"Let Us Not Try To Change Others"
In the March 27, 1956, issue of the Firm Foundation on page 204, Brother Tom W. Phillips had the following short article: "Congregational Independency or Local Autonomy." "We read and hear much today in regard to 'destroying local church autonomy,' taking away 'congregational independency' and setting up an organization greater than the local church. 'Congregation A plans a great work; hearing of it, Congregations B and C, of their own volition, decide to help in this work planned by Congregation A. Then, along comes Congregation D with its mouthpiece (preacher) condemning Congregations A, B and C. Who is destroying congregational independency? Who is refusing to accept local church autonomy? The accusers are guilty of their own accusations! Congregation D is the interferer. Let us not try to change judgments and procedures of others but spend more time preaching the gospel. I resent hearing any preacher or any congregation trying to show me and tell me how some other congregation is wrong in its work. I believe such is sinful." Let us notice just what the brother has said in the above article.
I. We read and hear much today in regard to 'destroying local church autonomy,' taking away 'congregational independency' and seeing up an organization greater than the local church." Just here I have some questions. Brother Phillips, do you resent us preaching concerning the dangers of 'destroying local church autonomy' and these other matters? Why do you resent us teaching against organizations greater than the local church any more than teaching against instrumental music in worship or the Christian Missionary Society? Do you believe it is scriptural for the local congregations to set up organizations "greater than the local church"? If you do, say so. If you don't why resent our preaching against these organizations? Brother Phillips introduced the word "resent" in his article.
II. "Congregation A plans a great work; hearing of it, Congregations B and C, of their own volition, decide to help in this work planned by Congregation A." Are you saying, Brother Phillips, that Congregation A is planning a "great work" above and beyond its means? Is that what you mean? If so, that congregation sins by obligating the churches to something it has no intention of paying for itself. And just because Congregation B and C "of their own volition" decide to help in the work planned by Congregation A, does that make the set-up scriptural? Just because Congregations of the Christian hutch "of their own volition" decide to contribute to the Missionary Society arrangement, would that make it right? Furthermore, if Congregations B and C in your illustration think they can do "their work" in this project "planned by Congregation A," you are wrong again. One church with its elders cannot oversee the work for other churches. Each local eldership is responsible only for "the charge allotted" it. That is, the local congregation. (1 Peter 6:1-3; Acts 20:28.) Each eldership is over one flock and its work. So either way Brother Phillips' illustration goes it is still wrong." If Congregation A plans a work larger than it intends to take care of, and obligates other congregations on a permanent basis (as the present sponsoring church projects are carried on), Congregation A sins. On the other hand if Congregation A is allegedly overseeing and doing the work for Congregations B and C she is still stepping out of her rightful bounds, and sins! And this is the case whether congregation D with its mouthpiece condemns the set-up or not!!!
III. "Then, along comes Congregation D with its mouthpiece (preacher) condemning Congregations A, B and C. Who is destroying congregational independency? Who is refusing to accept local church autonomy? The accusers are guilty of their own accusations! Congregation D is the interferer." Notice how the good brother passes the buck. He says that Congregations A, B and C are not guilty when they tie themselves together under one eldership (which is the case today), and that no autonomy is violated; but that Congregation D is the one which sins for condemning the unscriptural arrangements of the first three congregations. He even said that Congregation D is the one guilty of destroying congregational autonomy. That reminds me of Ahab calling the prophet of God (Elijah) "thou troubler of Israel." I wonder if Brother Phillips would rebuke another congregation for using instrumental music in worship? If he does, according to his reasoning (?), he would be destroying congregational autonomy. Can you imagine that? The gospel preacher's hands are tied, he can't condemn sin and error in the churches without destroying congregational autonomy. What next? I wonder if Brother Phillips is an "interferer" when he preaches against women preachers, Missionary Societies, and churches raising funds with pie suppers and plate lunches. I wonder if he even preaches against these things. If he does he's an "interferer," according to him; and also a "mouthpiece" for Satan. according to him.
IV. This next paragraph is a lu lu: "Let us not try to change judgments and procedures of others but spend more time preaching the gospel." Where have we heard that expression before? Why the Baptists and Methodists are always saying the same thing, "Why don't you preach the gospel and leave others alone?" Paul declares by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we are to be of the "same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10); but this brother says, "Don't try to change judgments" of others. See the difference between Brother Phillips and Brother Paul? Brother Phillips said, "Don't try to change the procedures of others." I wonder if he would try to change the church's procedure of contributing to a Missionary Society or using instrumental music in worship? I really wonder. Why take such a liberal attitude toward the church of Christ and yet at the same time try to "change the procedures" of the denominations about us? We would like for Brother Phillips to tell us frankly if he is really trying to change the procedures of the denominations. If he isn't trying he is unsound and unworthy the Christian profession. But if he is, he is the "accuser who is guilty of his own accusations." Brother Phillips suggests that we spend "more time preaching the gospel." We do preach the gospel, that's what's bothering Brother Phillips and those like him. We plead for no organization larger than the" local congregation. (Eph. 3:1; 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.) We plead for a return to the New Testament pattern of missionary and benevolent work. (Eph. 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 8; 1 Con 16.) We plead that each eldership oversee its own affairs, and that each church do its own work. (1 Peter 6; Acts 20.) This is the gospel, whether Brother Phillips recognizes it or not.
V. "I resent hearing any preacher, or any congregation trying to show me and tell me how some other congregation is wrong in its work. I believe such is sinful." Notice: Brother Phillips resents being told the truth regarding other congregations. He may be like some others I have met; maybe he resents being told anything which is contrary to his preconceived ideas. The very fact that the brother "resents" seeing error pointed out, is proof to me that he is sympathetic to the error. Would he resent it if I showed him a so-called church of Christ which uses instrumental music in its worship? And if I warned him of their error? He even said that "such is sinful." To point out error in another congregation is "sinful." See, brethren, how far some have traveled on these issues? Brother Phillips lets us know that he resents those of us who show something wrong with another congregation; but the burden of his whole article was his trying to prove that Congregation D, with its mouthpiece, was "destroying congregational independency and refusing to accept local church autonomy." And that Congregation D is "guilty of their own accusations." And that "Congregation D is the interferer." And "I believe such is sinful." Yet Brother Phillips is too good to even listen to both sides of this subject. He doesn't believe in trying to change the "judgments and procedures of others," and that statement really covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it? However, if the brother believes what he said about not trying to change others, then he should leave Congregation D alone and quit trying to change her. After all, "that is her judgment and procedures" to condemn these unscriptural arrangements. It's impossible for any man on the wrong side of an issue to be consistent though.