Some Unanswered Questions, Part 2
This portion of my article deals with some questions raised by an article by Brother Cecil B. Douthitt, entitled "Emergencies, Orphan Homes and Church Autonomy," in the December 9 issue of the Guardian.
In his article he states, "The churches that contribute to Herald of Truth do not retain control and exercise the oversight of their own work; they, too, violate 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Acts 20:28, by simply turning their 'funds over to another for handling,' and they surrender their autonomy thereby."
This article provoked several questions. 1) How can one truthfully say that contributing churches do not retain control over their funds, when it is the contributors who decide whether to make a contribution and how much? The receiving church does nothing but request. The answer is left to the one of whom the request is made.
If simply deciding to send and sending money to another congregation constitutes "surrendering autonomy," then the churches that sent relief to the saints in Judea surrendered their autonomy, regardless of the purpose for which they sent. The reason for sending in no way justifies nor changes the principles and mechanics of what is done.
If the church in Jerusalem, for instance, had assessed, by any authority, the other churches, then you would have a violation of church autonomy. There is a vast difference between voluntary contribution, upon request and assessment upon demand!
In the case of a church council or superior ecclesiastical organization, the participating churches, by their very membership, surrender their exclusive right to govern their internal affairs. What they do thereafter, they do by permission, or upon the orders of, the council. Such churches have lost their autonomy. Would you assert that this condition is true in the case of the Herald of Truth?
2) If sending some money to a sister congregation constitutes turning over "their funds for handling," wouldn't the same thing be true when the church treasurer pays the gas or light bills? If not, why not? There is a definite and clear implication in the article that there is no difference in an eldership exercising its own judgment and authority and deciding to send some money to a sister congregation, and, on the other hand, simply turning over the whole treasury, lock, stock and barrel, and saying, "Here is all of our money. You manage all of our financial affairs for us." Are these the same or not?
If a brother in Christ comes and asks me if I will give him five dollars to buy some groceries, and I do so, does that put me under his authority? Does it put him under mine? It does neither, and it only becomes a matter of honor with him to use the money upon the thing for which he requested it. The matter of authority does not enter at all. The matter of human judgment and honor do. What difference is there in principle between this illustration and the arrangement between Highland and sister congregations?
Now, then, if this brother had the authority to come and tell me to give him five dollars for groceries, and I had to do it, then I would be subject to him. On the other hand, if he asked tor the sum for that purpose, and I gave it, then had the right to supervise his spending to be sure that he spent it for the purpose for which he asked it, then he would be subject to my authority.
So far as I have been informed, neither of these holds true between Highland and any congregation which cooperates in the paying for the Herald of Truth.
Farther on in the article, the incident is mentioned in which two white congregations gave money to a colored congregation to buy song books, etc. Now, if voluntarily sending money, from one congregation to another, regardless of reason, constitutes a violation of church autonomy, didn't the white congregations surrender their autonomy when they gave the money to the colored congregation? Did the colored congregation have any right to undertake the purchase of song books, when they couldn't support it?
The question was then asked, "Does anybody think that this (the incident — W.S.) is parallel to sending money to that colored church to make it the SOLE AUTHORITY (caps mine — W.S.) in the selection and distribution of gospel literature for churches all over the nation?" No, I am sure it does not, but who said that the Herald of Truth is the SOLE AUTHORITY for conducting radio and television programs? To assume that those who work in the program are attempting to do that is sheer assumption, and extremely uncharitable at that. Just because a church sends some money to Highland to help pay the expense of the Herald of Truth, does that mean that they cannot have another program of their own? If they can't, whose authority will keep them from it?