"A Lump In The Throat"
A recent advertisement in Newsweek magazine was entitled, "How Do You Take Issue With A Lump In the Throat?" With this question "America's Independent Electric Light and Power Companies emphasized the fact that emotional arguments do not necessarily present all the facts. Their article concludes with, "The next time you hear someone argue for federal government electricity, watch for the 'lump in the throat.' Emotions may be throwing up a smoke screen that hides the facts."
While not taking sides in their battle, we do see the difficulty with "taking issue with a lump in the throat." Much of the argument in the present controversy over institutionalism is of this nature. It is a "lump in the throat" argument that says, "If you don't believe in Missionary Societies, you don't love those who are lost." It is a "lump in the throat" argument that says, "Those who oppose 'our orphan homes' do not have compassion for homeless little children." It is a "lump in the throat" argument that says, "If you oppose the way we do mission work, you don't believe in trying to convert the heathen."
You can point out to the Missionary Society defender that his plan violates New Testament teaching concerning the organization of the church. Each church is to be an autonomous body, and is the only organization through which God authorizes his work to be done. To establish Missionary Societies is to attempt to harness the "church universal" for which no such gear is found in the New Testament.
You can point out to the promoter of the institutional orphan home that 'our homes' are parallel to the Missionary Society in the same sense of trying to put the "church universal" to work. You can point out, too, that each church is responsible for her own needy.
You can point out to the "Brotherhood elderships" that such is creating a centralized agency unwarranted in the word of God. We express a hearty "Amen!" to a statement by Brother Harvey Pearson in the Firm Foundation of July 31st, when he says, 'We have no scriptural evidence to believe that any 'oversight' can be assumed. Congregations have not been delegated any oversight and thereby cannot assume any. To assume oversight which the Holy Ghost has not delegated is to go beyond the doctrine of Christ." (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 John 9.) But when he asks, "If to meet the requirements of a commercial enterprise, it is desirable to choose men who are elders, not because it is a duty of elders per se, but because churches have confidence in them, to be the go between for the enterprise and the contributing churches, is there a violation of scripture?" we must hesitate to make a few observations and to ask a question or two.
No doubt but that he was attempting to defend the Herald of Truth, for in the previous paragraph he stated that the radio audience was a "mission field" and hence his question stated above is aiming toward justification of this program. We ask, "WHO CHOSE THEM?" Were the elders at Highland chosen by brethren Nichols and Willeford? Did they choose themselves and thus "assume oversight" which Brother Pearson said they had no right to assume? Were they chosen by the 1080 contributing churches? If so, when and where? Did they meet in convention and nominate Highland for the purpose of being the "go between" between the contributing churches and the commercial enterprise?
Ahhh. Be careful now, or you will be saying, "If you criticize our program, you don't believe in preaching the gospel over the radio." Now, let's be careful. The next time you hear some promotin' brother promoting his pet project, "Watch for the lump in the throat"!!!