|
 Have
you noticed that when we discuss the Missionary Society, an abuse
of government is usually the error cited? After 135 years of
controversy (including the past 25 years rehash) many brethren
who wouldn’t touch a “missionary society” with a ten-foot
(O.K., feet) pole; still do not know the basic error involved.
Forty
to fifty years after the A. C.M.S. had been formed, its divisive
fruits clearly seen, its abuses exposed — the arguments of “church
of Christ” vs. “Christian church” settled on instrumental
music and the “control” which the society supposedly
exercised over the churches. (The control was real enough, but
usually took the form of “influence” or “advice” which
churches accepted because of the supposed benefits of “cooperative”
action. A “restructured” church with congregations
organically bound together, is a recent development in the
Christian church.) Perhaps it was easier to point out abuses
than to analyze the error of churches acting collectively —but,
for whatever reason, our generation was given but a superficial
knowledge of “what is wrong with the missionary society.”
If
a missionary society (or any other board of directors,
sponsoring church or “arrangement”) serves as a media
through which a plurality of churches act as one, it is the “fact”
that churches so act which is contrary to New Testament
teaching. In order for a plurality of churches to act
collectively (as a team) there must be some means of
coordination, some means of reaching a common mind, by which
team activity is possible.
A
“dictatorship” (one-man rule by some
|
|
means of coercion)
intensifies the error, making it more obvious and vulnerable
to criticism; but the N.T. principle of indep- endent,
self-governed churches, operating within their several ability,
is violated when the “common mind” is reached by chosen
representatives. Nor is the basic error corrected if the common
mind is reached by a “one man, one vote” process, where
action is taken only on unanimous decisions.
Can
we not see that changing the form of government by which a
project is executed collectively, does not remove the fact that
churches are acting collectively? Have we become so wedded to
the rhetoric concerning the abuses of the missionary
society, or the sponsoring church, that we would readily accept
the error if we could devise a better modus operandi?
Must we spend our energies debating Dictatorship, Republic, or
Democracy; While God’s plan for independent, self-governed
churches suffers?
And
if this pushes some to question strict independence, and to look
for some form of collective action on the part of N.T. churches
— in “Paul, and Company” or the “Messenger’s Fund for
Needy Saints” — consider carefully your course. Does God’s
word then really teach congregational independence? How
far would you allow (as if that mattered)
inter-congregational funds and administration to progress, on
the basis you now advocate, before you cry. “Halt!”? And
would not your argument then be right back where we began —
crying “Abuse!” rather than scriptural principle?? Robert
Turner
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
