that the "elders are not a separate board"; that all you are doing is being done under the "elders" of the "local church", it may be then you will be able to see how our "radio program," is operated by the "same elders" and is not a "separate organization" with the "elders" as a "separate board of directors". (Say, just here is a good time for you "men" to answer our "parallel letter with Brother G. K. Wallace". How come you didn't answer this one?) When you are through, Brother Adams, our Anti-Brethren will be just like you and Yater. They will begin their arguments with the "first premise", as the "conclusion" they have set out to prove, charging our "Bible School" and "organization" and you can't change them with a "sledge-hammer". They will keep shouting, "Sunday School is a separate organization with the elders as its board" and that we are "Digressives" and trying to "do the work of the church through a human organization", ("institutionalism") and that it should be "killed" for it "could get into something bad".

QUESTION: Are you and the church where you are, going to "close up Sunday School" and join the "Anti-Group" because our "Bible School" could be something bad? and because they keep branding it as "institutionalism" in the church? You "men" should be ashamed for trying to brand a church and her elders as "Digressive" when that church, her elders and her preachers from the day she was organized have been known as one of the churches that has stood against Digression with all its power and her preachers have fought it all these years and still do.

Most kindly yours, E. R. Harper

P. S.

1. Brother Adams, will you please explain to your readers the difference in your "Music Hall Cooperation Plan"; (Could this be the Lufkin Plan"?); and the "Missionary Society"? Might be interesting you know. Did you have one church to do the planning; to pay the bills; collect the money from the congregations; to disburse the money; it was "cooperation", you know. Did any of the "Guardian Boys" play a part in this? Did you "jump on them" the "Guardian Group" and brand those in this "Cooperation Meeting", as Digressives", the "Ambush" boys: and did you put all over "the Guardian" that it was the "Old missionary society" coming back? Did you shout "institutionalism"? If not, why didn't you? Did you believe in what you now call "institutional congregational cooperation"? Or were you "afraid"?

2. Were there any "Old Digressive Methods of Pressure" brought to bear upon "any congregation" in Houston by your "cooperation plan" to force them to "enter your plan"? (Paging Brother Tant!) Were letters and articles written condemning them for not entering with you "men"? If so, when did you change your mind about such plans of "one congregation controlling a work cooperated in by many congregations"? Could this be the "Lufkin Plan"?

Go into every detail concerning that "cooperation plan" and then show how it differs with your "society coming home" charge and you "might" not have time to "jump on our radio program". JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. Remember I am making no charges; just ASKING. You know "rumors" are out over the brotherhood that there was trouble in Houston over this. When you begin the explanation requested above you can see the "folly" of your argument. The "principle of cooperation" in that meeting was not wrong. However, each congregation should be free to accept or reject. Don't you think?

Question Men"

3. Has it now turned out that the only "scriptural congregation" in that "whole affair" was the one that refused to contribute to your "inter-congregational cooperation Music Hall Meeting"? Have you "repented of your cooperation error" and "made things right" with the church you fought so hard?

Attention Houston

4. This is not meant as a condemnation of your meeting in the Music Hall, nor is it a condemnation or defense of what took place there between any congregation. It is to show how "ridiculous these men have acted" in such severe criticism of others who are only practicing in principle what the "Guardian Group" has practiced all their lives. I pray you understand and that you may have many more such "cooperation meetings" in the future with each congregation "free" to make its own choice as to its participation.