Brother Smethers Writes Again
In this issue of the Gospel Guardian, Brother Wayne Smethers reiterates his charge that I have not answered the questions which I have been asked concerning the Herald of Truth radio program.
During the past year or two I have received scores of questions on other subjects, which I have not answered; but I do not know of a single question that any one has asked me, pertaining to Herald of Truth, that I have not answered.
In the Guardian of December 9, 1954, I answered every question contained in a letter from a group of students in Harding College, as all can see, who will read that article. But in the Guardian of February 10, Brother Smethers charged that I did not answer the questions, then he proceeded to ask some more. In that same issue ( Feb. 10), I answered all of Brother Smether's questions.
Now, in this issue of the Guardian, he repeats his charge that I did not answer his questions, and then asks ten more. I have read his article twice, and the following ten are all the questions that I can find in it.
Question No. 1. "I am opposed, then, on the grounds that the continuation does not seem to me (may I repeat, 'to me' ?) to be the course of wisdom."
ANSWER. Yes, Brother Smethers, you may repeat, "to me."
Question No. 2. "Lacking a congregation of disciples, who will immerse, nurture and strengthen these babes in Christ?"
ANSWER. I do not know. This is the first question that I have ever been asked, pertaining to Herald of Truth, that I could not answer.
Question No. 3. "Why should I have to?"
ANSWER. Brother Smethers, you do not "have to."
Question No. 4. "Are you suggesting that financial resources are the only relationship between a society made up of member churches?"
ANSWER. No.
Question No. 5. "How many congregations bear the same relationship to the Herald of Truth that Highland does ?"
ANSWER. None. But every church in America, including Highland, bears the same relationship to the work. that Highland proposes to do; namely, preach the gospel to the nation. Doesn't Brother Smethers know that?
The Southside Church in Brownwood, of which I am a member, and hundreds of other churches in America (including Highland) have radio programs. Each church sustains a relationship to its own radio program that no other church sustains. But all these churches are related equally to the work that is being done; namely, preaching the gospel to the nation.
If it is sensible, sound and safe for Highland or Southside to assume more of this brotherhood work than it can support, and then to beg and receive funds from all the other churches, with which to do a work to which all are related equally, then it is sensible, sound and safe for every church in America to assume more brotherhood work than it can support, and then to launch a nation wide begging campaign from all other churches. If all the churches imitate Highland, they will bring shame and disgrace upon the whole brotherhood, and the world would look upon churches of Christ as nauseating panhandlers, and that is precisely what they would be. Does Highland or Southside have a scriptural right to set an example that would be sinful for all other churches to imitate? How blind can grown men get?
Question No. 6. "What about the Jews under Roman rule in the time of Christ?"
ANSWER. Their governmental autonomy was taken away from them by force.
Question No. 7. "Did they have their autonomy?"
ANSWER. They did not.
Question No. 8. "Did they surrender 'voluntarily'?"
ANSWER. No. They fought to the last ditch, but it was snatched from them by force and against their will. They had no choice in the matter, and therefore they were not responsible for losing it. Responsibility ends where choice ends. The man who "fell among robbers" (Luke 10:30) lost his possessions, but he did not "surrender them; they were taken from him by force. Can't Brother Smethers see the difference between having his purse snatched out of his hand by force, and surrendering it "voluntarily"? If the elders of the Highland Church were invading the churches and taking their autonomy by force, like the Romans did to the Jews, then the churches would not be responsible for the loss of their autonomy; they would have no choice in the matter, and without choice there can be no responsibility. But no power on earth is taking the autonomy of any religious group in America by force; many are surrendering it "voluntarily," and they are responsible for that surrender.
Question No. 9. "I ask, then, in return, 'Why argue against it as though it were'?"
ANSWER. I cannot give any reason why any person should "argue against it as though it were," and I know I never did "argue against it as though it were."
Question No. 10. "Granting that others may have done so, is that any reason to suggest that I would?"
ANSWER. No. I did not "suggest" that Brother Smethers "would"; I only expressed the hope that he wouldn't. Doesn't he know the difference between suggestion and hope?
Now, I have answered every question that I can find in his article, except No. 2, and I confessed that I could not answer that one. If he can think of any more than he would like to ask, I shall be happy to answer them, if he will write them out and send them to me. I delight in answering questions regarding the Herald of Truth. I wish that Brother Harper and the Highland elders would send me some questions about Herald of Truth. If they will, I promise to answer every question they ask, or confess publicly that I cannot.
I wish I knew what the questions are that Brother Smethers thinks I have not answered; but if he just will not state them, I suppose I never will know.