"The Missionary Society"
In Volume 11 of Lard's Quarterly, the editor wrote an article entitled "Co-Operation of Missionary Societies." Dated July 1865. His first paragraph is interesting and should prove helpful to the thoughtful.
"The management of our Missionary 'Societies as to render them eminently useful and wholly innocent is certainly not free from difficulty. The societies are not divine, but human institutions. They can claim not even a constructive sanction from the word of God of their existence, any more than can a college or corporation for the distribution of religious tracts. Their management is hence left wholly to human wisdom. It has not the advantage of a solitary hint in the Bible to determine what it shall be or how conducted. Under these circumstances it would certainly be marvelous if they should never err. Their acts should hence be construed charitably, but at the same time, be kept under strict watch and criticism; otherwise they will not only cease to be simply innocent, but will soon become positively injurious. A safe maxim for life is, profound confidence in the Lord's plan for Christianizing the world, and devotion thereto with a whole single heart, but deep distrust and jealous watchfulness of all human expedients to aid that plan. The sole business of a Missionary Society is to cause the gospel to be preached in places where it could not or would not be preached without its aid. This business imposes upon the Society two duties, and only two, namely, to employ preachers and to pay them. This again requires a supply of preachers and a supply of money. The church of God should furnish the former; the liberality of the brethren the latter. This done, the work of the Society is simple and innocent. Beyond this a missionary can be of no service to the cause of Christ. Within these limits it may be useful, but not necessary. But the object of these pages is not a general discussion of the duties and powers of Missionary Societies, but a few reflections on the proposed cooperation of our State Societies with the General Society."
History doth repeat itself! And, since problems in each succeeding generation of Christians spring from the same basic causes, it is imperative for spiritual survival for the language of Lard to be remembered. "A safe maxim for life is profound confidence in the Lord's plan for Christianizing the world, and devotion thereto with a whole single heart, but deep distrust and jealous watchfulness of all human expedients to aid that plan." The first part of Brother Lard's statement is expressly what is needed by each generation. However, allowing human expedients "claiming not even a constructive sanction from the word of God for their existence" to be brought into being and then eyed with "deep distrust and jealous watchfulness" is not needed and should not be allowed by faithful children of God. Lard plainly shows that the Missionary Society and the other ones are not divine but human. They should be kept under strict watch and criticism said this writer of 1865. But all the watching and criticism exercised did not keep that human machine from leading churches into apostasy. What then was the trouble almost one hundred years ago? The "maxim for life" was set aside. Profound respect for God's way for the Christianizing of the world was forgotten. Even the great editor of old wrote in the paragraph first noticed that "the sole business of a Missionary Society is to cause the gospel to be preached in places where it could not or would not be preached without its aid." That brethren, is strange language in the face of his "maxim." 'God's plan was not respected "with a whole single heart." A human machine without "the advantage of a single solitary hint in the Bible to determine what it shall be or how conducted" was brought into being and then justification sought on the grounds that the gospel could not be preached everywhere nor would it be preached in all the world without its aid. This language sounds familiar in our day doesn't it? In the thick of battle surely they were blinded to an actual impeachment of God's wisdom. How can any defense be made for such defending of a human institution established for the doing of God's will? Who promoted it? Christians who were sold a bill of goods labeled, "the church can't or won't do it." This slogan is now being used by the Devil again very well. And, why not, as long as it works!
How very often, in our own day, the statement is made that the church can't or isn't doing so and so; therefore, it is expedient that we get busy and do it in such and such a manner. Criticize such criticism of God's divine plan for the doing of that thing and the line is drawn. Hug it to your bosom while stifling your conscience and you have made an ally. This writer attended two meetings in which the head of Boles Home said, "You can neither say the home is scriptural nor unscriptural for it has nothing to do with the scriptures." These meetings, the first with quite a number of the preachers, the second with preachers and elders, were in Dallas last year. He made it clear that he could not endorse the idea and arrangement of an orphans home under an eldership as that would be tacking a human institution on to the church. The only arrangement he believed to be right was to have a human institution like Boles Home with no connection with the church and then for the church to support it. You see — the same old argument used nearly one hundred years ago. One in the field of evangelism, the other in the field of benevolence. Where is the difference? Too, to be sure, we have the same argument in the realm of preaching to the lost. God's way of local congregations working independently is not "fast" enough for us. We see the millions dying and working ourselves into a spiritual lather we just know that God would not mind us helping out in this matter of how and what is best in reaching them with the gospel. So money is funneled to one eldership and they are told by other elders to make haste and rescue the lost. But, lo and behold, not one scripture can be found for it when the criticisms come.) So, as of old, Satan whispers, "Yes but the church can't or won't do it so some one in some manner has to do it." That "old scratch" isn't interested in reaching lost souls; but, if he can cause us to impeach God's wisdom while saving someone he is still very much the victor. Brethren, when the church is not sounding forth the word and failing to care for its needy why blame God? Let us be big enough to blame ourselves. We need humility and penitence not pride and egotism.