|
Bro. Turner:
 Church
support of colleges and benevolent institutions is often likened
to "the Missionary Society." Why is this done, and
what is the point?
Reply:
The
division among saints, that resulted in the "Christian
Church" and the church of Christ, had its beginning with
the "society" question. In 1849, following a
"build up" of "cooperation" meetings by
which a number of local churches pooled their funds to work as
one in evangelism, the American Christian Missionary Society was
formed. This was the "wedge" that started the
division. "Matter of methods" and
"Expediency" arguments, used to defend the society,
were later applied by the same liberal brethren to put
mechanical music in the worship.
Historically,
therefore, the M.S. has a bad reputation among, knowledgeable
members of the church. Some may compare a thing to the M.S.
simply to discredit by association — which is an unfair
tactic. However, there are valid comparisons to be made —
easily recognized by those who understand what was wrong with
the M.S. in the first place. (We are not concerned with
"abuses" of the society — such as "dominating
the church"; but with the basic principles involved.)
First,
the society grew out of a misconception of the universal church;
considering the body of Christ as a brotherhood of churches,
instead of a brotherhood of individual Christians. The universal
church was thought to have certain obligations, as a functional
entity; and some
| |
means sought by which "the
church" (universal) could" do her work." They
failed to see that the single independent local church is the
only organizational structure divinely authorized. Oversight,
treasury, and work must remain local in scope; i.e., no
"brotherhood" organizations are scriptural.
Second,
(and here Campbell "broke" completely with his earlier
teaching) the divine plan is complete and sufficient; no human
organizations are necessary or desirable for doing the work
which God gave the church to do. But the missionary society was
admittedly a human institution through which the churches were
to function. Under this second objection, it would have been
unscriptural if only one church had functioned through it. We
are not at liberty to abandon God's plan of operation and favor
our own.
Now
"society" is just a word, descriptive of an
organization. Boles Home is no less a benevolent society, and
Campaigns for Christ, Inc. is no less a missionary society
because they do not use the word "society". The
arguments (?) used to defend them are often identical with those
used in the last century to defend the missionary society; as
one may see by reading the Otey-Briney Debate, etc.
The
same basic misconceptions that fathered digression in the 19th.
century are at work today, with the same results. Now, as then,
those who oppose these innovations are called "Anti"
— if not worse — and a sectarian spirit forbids open Bible
study of the true issues. "My people are destroyed for lack
of knowledge." Amen!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
