In Answer To Brother Smethers
Under the caption, "Some Unanswered Questions, Part 2," in this issue of the Gospel Guardian, Brother Wayne Smethers criticizes an article which I wrote in the December 9th issue in answer to a letter from a group of young preachers in Harding College.
In a letter which accompanied his article, Brother Smethers says, "Personally, I am opposed to the continuation of the Herald of Truth," but he does not agree with me that its sponsors are violating the New Testament principle of church autonomy. He has other reasons for being "opposed to the continuation of" it. Well, so do I.
Therefore, our readers may know that he and I are colleagues in opposition "to the continuation of the Herald of Truth" as it is being operated today. If he should succeed in convincing the whole world that the New Testament principle of local church autonomy is not violated in the operation of Herald of Truth, he and I both would still be "opposed. to the continuation" of it.
As I see it, the point of difference between us is this: I think the churches that contribute to Herald of Truth are surrendering their autonomy; Brother Smethers does not think so. He thinks that other defects in Herald of Truth justify his being "opposed to the continuation" of it; yet he devotes his entire article to finding fault with his colleague's endeavor to prove that church autonomy is surrendered and violated. But he makes no attempt whatever in his article of criticism to show why he himself is "opposed to the continuation of the Herald of Truth."
If all our readers were "opposed to the continuation of the Herald of Truth" for reasons other than church autonomy violations, like Brother Smethers is, I would offer no reply to his article. But many brethren are opposed to the way Herald of Truth is being operated, because they think it violates the New Testament principle of local church autonomy; some others who now are defending it would oppose its continuation, if they thought the contributing churches are surrendering their autonomy. Therefore, in my judgment, a correction of his false assumptions and other blunders is urgently important.
I do not know Brother Smethers personally, but he and I are brothers in Christ and colleagues in opposition to the continuation of Herald of of Truth as it is being managed at this time; therefore, I sincerely hope that he is not the pouting type that gets angry at every brother who tries to show him he error of his way, and that he will not droop his lip, or hide his face in his elbow and go about whining and falsely accusing Brother Douthitt of trying to make fun of him. Brother E. R. Harper already has done enough of that to disgust every grown man at that baby-act performance.
At the second reading of Brother Smethers article, I counted seven big blunders and a few little ones in it. In trying to show him his seven big blunders, I shall be as gentle, considerate and kind as I know how to be; and in my desire to show mercy, I will not mention the little blunders — only the big seven. And I hope that Brother Smethers himself is big enough at heart to accord me the same privilege to criticize his article that he exercised in his criticism of mine, and will not get mad at me.
Blunder No. 1
In a five column article in the Gospel Guardian of December 9th, I answered ten questions from a group of young preachers in Harding College. But Brother Smethers, in his caption, "Some Unanswered Questions," and in the first paragraph of his article, launches out on the false assumption that I did not answer some of those questions. This is his first big blunder.
I answered every question in that letter, as anyone can see, who will read that article. I have not left "unanswered" any question pertaining to Herald of Truth, that anybody has asked me to answer, and I think the readers of the Guardian know it. But who is Wayne Smethers that he should accuse a brother of leaving these questions "unanswered," when he himself makes no attempt whatever to answer a one of them?
The first two questions in the letter from the Harding students are these: "1. What New Testament principle does the missionary society violate? 2. What New Testament principle does the Herald of Truth violate?" Why didn't Brother Smethers answer at least these two of the ten? In my answer, I said that both the missionary society and Herald of Truth violate the New Testament principle of church autonomy. Brother Smether's entire article is devoted to criticism of my answer to question number two. If he thinks my answer is so wrong, why didn't he give the right answer to it? Will he tell us what New Testament principle the Herald of Truth violates? He claims to be "opposed to the continuation of the Herald of Truth." He surely thinks it violates some New Testament principle, or he has placed himself in the ridiculous position of being "opposed to the continuation" of a thing that he thinks violates no New Testament principle.
Blunder No. 2
His second big blunder consists in his claim that contributing churches "retain control over their funds, when it is the contributors who decide whether to make a contribution and how much." He offered no proof at all in support of this claim.
The elders of the Highland Church in Abilene, who control the Herald of Truth radio program, contradict Brother Smethers. They say, "The elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from the preparation of sermons to mailing 'of printed copies of these sermons. The Highland elders have never delegated any authority to any person." Who is right: the Highland elders or Brother Smethers?
The United Christian Missionary Society does everything within its power to get all Christian churches to contribute to it. Some Christian churches do contribute to it; some do not. They decide for themselves "whether to make a contribution and how much." Now, will Brother Smethers tell us that the contributors to the Society do not surrender their autonomy, but "retain control over their funds"?
Before searching for something to criticize, if Brother Smethers had written the correct answer to these two questions: "1. What New Testament principle does the missionary society violate? 2. What New Testament principle does the Herald of Truth violate?" he might have saved himself from some of his egregious blunders. He thinks they both violate New Testament principles; he just doesn't want to name the principle, if he knows it.
Blunder No. 3
He argues that "the purpose" for which a church contributes, neither justifies nor changes the principles involved. But let him state his big blunder No. 3 in his own words; here it is: "The reason for sending in no way justifies nor changes the principles and mechanics of what is done." This is his biggest blunder of the big seven.
The hypocrites gave alms for the "reason" or "purpose" of receiving praise from men. (Matt. 6:2) Cornelius gave alms for the "reason" or "purpose" of helping the poor. (Acts 10:2.) Brother Smethers argues that the "reason" or "purpose" involved did not change either the "principles" or "mechanics" of what was done. But the Lord teaches that the "reason for spending" changes both: the "reason" changed the principle, for one was righteous, the other was hypocritical; the "reason for sending" changed the "mechanics," for one built a memorial before God, the other was consumed by moth and rust. (Matt. 6:19.)
Now, take that "church treasurer" to whom the church gave money to pay the "gas or light bills": Brother Smethers thinks that neither the "principles" nor the "mechanics" would have changed, if that church had given that "church treasurer" money for the "reason" or "purpose" of buying a gallon of Kentucky bourbon, according to his big blunder No. 3.
Now, take that five dollars given to the poor man for the "reason" or "purpose" of buying groceries: according to the Smetherinian theory, both "the principles and mechanics" would not have changed, if a church had given that man five dollars for the "reason" or "purpose" of buying chewing tobacco.
I wish I could convince Brother Smethers that "the reason for sending" in many instances does justify or change both "the principles and mechanics of what is done." Then, I think I could show him that a church's sending money for the purpose of helping another church care for its own destitute differs in both "principles and mechanics" from sending money for the purpose of making another church the sole authority in a brotherhood charity project to which all the churches are related equally; that a church's contributing money to a poor church for the purpose of making it possible for that poor church to have the literature necessary for its own work is not parallel in "principles and mechanics" to sending money for the purpose of making another church the sole authority in a nation wide tract distributing project, a work to which all the churches in the nation are related equally.
I wish I could get our "sponsoring church" brethren to stop for a moment and consider these two obvious facts:
1. Every church has a work which is strictly its own, and to which it bears a relationship that no other church bears. In case of famine or other disaster a church might need the financial assistance of other churches to provide funds for its own work. The New Testament presents both commands and examples for other churches' sending contributions for this kind of work. (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8 and 9; and many other passages.)
2. There is also another kind of church work: a work to which all churches in the brotherhood bear the same relationship. The New Testament contains neither command nor example for any church's sending a contribution to another church for this kind of work. When a church does such a thing, it surrenders its autonomy by placing another church in control of its resources for a work to which the surrendering church sustains the same relationship that the governing or "sponsoring church" sustains to it. Everyone who has studied church history to any profit at all knows that the Roman Hierarchy was created by this very thing.
Blunder No. 4
Here Brother Smethers claims that a church does not surrender its autonomy, if it voluntarily turns its funds over to another. He contends that a church must be forced, assessed, compelled, to give up its funds, by some "authority" outside of its own membership, in order to constitute a surrender of autonomy.
How wrong he is! The very opposite is true. If some outside "authority" or power should invade a congregation, take its contributions by force, or appropriate that church's property to the use of the outside "authority" against the will of that congregation, such would not constitute a surrender of autonomy; that would be an act of invasion and rape, such as the church in Jerusalem suffered when that church was "scattered abroad." (Acts 8:1.)
The relinquishing of control must be "voluntary," in order to constitute a surrender of autonomy. If the Smetherinian theory is correct, then no denominational church in America has violated the principle of church autonomy; because every religious group in America can stop sending its contributions to any outside "authority" when it chooses. No power on this earth compels a church in America to turn its contributions to another "authority."
Blunder No. 5
Brother Smethers grants here that a church would surrender its autonomy, by "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'."
This is a glaring contradiction of blunder No. 4, where he argued that a church must be assessed or forced to relinquish its contributions, in order to constitute a case of autonomy surrender.
If he is right in his blunder No. 5, then no religious group in America is guilty of autonomy violation, for all groups are retaining at least the "stock and barrel."
Blunder No. 6
Brother Smethers gives two reasons why he thinks the contributing churches to Herald of Truth are not surrendering their autonomy: (1) The contributing churches can "have another program of their own," if they want it. (2) Herald of Truth is not "the sole authority for conducting" all the radio and television programs all over the world.
Certainly the churches contributing to Herald of Truth can "have another program of their own," if they want it. The Christian churches that are contributing to the United Christian Missionary Society can "have another" missionary society of their own, if they want it; and many of them do want it, and do have it; but that does not prove that they are retaining their autonomy. Or does it? Let some "sponsoring church" hobby-rider answer.
Certainly the Herald of Truth is not the "sole authority for conducting" all the radio and television programs all over the world. The Highland elders are the "sole authority for conducting" the Herald of Truth, or at least they say they are. The United Christian Missionary Society is not "the sole authority for conducting" all the missionary societies all over the world; but that does not prove that their contributing churches are retaining their autonomy. Or does it? Let the "sponsoring church" hobby-riders answer that.
Blunder No. 7
Fifteen years ago in Louisville, Kentucky, when we were up to our necks in a war against premillennialism, some preachers who claimed to be "opposed to the continuation" of premillennialism would do nothing but sit on the side-lines and criticize the efforts of the real combat soldiers on whose side those critics claimed to be. "All the king's horses, and all the king's Men" couldn't get those fault-finders to enter the fight, and tell the world why they were "opposed to the continuation" of premillennialism. I suppose such critics have been hanging around in every fight for truth and righteousness since the death of Stephen. But they are not esteemed very highly by either side. Both sides merely endure them as an unavoidable nuisance.
So far in this fight, Brother Smethers has done nothing except to find fault with the efforts of his colleagues on whose side he claims to be. However, he yet can prove that he does not belong to that distasteful group of sideline snipers. He can correct this blunder No. 7. Here is how he can do it: He can write an article on why he is "opposed to the continuation of the Herald of Truth," and answer the questions, (1) What New Testament principle does the missionary society violate, if any? (2) What New Testament principle does the Herald of Truth violate, if any? and give reasons for his answers.