|
 In
the Apr. 14, Firm Foundation Dr. J. D. Thomas reported that
Pres. John Stevens (ACC) was advocating a way for churches to
“become financially involved in a scriptural way in the
training of preachers in our accredited schools.” He
explained, “Specifically, churches could hire young men on
their staff of preachers and support them while they are in
attendance at a Christian college and preparing to preach. The
church would not be “contributing to the college,” but would
simply be supporting the preacher during his time of preparation
for preaching. This is scriptural, inasmuch as churches now
support the local minister while he is preparing to preach next
Sunday.”
I
fail to see how anything can be “scriptural” “inasmuch as
—” we do so and so. A thing is “scriptural” when the
SCRIPTURES authorize it — and a PhD. should understand that.
But the schools want some of that “financial blood” that is
now going to church operated “preacher schools.”
And
should the churches really send support to the preacher —
after all the propaganda we have heard to the effect that
preachers are dishonest, and money should be sent to some “sponsoring
church” rather than directly? What is wrong with “contributing
to the college” according to “We Be Brethren” — bro.
Thomas’ book?? Is it not apparent that this is another “college
try” for the church treasury — the same, in fact, as that
made by Pres. A. C. Pullias (DLC) a few years past? What
possible advantage has accredited BIBLE knowledge over
any other, to BIBLE preachers?
|
|
My
memory is none too sharp, but I recall this same plea in the
history of earlier efforts to get support for colleges; and it
is amazing that men who supposedly keep up with such an
important issue would be “caught” by it now. But bro. Reuel
Lemmons. in an editorial of Apr. 21, (F.F.) follows in the same
path with bro. Thomas. How long will it take him to see where he
is being led?
He
thinks, “The church has better control over the education its
preachers get if it is paying the bill.” At the risk of
shocking the editor, this preacher would like to announce that he
does not belong to (i.e., is not the property of) “the
church.” but is an individual belonging to Christ. I
expect brethren (individually and/ or collectively) to support
me because I am engaged in the work of the Lord
and we have this common interest. I work with my brethren, and
enter into agreement with certain ones to function collectively
in certain things; but I am not a “Church of Christ”
preacher (in that ‘party” sense which is so common these
days).
With
“our” preachers, going to “our” schools, where “we”
control the education “our” preachers get — (and the once
common practice of putting such statements in “quotes” is
now a rarity) how long will it take to convince churches to quit
kidding themselves, send the money to the school, and let the
college run the show?
I
think bro. Lemmons had better read up on the
college-in-the-church budget arguments of the past century. I
think bro. Thomas already knows!!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
