"An Elder Wrote On Co-Operation"
Brother Oscar Paden, of Lubbock, writes in the Firm Foundation, November 2, 1954, that he found "differences of opinion as to the scriptural method for distributing funds for mission work, namely the so-called 'direct' and 'indirect' methods," while on his recent visit to the Northwest. He further says, "We cannot afford to waste one precious moment by quibbling over matters of more expediency...."
Brother Paden, can a thing be expedient unless it is first lawful? I would be glad if you would write an article and answer this question. If the "direct" and the "indirect" methods are BOTH SCRIPTURAL, will you please give the scripture to prove the indirect? If you have an example, command or inference for the "direct" it is lawful. If you have same for the "indirect" it is likewise lawful and it would be a matter (as you say) which of the two was the more expedient. If you have scriptural precedence for the "direct" and not for the "indirect" then, it is not a matter of expediency at all; it is a matter of following the word of God. Can't you see this? Does the urgency of the matter warrant the "indirect" method if we have the "direct" taught in the Bible and the "indirect" not taught? Are elders becoming so "dull of hearing" they will not accept what the Bible teaches anymore?
You have "nowhere found any criticism of this 'direct' method" and then you set out to offer YOUR own criticism of it by pointing out its dangers. Brother Paden, do you suppose the reason you have found no criticism of the "direct" method is because ALL can agree on the Bible way of doing it? Why don't you devote yourself to commending and defending this method that ALL agree to be scriptural? If there are dangers of it being abused, then sound the warning but the abuse will not invalidate the method God gave. If you cannot find the "indirect" taught in God's word but can find the "direct," then why class them together, and talk about which of the two is the more expedient? If you think the dangers are all on the side of the "direct" method, just investigate some of the "indirect" work some brethren have done. You need to inform yourself about some of the African work.
No one, that I know, objects to the preacher (being helped by a number of churches and individuals) making a complete report of what he gets, but if your Brother "B" fails to do it, it does not argue against the "direct" method unless the abuse of a thing makes the thing wrong.
You laud the Idalou plan. This is the sponsoring church" or "indirect" method. Now, unless you find scripture for this "indirect" method we just won't talk about the "most expedient" or feasible method, for it must first be scriptural to be expedient. In other words Brother Paden, good, well-meaning brethren are only asking for JUST ONE (1) passage that justifies the "church sponsoring" or "indirect" method. Really, is that asking too much?
And has the missionary (mentioned in Italy) made a complete report, to the papers, of all he's receiving? If not, how do you know he has not also secured help from others? Why, he may be even getting $1,000 or $2,000 per month. I do not know many preachers that cannot be trusted just about as far as can elders.
You say, "none of the money can be spent by the elders of Idalou as they see fit, except as is specified by the churches who sent it for the support of the missionary." Why couldn't these churches send "direct" (a method against which you found no criticism) to the missionary and specify this is for your support? Unless you find this "sponsoring church" or "indirect" method in the Bible, Idalou, Becton and Lubbock are simply saying, "we like OUR method better than GOD'S" and you are riding in the same wagon. Are Becton and Lubbock afraid the missionary will be dishonest in the matter, that they send to Idalou, instead of to the man? I wouldn't send him a penny if he is that untrustworthy. Did Philippi send to Antioch and specify, "this money is for Paul's support"? ?
"As I have observed from your study" you have proved (?) the "indirect" method by not ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE, and I challenge you Brother Paden, to prove the "indirect" method is being followed by churches today because "churches have learned of the dangers of carelessly sending funds to foreign fields without proper information and supervision." I think this is purely an assertion and I want PROOF. This casts reflections on those who have worked in foreign fields. Brother Paden, name the men and the churches that have had this sad experience. But, would this be SCRIPTURAL PROOF for the Idalou, Becton and Lubbock Federation?