An Interesting Correspondence
NOTE: The following is some correspondence which has resulted from a reply which I made to Brother T. H. Sherrill's sermon, entitled: "Can The Church Contribute To The Orphan Homes?" It is passed on to the readers of the Guardian for what it is worth. Instead of using the correspondent's name, I will refer to him as "Brother X."
______ Street
_______ , Arkansas March 25, 1956 Mr. Tommy McClure, Minister
Walnut Street Church of Christ, Paragould, Arkansas Dear Brother McClure:
I have just finished reading a sermon by Brother T. H. Sherrill November 13, 1955 on the subject "Can The Church Contribute To The Orphan Home?" with your answer.
Brother McClure, I feel considerably disappointed in you for I have been a good listener of yours over the radio. You need to honestly re-read Brother Sherrill's message and do some real thinking the thing over. I read both of you quite deliberately and my decision is that you really "flunked."
You know better than try to parallel the Orphan Home and the Missionary Society. There is no parallel. The church herself is a missionary society, and every member is a missionary in telling the good news, The Gospel. If one is unable to preach the Word he can help someone else who can. The church is ordained to carry the Gospel. There is no excuse for missionary societies to exist. It seems to me so strange that you have set up "a whipping boy," a false creation, and then spend a lot of effort at whipping the life out of him.
The Church of Christ is not an Orphan Home with orphans in the house of worship to be cared for by the church. That idea is too absurd for words. You quite well know that children must be clothed, fed, and housed, and schooled, or educated. It requires some suitable building, adequately equipped, and staffed with some personnel to make sure that every need of the children are properly cared for. It is the duty of the Church of Christ to see to it that these needs are sufficiently met by sending donations, or contributions to the manager of this home. It could be a Church Elder or Deacon or some one whom the Church Elders have appointed over the business of looking after the affairs of the home as the manager or superintendent.
I noted carefully that you seemed to shun the responsibility of putting forward a concrete plan of pattern of how the church may go about taking care of the orphans. Now suppose you get busy and map out a definite plan of taking care of 100 orphans. Make sure, doubly sure, you cite chapter and verse from the New Testament supporting your definite plan as the only scriptural way it can be done. Be certain to be very specific in every detail of caring for that 100 orphans.
I think you will see that God has blessed man with a good portion of just good common gumption or common sense, that we must use in doing the Lord's work in this world. Of course we must do WHAT is commanded and when the HOW is specified we must do it in the manner stated in the Bible. If the how is not specified, we must comply with much interest and caution as is required to carry out the command.
You brethren, Britnell, Porter, McClure, Ketcherside, and a few others should think about how serious it is to go about dividing churches over untaught questions and hobbies. I know you know better. Your plea that you are trying to prevent digression is absurd. You are digressing by creating division in the body of Christ.
Better read and study God's Word more prayerfully.
Brotherly, X Mr. X
_____ Street
_______ Arkansas Dear Brother X:
Your letter of March 25 has been received and I trust that my reply will be of much benefit to you and especially to the cause of our Lord.
At the very beginning, there are at least two things I want you to clearly understand: (1) Your statement to the effect that you "feel considerably disappointed" in me does not worry me at all for the simple reason that I have never written an article nor preached one sermon for the purpose of securing for myself your approbation nor that of any other human being. My aims in my preaching, writing and life are to PLEASE THE LORD and SAVE MEN, and the fact that you are disappointed in me is no proof that the Lord is displeased! You should "do some real thinking" (using your own words) on that, and you may rest assured that your cry of disappointment will not deter me in my opposition to unscriptural schemes and practices, If every person in the whole world were thoroughly disappointed in me, that would not prove that your position on the orphan home question is scriptural. In other words, your disappointment is not scriptural proof, Brother X! (2) Just because you have decided that I "flunked" in my review of Brother Sherrill's sermon does not make it so, and that decision does not scare me in the least. If you think that you can silence me and others on this question by such statements, you are deceiving yourself. You may say whatever you want to about me and my efforts but that will not prove that your position is scriptural. Your letter indicated that you, like many others who believe as you do, would rather ridicule the opponent than to discuss the issue. So, as far as the issue is concerned and as far as I am concerned, your efforts in paragraph two of your letter were in vain. You would have done much better had you used the space in setting forth some scriptural proof for the position you occupy.
In paragraph three, you say, "You know better than to try to parallel the Orphan Home and the Missionary Society. There is no parallel." No, Brother X, the truth of the matter is this: I know better than to try to defend the Orphan Home set-up and at the same time condemn the Missionary society set-up, because THERE IS A PARALLEL, whether you admit it or not. The action of churches with reference to the Missionary Society set-up and evangelization IS PARALLEL to the action of churches with reference to "our" Orphan Home set-up and benevolence. Here is the proof: In the Missionary Society set-up, churches' funds, their work of preaching the gospel, and the oversight of their work were turned over to those who controlled the Missionary Society (to an additional body, a body politic, a human organization). In the Orphan Home set-up, churches' funds, their work of caring for orphans, and the oversight of their work are turned over to those who control "our" orphan homes (to additional bodies, bodies' politic, human organizations). Now, if that isn't parallel, what is a parallel, Brother X? Maybe YOU "need to do some real thinking the thing over" too! If you will "do some real thinking the thing over," maybe you will see that YOU "really 'flunked" when you asserted, "There is no parallel." Suppose you try your hand at destroying my argument on the action of churches! Don't just assert that it's absurd! Work on it! PROVE that there is no parallel! SHOW WHY it is right for churches to turn their funds, their benevolent work, and the oversight of their benevolent work over to a human, benevolent organization, and wrong for churches to turn their funds, their evangelization work, and the oversight of their evangelization work over to a human, evangelization organization!
In paragraphs three and four of your letter, you tried to show why it is right to do one and wrong to do the other, but, as I shall show, you missed the point entirely. You contended that the church is a Missionary Society but it is not an orphan home and concluded that there can be no parallel between the two. But, here is where your reasoning breaks down: The Orphan Home (buildings, equipment and personnel) is not the organization, the body politic! The home, as I then used the word and as you used it in your letter, is simply the work or product of the organization. The organization consists of those who comprise the corporation. This example should help to clarify the matter: Suppose you and I decide to establish a hardware business. We are partners: we form a corporation; we call it "X and McClure Hardware Company," or maybe "X M Hardware Company"; everything is made ready and we open for business. Now, question: What is the corporation? Do the buildings, counters, cash registers, goods and employees make up the corporation, the body politic? If one were to file suit against the corporation, would he sue these? Of course, not! He would sue US, for we are the corporation, and the buildings and such like are the product or work of the corporation. The same thing, Brother X, is true in the Orphan Home set-up of the present day, and if you don't believe that just read the various charters. If you will do so, you will see that, in each case (with about two exceptions), a group of men have incorporated, formed a corporation, and that the home is the product of the corporation, not the corporation itself. The home is that through which the corporation (an additional body, a body politic) works, after the church turns its funds, work and oversight of its work over to that additional body! Likewise, in the strict sense, the Missionary Society was that through which those who controlled it worked, after the churches turned their funds, work and oversight of their work over to them, an additional body! Now Brother X, do you still say, "There is no parallel"? ? ? In the Missionary Society set-up, an additional body was involved; in the modern Orphan Home set-up, the same thing, an additional body, is involved!!! Are you ready to "do some real thinking the thing over," Brother X? You ought to, because you "really 'flunked" when you said, "there is no parallel"!!!
In view of the fact that in the modern Orphan Home set-up an additional body is involved, what are you going to do with Ephesians 4:4? Paul said, "There is ONE BODY . .." In 1 Corinthians 12:20 the same apostle said, ". . . BUT ONE BODY." Do you believe he told the truth? If you do, you must repudiate the modern Orphan Home set-up, for it involves ANOTHER BODY, and I challenge you to successfully deny that it does. In this same connection, Paul said in Ephesians 4 that there is one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God. Now, if we can have an additional body (or additional bodies), why can't we have an additional Spirit, an additional hope, an additional Lord, an additional faith, an additional baptism, and an additional God? Why Brother X, WHY?? Do you believe that we need another God? If you don't then why do you contend that we need another body? Isn't the one faith sufficient? Then why isn't the one body sufficient? If we need another body, how do you know that we don't need another baptism? As the church and the body are one and the same, (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18), if we need another body in the form of a benevolent organization, how do you know that we don't need another church in addition to the one established by Christ? Please don't observe the passover and let silence reign supreme. Answer these questions, Brother X!!!
In paragraph three of your letter you contend that the care of orphans "requires some suitable building, adequately equipped, and staffed with some personnel to make sure that every need of the children are properly cared for." Of course, in caring for orphans, a building, equipment and personnel are required, but I deny that another organization or body politic is required! Likewise. in preaching the gospel, some facilities are required (whether they be a tent, building, shade tree, seats, lights, blackboard, chart or public address system) and there must be someone to do the preaching, but I deny that an organization other than the church is required! Don't you deny that, Brother X? Yes or no If yes, then down goes your argument for human benevolent organizations. If no, then down goes your contention against human evangelistic organizations (or to be more specific, the Missionary Society). You can take your choice as to which way you will go, and when you work on that awhile you may find that my so-called "false creation" which you talked about is more real than you thought! ,
You say, in paragraph five, "I noted carefully that you seemed to shun the responsibility of putting forward a concrete plan or pattern of how the church may go about taking care of the orphans." Brother X, if one doesn't have a certain responsibility, how can he shun it? As far as the issue in this controversy is concerned, I deny that I have such a responsibility, for the issue is not HOW, but THROUGH WHAT ORGANIZATION? HOW the church is to care for its orphans is not the question! The question is: THROUGH WHAT ORGANIZATION is it to do that work? It's not a question of METHOD but of organization! The present orphan set-up is NOT just a "how," method or means! The set-up involves MORE than that, for there is another ORGANIZATION using its OWN "how," method or means! Likewise, in the Missionary Society set-up, they had more than a "how"; they had another organization using its own "how." When congregations contributed to the Missionary Society to preach the gospel, the method of preaching it (the "how") was yet to be decided, and THOSE WHO CONTROLLED THE SOCIETY DID THE DECIDING! Now, look at the parallel: When congregations contribute to "our" institutional Orphan Homes to care for orphans, the method of caring for orphans (the "how") is yet to be decided, and THOSE WHO CONTROL THE HOMES DO THE DECIDING!
Evidently, you, and those who believe as you do on this issue, think that if I cannot put "forward a concrete plan or pattern of how the church may go about taking care of the Orphans," I should cease my objections to the present institutional Orphan Home set-up and regard it as scriptural. You said, "Now suppose you get busy and map out a definite plan of taking care of 100 orphans. Make sure, doubly sure, you cite chapter and verse from the New Testament supporting your definite plan as the only scriptural way it can be done." As I said, you seem to think that if I cannot do that, I should cease my objection to the present institutional Orphan Home set-up and regard it as scriptural. Well, Brother X, I will be just as good to you as you were to me. Using your own words in part, "Now suppose you get busy and map out a definite plan of "presenting the gospel to the sinners in the state of Arkansas! Using your own words again, "Make sure, doubly sure, you cite chapter and verse from the New Testament supporting your definite plan as the ONLY SCRIPTURAL WAY it can be done." Again, in your own words, "Be certain to be VERY SPECIFIC IN EVERY DETAIL of" presenting the gospel to those sinners! Can you do it? I challenge you to try! You cannot do it, and I have a lingering suspicion that no one knows that better than you! Now, here is the point: As you cannot give a definite plan is the ONLY SCRIPTURAL WAY in which the gospel is to be presented to the sinners of Arkansas, to be consistent with your own logic you should cease your objections to the Missionary Society and regard it as scriptural! Do you want to take your "how" argument back, Brother X? If you do, that will be fine. In fact, you should. On the other hand, if you do not repudiate it, you should be consistent — you should accept the Missionary Society as well as the present institutional Orphan Home set-up, because, if the "how" argument justifies one, it justifies the other! Now, when you have had enough on your "how" quibble and want to return to the ISSUE — THROUGH WHAT ORGANIZATIONS — just let me know. After all, you couldn't get into much more trouble by staying on the issue than you have gotten into by evading it, by quibbling about "how."
In paragraph six you said, "I think you will see that God has blessed man with a good portion of just good common gumption, or common sense, that we must use in doing the Lord's work in this world." Of course, you are implying that I, and those who believe as I do, are guilty of not using "good common gumption, or common sense" with respect to the benevolent issue. You are wrong, Brother X. You, and those who believe as you do, are the ones who are thus guilty, and here is the reason why. Would a man be using "good common gumption, or common sense" if he were to argue that we can have another SPIRIT in addition to the "ONE SPIRIT" of Ephesians 4:4? Would he be using "good common gumption, or common sense" if he were to argue that we can have another HOPE in addition to the "ONE HOPE" of Ephesians 4:4? Would he? ? ? Would he be using "good common gumption, or common sense" if he were to contend that we can have another LORD in addition to the "ONE LORD" of Ephesians 4:5? Who is using "good common gumption, or common sense": the man who says we can have another FAITH, or the man who contends that the "ONE FAITH" of Ephesians 4:5 is sufficient? Again, if I were to contend that we need another BAPTISM, and if you were to argue that the "ONE BAPTISM" of Ephesians 4:5 is sufficient, who would be guilty of not using "good common gumption, or common sense"? If I were to contend that we can have another GOD in addition to the "ONE GOD" of Ephesians 4:6, would I be using "good common gumption, or common sense"? How about it, Brother X? Now here is the big question: When you contend that we can have ANOTHER BODY (in the form of an institutional Orphan Home) in addition to the "ONE BODY" of Ephesians 4:5, and I contend that the "ONE BODY" is sufficient for doing the work which God requires the church to do, who is guilty of not using "good common gumption, or common sense"? YOU ARE, BROTHER X, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, WHETHER YOU EVER ADMIT IT OR NOT!!! So, your "good common gumption" quibble has blown up in your own face!
In paragraph seven, you put Britnell, Porter, McClure and Ketcherside all in the same group whether they belong there or not. I was not surprised, for that is characteristic of nearly all of you institutionally minded brethren in this section. When you cannot answer our arguments, when you see that you cannot afford to meet the issue, you seek to arouse prejudice by shouting, "They've gone Ketcherside" and "they have much in common with Carl Ketcherside." Such reminds me of Baptist preachers shouting "Campbellite" when they are hard pressed. There is much that I could say at this point, but for the present the following will be sufficient: In the first place, I have not "gone Ketcherside," neither have Britnell and Porter. In the second place, if all of us have "gone Ketcherside" (we have not), that does not prove that your position on the Orphan Home issue is SCRIPTURAL! In fact, if you could prove that every one of us are twin brothers to the devil, that would not make your position right! In the third place, I ask you this question, Brother X: Do you have anything in common with Carl Ketcherside? As I said before, don't observe the passover and let silence reign supreme. ANSWER the question!
In the latter part of paragraph seven, you said, "Your plea that you are trying to prevent digression is absurd. You are digressing by creating division in the body of Christ." Regarding the first statement, you are wrong again, Brother X, and I will show you why. For example, suppose that I and many others begin to assert that we can have another faith in addition to the "ONE FAITH" of Ephesians 4:5. Would we not be guilty of digression? Another question: If you were to oppose this teaching, would it be "absurd" for you to say that you are trying to prevent digression? Now, look at the application: You and many others are asserting that we can have another body (the modern Orphan Home set-up involves just that) in addition to the "ONE BODY" of Ephesians 4:4. If my additional faith doctrine would be digression, your additional body doctrine is digression! And, when I oppose it, I am trying to prevent digression. So, the thing which is "absurd" is your statement, not my "plea." Regarding your second statement quoted above, I deny the charges you make against me and lay them at your own feet where they belong. First, you charge that I am digressing. But, as I have shown above, you brethren are the ones who are digressing because you are advocating an additional body. Paul taught that there is one and but one. Second, you charge that I am "creating division in the body of Christ," but you brethren are responsible for the division. For example, suppose: (1) I and others begin to advocate the idea of two baptisms; (2) You and others oppose the idea; (3) Finally, the church is divided over the issue. Question: Who would be responsible for the division? Those who contended for two baptisms? or those who argued that the "ONE BAPTISM" is sufficient? You know the answer, Brother X, and you can well see the application.
I have written much more than I intended to write, but I do hope that my efforts in this letter will cause you to see the error and inconsistency of your position. As you told me, you had "better read and study God's word more prayerfully."
Yours for the TRUTH,
Tommy McClure