"What Is Wrong With Organizations?"
Under the above caption, Brother L. W. Hayhurst has written an article which is designed to justify the practice of churches of Christ contributing funds for the maintenance and operation of Benevolent enterprises such as Childhaven, Tennessee Orphan Home, Potter Orphan Home, and many others among us. Although the article contained none of the above appellations designating these Institutions, his article was for the purpose of justifying the practice mentioned. Since by his own admission he came from the anti-class position to his present stand, it is quite amazing that he would write so much about "church organizations" without giving us some scripture. Also, it seems that when he writes about "church organizations" he would at least make a passing reference to the only one God authorizes — the local church. It is amazing because as any who have dealt with the anti-class brethren know, they are ever ready to cry for scripture. For this they are to be admired. For their refusal to accept it, they should be reproved. Never should aman be criticized for asking for scriptural authority. Brother Hayhurst should have given us some scriptural authority in his article and then see if we accept or refuse it.
He recognizes that there are "organizations" in the church today. He parallels some of them as: "colleges, papers, orphanages, Gospel Press, etc." Others, which he says are less permanent, are: "debates, singing schools, protracted meetings, church-courts, and the like." All of them, permanent or temporary, are parallel according to his article. He says, "The church uses a singing school or an orphanage through which to do its work." If all these organizations are parallel, the same organic structure should obtain among all of them. At least the type of organization characteristic of any one of them could be made applicable to all of them. Therefore, accordingly, the same organic features and character of "our orphanages" could likewise be applied to a singing school. Our orphanages, such as previously named, are centralized organizations, operated by a board of either directors or trustees, to which many churches contribute. Therefore, the churches of Christ could contribute to the operation and maintenance of a centralized Singing School organization, operated by a board of directors and chartered by the State. If Brother Hayhurst admits this, I wonder if he will apply what is generally applied to the anti-class brethren regarding their singing schools, viz.: that singing is teaching. (Eph. 5:19.) If so, then we can have a centralized organization other than the church for teaching the word of God. Brother Hayhurst, does the passage that authorizes the singing school under the direction and supervision of elders in their own locality also authorize a centralzed school such as I've described?
The facts are Brother Hayhurst hasn't given enough information about these "church organizations." Certainly the "orphanages" are organizations through which the church is working — and it is/refreshing indeed to read his admission of it. Most brethren have been seeking justfication of the practice by saying that the homes don't do the work of the church; they do the work of the home. Brother Hayhurst is either in disagreement or behind time. Nevertheless, his statement is true and this is a scriptural objection being offered to the practice. The organization of the church is specified — the local church. (Acts 11:27-30; Phil. 1:1.) All the work that is the work of the church is to be under the supervision and oversight of the elders of the church. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4.) This does not mean that elders can't use "organized" means, arrangements, or expedient measures to be employed in the work done, but in the work done in "our orphanages" who has the supervision and oversight? Who determines what sort of "organized" methods, arrangements or expedient measures are to be employed in caring for the needy? It certainly isn't the elders of the church. "Our Orphanages" are under the direction and control of an organization that is not the church; it is a board of directors, chartered by the State. doing the work of the ohurch. If Brother Hayhurst would parallel singing-schools and orphanages, such as are being considered, let him tell us and his readers who has the control and oversight over each.
In his article, point number 2, he says: "Is it right for an individual to set up an organization through which to perform a duty which falls alike on him and the church, but wrong for the church to have a like organization to perform the same duty?" Brethren, meditate on that statement. Can the church of Christ have organizations through which it accomplishes its work? If so, harmonize the fact that the local church is an all-sufficient organization. It is the only organization God has authorized to perform and accomplish the mission of the church. Now that is either true or false. Has God delegated the church the authority to "have" organization through which to function? If so, where is the limitation as to the kind or size of the organizations we can "have?" Brother Hayhurst should know, since he came out of "creedmaking," that when there is general authority for a Practice, to limit it where God hasn't limited it, is sin. Therefore if what he said is true, there is no limit to the kind or size of organizations the church can "have" through which to do it's work. The old maxim of "That which proves too much proves nothing" faces him. If his principle admits an organization that he thinks is wrong, he should either accept it or re-state his principle and put in some modifications and limitations. Either give us the passage that authorizes the church to have organizations through which to work. or give us the Passage that limits the kind or size of organization the church can have.
Reading through his comments relative to the individual and the church and their actions in benevolencemade me wonder if Brother Hayhurst would object to any kind, sort, size, or type of organization. I wonder if he would deny that individual Christians could form a hospital or school. I doubt that he would. Yet I wonder if he would admit that churches could form a hospital or school. I really hope not! He would probably admit that individual brethren could form an association for some worthy purpose, incorporate it, etc. Surely he would not admit that churches could form an association for any purpose and incorporate it. Thus, one difference at least, and this is his trouble as it seems from his writings.
Along this line, there is another statement that is worthy of comment. He said: "Whoever saw a church lose its autonomy helping an orphanage, except in the diseased brain of some would-be prophet who can't make his theories work?" I should like to note that under the present set-up of "our orphanages" and according to Brothery Hayhurst's argument along this line, that if he cannot see how that churches do lose their autonomy over the work done, his brain must have the malady he attributed to the "would-be prophet." What is the autonomy of the church? Is it more than supervision and oversight of the work done? Is it more than elders choosing expedient measures to do the work? Well, who has the oversight and supervision of the work done in "our orphanages?" Certainly not the elders! Who chooses the expedient measures that are to be employed in the relief of the needy? Any one who is acquainted with "our orphanages" knows and I'm sure Brother Hayhurst knows. It is the board of directors who have complete supervision and control over the work done. As a matter of fact, when all is said and done under present day conditions, all the "choosing" elders of the church can do is: how much money; how long to send; to which Institution to send. Is this the work of relieving the needy that has been charged to the church — simply to send money or not? Surely not!
In conclusion, I would just like to state that if we take the total argument Brother Hayhurst has made and apply his own principles to it, the church of Christ could own and operate any kind or size organization under the Sun for any purpose that even remotely resembled a good work. (Yet, he professes to be unable to see how churches could lose autonomy.) His parallel of colleges, papers, orphanages. Gospel Press, etc. would say that the church of Christ could own and operate a church of Christ school. It could own and operate a church of Christ paper. It could own and operate a church of Christ orphanage. Regarding the Gospel Press, the church of Christ could even own and operate that. I wonder if they would reject the Gospel Press if the name was changed to "Foreign Mission Society" and it were to provide for several evangelists as they preached the gospel overseas? I hope not yet I'm almost afraid to mention it for fear that someone will begin promoting such.
Believe the truth, Brother Hayhurst, such organizations are a denial of the all-sufficiency of the one and only that God approves — the local church with elders, deacons, and evangelists. The addition of another is a denial of the sufficiency of the one God authorizes in the New Testament. May this help you see the truth and the destiny to which the road you're traveling will eventually lead.