|
 Last
month we reprinted portions of an article by W. E. Brightwell,
first published in Gospel Advocate in 1934. We continue quoting
from the Brightwell series, as reprinted in TORCH (Jan. '68) by
William Wallace.
----------------------
"One
of two things is true: either the missionary societies are
right, and we ought to stop fighting them; or else we are wrong
in doing the same thing under another name, and ought to stop
kidding ourselves. Why do we object to missionary societies?
...Specifically, the crime of the missionary society is that it
destroys the initiative, and eventually the independence, of the
local congregation! Does not our plan of mission work destroy
the spontaneous and automatic enthusiasm which the Lord's plan
would generate, substituting a worm-eaten, cut-and-dried
project? …
I
submit this proposition: Any individual Christian, or group of
individuals, smaller than a local congregation; or any group of
individuals or churches larger than a local church; or any
individual church itself that begins thinking in terms of what
the whole brotherhood should do, and goes or sends somebody to
the churches to see that they do it, and acts as an agent or
agency through which the brotherhood does it, thereby
constitutes itself a full-grown, blown-in-the-bottle,
fourteen-karat missionary society of the deepest dye! There is
no way on earth to whitewash it. There is no city of refuge
where it may hide from God's displeasure. To call it something
else, or to leave it unnamed, is a mere technical dodge. It is
not condemned because it is similar
|
|
to a missionary
society, but because it violates the same
fundamental principle the society violates --
namely, the initiative and autonomy of the local church.
It
is just as easy for a local congregation to be a missionary
society as it is for any group of Christians or churches to
organize one. It is not a question
merely of who sponsors the work,
but the scope and nature of the
work sponsored. (emph. mine, rft)
I
have my doubts about the moral right of a church to
"sponsor" anything. What right has a church to
underwrite any work which it could not do in its own strength,
in the event that all of those upon whom it is depending should
fail it? And if it can do the work itself, why does it not go
ahead and do it and not ask for help? …
At
best, sponsoring means starting something which you cannot
finish. At worst, it is a mere technicality to avoid scriptural
criticism.... The Lord requires nothing of a Christian nor a
church that cannot be done wholly without outside suggestion or
assistance."
------------------------------
We
believe Bro. Brightwell was getting to the real issue here, the
basic character of a truly "independent autonomous
church." The SCOPE of collective work, from a scriptural
viewpoint, is the single local church. We suggest you write
TORCH, Rt. 3, Booneville, Miss. 38829 for the whole series of
Brightwell articles.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
