00B.35 Chapter 28. About Organizations--Christian Colleges, Orphan--Homes, and Missionary Soc.

XXVIII. About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 1 AN HONEST STUDY

If we are afraid to study, something is wrong. If we are unwilling to study, something is wrong. If we are wrong, we ought to want to know it. If we are right in heart, we will want to correct any wrong.

We agree that individual work is right.

We agree that it is right to have a congregation. If the congre­gation with its elders and deacons is an organization, then we may have an organization.

• May we have any other religious organization?

• Is it generally agreed that we can have no organization of a number of congregations?

• Is it agreed that each congregation is independent of any larger organization?

• May we have an organization in or under the congregation which is not the congregation?

• May we have a manner of a "wheel-inside-of-wheel" organ­ization?

• May we have a religious organization apart from the "local" congregation?

• If so, what manner and how many?

• Are organizations in all things always entirely analogous?

• If not, why not let each stand or fall on its own merits?

REMARKS AND REPLIES Our brother wants us all honestly to study these points. He does not care who answers his questions. He is calling for "an honest study." The task of replying to these ques­tions has fallen to me first. Others may later have some­thing to say on the points here raised. Very probably they will, and my efforts at reply will, no doubt, get all the crit­icisms if not all the attention, and our brother’s questions, since they do not commit him to any position, could easily be forgotten in a discussion of any position taken by me or any other man who undertakes to engage in this honest study. But it must be obvious to all our readers that in the midst of problems, questions, and confusion, somebody must offer us something definite and constructive.

Somebody must give us a solution to our problems and an answer to our questions if we are going to do anything worthy of our name and of our claims. It is easy to do nothing at all and to find fault with what others are doing. A preacher or a paper can make a big reputation for loyalty by preaching against everything that is done in the name of religion as unscriptural and by persistently and urgently insisting that we be scriptural i n all things. And it is easy for us to make ourselves believe that we are scriptural in doing nothing simply because we can show that what others are doing is done in an unscriptural manner or by an un­scriptural method. In fact, some of us seem to think that all we need to do in order to be scriptural is to take the negative on every proposition that is presented to us—to criticize everything that others do.

Shakespeare said, "There is small choice in rotten apples"; and if we go to perdition at all, it probably docs not matter at all what caused us to go there; but I believe I would have more respect for myself even in hell if I went there for doing a good work in the wrong way than I would if I went there for doing nothing at all. And some tre­mendous changes are going to have to take place in the attitude that some of us who claim that we are entirely scriptural sustain toward each other if we are going to be congenial in heaven.

Discretion or diplomacy would probably counsel us to publish our brother’s questions and say nothing in reply, and let any contributor who might have the temerity to tackle these problems express his ideas in our columns. Then if that contributor’s position should be assailed, we could easily disclaim responsibility. Or we could publish these questions and simply say: "Hurrah for this brother! It is time for us to call a halt and study these things. We are certainly drifting. The churches are fast getting away from the New Testament simplicity. Any preacher who is either afraid or ashamed to preach the plain, unvarnished word of God is a traitor to the cause of Christ, and the sooner he goes the way of Judas, the better it will be for the churches. These kid-gloved soft-soapers who fraternize with the sects and pastorize on the big city churches are a disgrace to the cause of Christ. And these religious pro­moters who want to organize something, found some un­scriptural institution to rival the church and give them an official position, with the worldly honor and the emoluments of such a position, should be corraled, branded, and sent over to the digressives or the sects in a body. There is no place for them in the New Testament scheme of things. Our fathers contended for a ’thus saith the Lord’ in all they preached and practiced. ’Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,’ was their motto, and to it they adhered at the price of persecutions and ridicule. They bared their bosoms to the shafts of satire and the darts of the devil, and rushed forward over the fields of battle conquering and to conquer, with their consistent and unanswerable plea for the ancient order. Ours is a noble heritage. Shall we prove worthy of it, or shall we exchange the truth for popularity and become like the sectarians by forming organizations that the Bible knows nothing about? Thank God for a few faithful men like Brother Blank! They do us good. We are fast drifting into digression. Take warning, brethren."

Such an editorial as that would bring us high praise from some brethren, and it would probably be copied and commended in all the "apostolic" papers. It would sound loyal, strong, and mighty! But how many questions did it answer? How much honest study did it give to any prob­lem? Simply none a t all. But that is what we are accus­tomed to get from some of our "apostolic" contenders and from some of our editorial snipers who hide under a pseu­donym and fire upon the soldiers of the cross while they are engaged in battle with the enemy.

If this is to be an honest study of questions that vitally concern the whole brotherhood, and that must materially affect the whole future of our work, and is not to be turned into an attack upon some individual or some paper and colored with sectional strife, personal animus, party rancor, or business competition, then I am happy to express my own conviction on the points raised. In endeavoring to solve these difficult problems in the interest of harmony and of progressive righteousness, I should have the sympa­thy of every lover of truth, whether he agrees with all my conclusions or not. What I say cannot, of course, be taken as a decree for the brotherhood.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, OrphanHomes, and Missionary Societies

No. 2

QUESTIONS

We agree that it is right to have a congregation. If the congregation, with its elders and deacons, is an organization, then we may have an organization.

1. May we have any other religious organization?

2. Is it generally agreed that we can have no organiza­tion of a number of congregations?

3. Is it agreed that each congregation is independent of any larger organization?

4. May we have an organization in or under the congre­gation, which is not the congregation?

5. May we have a manner of a "wheel-inside-of-wheel" organization?

6. May we have a religious organization apart from the "local" congregation?

7. If so, what manner and how many?

8. Are organizations in all things always entirely anal­ogous?

9. If not, why not let each stand or fall on its own merits?

REPLIES We will answer by number and not repeat the question:

ORGANIZATION: INSTITUTIONS In answering the above questions, I have several times indicated that the word organization might be used with different ideas as to its meaning. Some people get fright­ened out of their senses at the words organization and institution. It now seems appropriate to give some thought to the meaning of these words. First, let us see a few exam­ples of the uses to which the words may be put:

It depends upon the nature, the size, the purpose, and the use of an organization as to whether it is scriptural or unscriptural.

Christian Scientists and Quakers charge that we have institutionalized the church because we practice singing, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and baptizing people. They do not believe in external ordinances.

Therefore, when our own critics, apostolics, pseudony­mous and pseudepigraphic writers wail that the church is now becoming institutionalized, they should, if they have any regard for either righteousness or reason, tell us what they mean. They should specify. They should define their terms. Do they allude to the Lord’s-day Bible school? Are they striking at the Christian colleges? Are they warn­ing us against orphan homes? They should not spurn with­out specifying. They should not damn without designating.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 3 In answering these questions I have taken the position that we may have organizations in or under the congrega­tion, a "wheel-within-a-wheel" system. Also I stated that we may have organizations apart from the congregation-- that is, organizations that are not identical with the con­gregation, although they may be dependent upon the con­gregation. In giving examples of the uses of the words organization and institution, I have already indicated the kind of organizations I had in mind, but this point will be further elaborated and illustrated here. I shall begin in the most primary and simple manner in order that the position be put beyond the possibility of a misunderstanding. When the idea of an organization in religious work is suggested, many people think of an ecclesiasticism —of the binding together of churches and individuals in a society that has its by-laws and constitution, its rules and regula­tions by which its leaders and officials are elected, and by which members are received into the society and remain in good standing, etc. They think of such a society as selling stocks and shares, and as governed by a directorate com­posed of stockholders, and each director given votes accord­ing to the number of shares he holds. This is the kind of organization that the missionary society is, and this w e all oppose. Let there be no misunderstanding on this point. But we should oppose this intelligently, understanding what the missionary society is and why we oppose it, and not ignorantly compare every effort that is made for the ad­vancement of the cause of Christ with the missionary society.

Religious denominations are human societies or organi­zations, and they started or were formed for the purpose of emphasizing or advancing some special religious idea or doctrine, usually some doctrine that was either neglected or perverted by others. Such denominations and societies we all oppose; let there be no misunderstanding on that point. But because there are organizations and institutions that are unscriptural, shall we conclude that there could be no organization or institution that is scriptural? Such a conclusion would not only be absurd; it would be ruinous. The local church is an organization; however, some brethren have gone to the extreme of denying this, and have opposed elders and deacons, a church, roll, "taking membership," or "putting in membership," etc. This represents the extreme anarchistic spirit that some men get in their opposition to things that we all agree are wrong—human institutions to do the work of the divine institution. But someone may suggest that the human denominations and the missionary societies all had small and innocent be­ginnings, but they grew into what they now are. This is not true of all of them, but may be true of some. Some were never scriptural even in their beginning. For argu­ment’s sake, however, we will grant that it is true of all of them. What, then, is the point? What shall be our con­clusion? Because something that was scriptural, good, and innocent degenerated into something monstrous and bad, shall we conclude that we should never start anything good? That would be strange logic, but it is the exact logic that many writers on "institutionalism" and "society- ism" are now using. On that principle a young married couple might reason that because some other couple had had children born pure and innocent, but who turned out to be criminals, we will prevent any such thing from hap­pening to us by preventing the birth of children. That would prevent it all right, but in so doing the married pair themselves may become sinners. On that principle, by doing nothing at all, we can prevent our efforts from going awry, but we have thereby gone crooked ourselves.

Moreover, it should be remembered that the church which was started by Christ through the Holy Spirit and the apostles degenerated and apostatized into the Roman Catholic Church. It was not the fault of the church or of the principles that governed it. It all came about by gradual departures from these.

Therefore, says someone, we should not brook the least departure. Amen! We all agree there, but something scriptural, good, and innocent is not a departure. We must learn to distinguish between custom and law. and cease to brand everything that is new to us, an innovation according to our habits and practices, as new in fact, and as an inno­vation upon the Lord’s plan. If we do not learn this, then the habits and practices of the most crude and ignorant congregation, with no leadership and no program, become the standard of loyalty for all the members of that church, and for all who are reared under its influence. Any church that does not do just as it does is digressive in their eyes. But if we are all agreed on these points, and if we see that there are some organizations that are condemned by us all as unscriptural, we may now consider what organi­zations and institutions are not unscriptural. In this study let us first remember that the word organize means to "arrange, systematize, coordinate dependent parts." etc.

Let us also know that the word order is a synonym of the word organization. Then let us remember that the inspired apostle enjoins us to "do all things decently and in order"; therefore, with system or organization. Let us remember, too, that before a man is qualified to be an elder of a church he must be orderly. (1 Timothy 3:2, Revised Version.) This shows that God wants his work done with system, organiza­tion, or order. "For God is not the author of confusion [Gr., disorder, tumult, unquietness|, but of peace." (1 Corinthians 14:33.) The word confusion, used in contrast with the word peace here, shows that it means disorder, lack of under­standing and agreement, a lack of orderly arrangement and systematic proceedings. God is not the author of this, nor is he pleased with it. He wants order, system, organiza­tion, and peace. Paul told Titus to set things in order. A congregation that is full grown, and measures up to the standard laid down in the New Testament for an organ­ized congregation, will have elders, deacons, and members. To fit the divine pattern, these elders and deacons must possess all the scriptural qualifications, must be scripturally appointed, and scripturally functioning. Then if the mem­bers are doing their part, this will be a scriptural church, a divine organization. But the very work that this church is required and ordained to do makes necessary some ar­ranging, systematizing, and an agreement among the mem­bers and the workers. This means organizing the workers, all of which is done by and under the elders. This is the kind of organization that we may scripturally have. In order that the singing may be done "decently and in order," the elders will, with the help and sanction of the congregation, appoint or employ a song leader. This leader then becomes the singing superintendent. It is his work to arrange the congregation, train them, and lead and teach them in the singing. H e may organize the congrega­tion for singing, putting the soprano singers together, the alto singers together, the tenor singers together, and the bass singers together. (If he docs this, he should call it organizing the congregation, and not organizing the singers, as if some members are singers and some are not. That is inconsistent with congregational singing. When a leader stands up and says, "Now let all the singers come down to the front," he contradicts his claim and divides his con­gregation into singers and nonsingers. "Let all the people sing.") Thus we may have systematized or organized sing­ing, with a teacher and leader, who is in reality the superin­tendent of the singing, whether he is called that or not.

Oh, but an objector might say: "Singing is a duty of the church, the very thing God ordained the church t o do, and now you have another organization, with a superintendent usurping the function and doing the work of the church! The superintendent has displaced the elders and is bossing the singing!" But surely a child can see the fallacy here. This is the church itself doing the work in a systematic, organized way, the elders sanctioning it, having arranged for it themselves. The song superintendent is no more a church official than is the janitor. If one of the elders can act as singing superintendent, well and good. If no elder is qualified for this, then let them appoint some man who is qualified.

If the congregation is large and they have need of ushers, and some one man, be he deacon or elder or some other man appointed by the elders, sees to appointing and training and supervising the ushers, then we have an order of ushers with a superintendent. This is another organiza­tion within the church. It is workers in the church systema­tized for service.

If the church has a Bible school divided into classes, with a teacher for each class, and someone to see that the teachers are present, that the visitors and newcomers are shown to the proper classes, that the literature is distributed, and who sees that the whole school is going in a systematic and orderly way, then that church has a systematized, hence an organized, Bible school. The one who is charged with supervising it is a superintendent, whether we call him that or not. If he is one of the elders, well and good. He does not have to be one of the elders any more than the song superintendent or the janitor has to be an elder. He is under the elders, and they assigned him his work. They oversee him and his work, as they do all else connected with the church.

But, someone says, this Bible school does need a secre­tary who reads reports, etc. It is only a systematized work in the church, or of the members of the church, and what­ever is essential in thus systematizing this work, or of per­fecting and making more efficient the system, may be used. There is no sense in endorsing a half or imperfect system, and then rejecting an efficient system. But that is a habit with some of us. We think a thing is scriptural if it is done in a disorderly, disjointed, destructive way; but if the same thing is done in a systematized, efficient way, i t is digressive. And the only evidence that such men need to convince them that a thing is wrong is that it succeeds.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 4

We have seen that any systematizing of the work of the congregation is nothing less than organizing the workers for the duties assigned them. All such work is done in the name of the church and under the supervision of the elders, although the elders may have assigned the work to those who are especially fitted for it. In this sense we may, and should, often have a "wheel-within-a-wheel" manner of organization.

We may continue our study by considering what kind of organization we may have "apart from the church." When a congregation owns property, there must be some deed or legal record made of this fact. The deed cannot be made to the congregation. It must be made to trustees— men who hold the property in trust for the church. These trustees control the property in a legal way; and if any court proceedings should ever occur in reference to it, they would act for the church. They would be held by the court as the ones to act. These trustees constitute an organization. They are not the congregation, although they may be a part of it. As a band or company of men with special func­tion, legally responsible and legally qualified to act as such a band, company, or committee, they certainly are an or­ganization. They do not comprise the congregation.

These trustees may or may not be elders of the church. Often they are not. Even if they are elders, they may not include all the elders, as elders may be appointed after the deed was made. This appointment will not make them trustees unless they are the successors of those named in the deed. Even in that case there should be a record made of the fact that these men have been b y the congregation chosen to succeed those whom the deed names as trustees of the property. But someone may say that this organization does not in any way do the work of the church. Certainly not. We cannot have any organization that does, if we wish to please God. We have used this as a premise. It illustrates the principle of an organization acting for the church that is not coequal or coextensive with the church.

"Where is the scriptural authority for this?" someone may inquire. It is the same chapter and verse that au­thorize a congregation to build or to own a meetinghouse. The command to meet requires an understood or appointed meeting place. Such a place of meeting, with the necessary conveniences and comforts, must be had either by grant or permission or by hire or by purchase. The last-named method is the most satisfactory, therefore the most common in our day. We thus have an illustration of the fact that the thing the church is authorized to do sometimes makes necessary an organization, legally recognized, that is not in fact the church.

Again, it will be admitted by all that it is a part of the work of the church to care for orphan children unless some radically "apostolic" brother wants to contend that this is wholly an individual matter, and that the church as such is exempt from practicing pure and undefiled religion. Such an argument from such a brother would not surprise us, but we believe that such brothers are vastly in the minority, and shall assume, therefore, that it is generally admitted that the church of the Lord should care for, sup­port, teach, and rear dependent orphan children. Now, in doing this work, some organization, some institution other than the organization of the congregation, consisting only of elders, deacons, and members, is necessary. The children must have a home in which to eat and sleep and bathe and play. Someone must manage the home. Someone must "mother" the children. Someone must teach them. Either these children must be distributed in private homes or there must be a home created for them where they will be cared for and trained. Either "home" is an institution apart from the church. If the children are placed in private homes, which would be ideal, then either the work is done by in­dividuals, and the church as such has no part in it, or the church must support the children in the private homes. If the first plan is used, the church—the congregation or local church—has no responsibility. If the second is used, the church contributes to a private institution and does its work through an institution that is not the church —the private home or family. But if the children are taken care of in private homes without expense to the church, which is the best possible way, the church will still have a responsibility in finding such homes for the children that are cast upon it. Such homes are not open on every corner and waiting for chil­dren to be assigned to them by the elders of the church. There are many more orphan children than there are homes to adopt them. Then if a congregation creates and main­tains a home in which to keep and care for these children until they can be put in private homes, which is exactly what orphan homes are established to do, it has an orphan home—an institution owned and operated by the congre­gation which is not the congregation. This institution is "apartfrom" the congregation in that it does not comprise all the members of the congregation and does contain some individuals who are not in the congregation. Many of the inmates of the institution are not members of the church. Is it right for a church—single congregation—to own and to operate such an institution? If not, will the objector kindly tell us how a church as such can take care of orphan children or dependent old people? Please give us one work­able, constructive suggestion.

If a congregation owns and supports such an institution to do the work the church is ordained to do, is it guilty of institutionalism? If so, how can it do this work without the institution? we ask again. If not, then what sort of an institution will it have to build and support in order to be guilty of institutionalism? If some institutions may be scripturally operated by the church and other institutions degrade and displace the church and render those who sup­port them guilty of institutionalism, then do not consistency, logic, and honesty demand that those who write against institutions and institutionalism tell us what they mean; that they draw a distinction between the institutions that are scriptural and those that are unscriptural? If they ob­ject to any and all institutions except the congregation itself, are they not in honor bound to tell us how we can do the work outlined above—care for orphans and old people? Would they not also be forced to abandon and abolish all religious papers or publishing houses? If not, why not?

If it is right for a congregation—a single, local, inde­pendent church—to maintain an orphan home, would it also be right for a local church to maintain a school in which these orphan children may be educated? Would the church be forced to send the children to the public schools, or could it provide teachers, books, etc., and conduct a school in connection with the home? If the church rears children, is it not under as much obligation to educate them as are parents? If the school is added to the home, then would it be right to teach the Bible in that school and endeavor to make Christians of the children, or would that be digression —to try to make Christians out of the children? If we should, or if a local church should, operate such a school, would it not be a Bible school? Would it not be a church school?

Suppose a church that does not have an orphan home decides to maintain a school where the members of the congregation can send their children and know that they are protected from bad associations and infidel teaching, would that be wrong? What sort of an institution would this be? Would it be any different in principle from the school conducted for the orphans? Or is it all right to edu­cate orphans, but sinful to educate our own children? But someone may say that all this is right because it is done by a single congregation. It would be wrong for a number of congregations to unite and establish and maintain such institutions. Why? It could not be because the in­stitutions themselves are wrong, for if they are wrong per se, then a single church could not support them. Why cannot many churches cooperate in doing anything that is right? But we must not tie them together and destroy their independence, you say. Agreed, but does cooperation do this?

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 5

We have considered such institutions as orphan homes, old people’s homes, and schools in connection with or as owned by a local church—a single congregation. Whether all will admit that it is scriptural for a local church to operate such an institution remains to be seen. But he who does not admit that is challenged to tell how a church can care for such dependents. We are going to proceed, how­ever, upon the assumption that we are all agreed that it is right for a local church to do such work as caring for orphan children and dependent old people. We are now ready to discuss such institutions when owned and operated by a greater number of disciples than those who compose a local church.

Such institutions may be established, owned, and con­trolled by one of three ways:

Now, with these suggested methods before us, the ques­tion is cleared and the discussion opened. If we agree that such institutions are ever right in any circumstance, then it is not the institutions, per se, that are in the discussion. They are allowed; they are right if only we can find that circumstance in which they are right. The discussion, therefore, concerns only methods of control, operation, and ownership. The three methods just mentioned are the only ones in use among us, or that are ever suggested among us. In fact, they are the only ones possible among independent churches. To use other methods we would have to combine the churches into a "church" or a denomination, establish headquarters, elect officials, arrange a legislative assembly or convention and provide revenue, and then vote an ap­propriation out of denominational funds for the establishing of such institutions. Then the institutions would belong to the denomination. The boards of directors would be elected or appointed by the convention and would be ame­nable to the convention or to the denominational directors or officials. That is what is meant by "church institutions" in the denominational sense. Surely every reader can see that neither of the three methods of operation mentioned above is analogous to or even comparable with this denominational system. We cannot have denominational institutions until we create a denomination.

If, then, all the three methods suggested are not scrip­tural, which one is scriptural? If they are all scriptural, then which one is best? Let us discuss them in the order given:

All who agree that it is right to have such institutions at all agree that this method of ownership and control is scriptural. The scripturalness of this method is not here questioned, but the wisdom and the propriety of it is here questioned. If a local church puts up all the money that goes into the establishing of the institution, and if the min­istrations or benefits of the institution are confined to the needs of the local church and its vicinity, then it is entirely proper that the local church should exercise complete owner­ship and control of the institution. But if the money that builds and supports the institution comes from churches and individuals scattered over a wide field; if those who enter the institution come from widely scattered places and are committed by localities, churches, or individuals who have a responsibility in their care, then the institution becomes a general public servant. It is an institution of common interest, of common benefit. It serves the needs of many people, of many churches. It is, therefore, in every sense a cooperative institution, except in ownership and management. It was cooperatively built; it is cooperatively supported; but i t must not b e cooperatively managed! On what principle are people expected to put money into an enterprise and to hold other interests in it, and yet not be permitted to have a voice in its management? Is "taxation without representation" a fair principle? Would not a board of directors consisting of worthy, capable, and interested men from different churches that support the institution, and from different parts of the territory that it serves, be a wiser and more equitable way to manage it? But, says an objector, that would bind these churches together, or it would be an organization larger than a local church. (That objection will get plenty of attention in the discussion of the next method.) At present we shall reply to that only by saying that these churches and individuals that support the institution are already bound together by a common interest. They share mutually in the responsibilities and the benefits of the institution. They all together built it, and they all alike support it; but it would be unscriptural for them to manage it together! Yet all must be responsible for any mismanagement, and rally with their money to meet any deficit or overcome any loss! Oh, we can do things together, but w e must not say that we do them together! Brethren, some of us reason as if we thought hypocrisy were heroic, camouflage praiseworthy, evasion a virtue, and nonsense angelic! But some brother may say that a board of directors con­sisting of the elders of a local church should be just as capa­ble, wise, and trustworthy as a board composed of men from different churches. That is a possibility, but where you have a greater number to select from you have more opportunities to select the right men. And the fact that a man is an elder of a church is no evidence that he is a financier or good business executive. Often those who are called elders do not possess the qualifications of an elder. There are cases where men were appointed elders of a church, not for the sake of the church, but for the purpose of having a board for an orphan home! That was occasioned by the ideas of some technical quibbler who thought it would be unscriptural to have any board except the elders of a local church—some equivocator who thought that if you have the form or semblance of a thing it does not matter whether you have the real thing or not. Call men elders and thus have a scriptural form and scriptural names, and let scriptural principles go hang! Why not sprinkle a man and say that you have baptized him? But even if all elders were scriptural, there are other good reasons why an institution in which different churches share should be managed by men from different churches. An institution of more than local interests and more than local importance should never be made to suffer by any local disputes or divisions.

We have in our former articles seen that schools do not usurp the function of the church. We have seen that if a local church—a single congregation—wants to conduct a school, it will have to have a corps of teachers or a faculty and systematized classes, and this means organization. The school is an organization apart from the church, though not independent of the church, and certainly not a rival of the church. The organization extends no further than the walls of the institution. It is only the organizing of the workers to do a task assigned them by the church. The faculty of such a school is no more in rivalry with the church than the faculty of a state university is in rivalry with the state. These teachers no more displace the elders and deacons than the teachers in the university displace the legislators and the governor of the state.

We have seen also that a school that is founded and con­ducted through the cooperative efforts of individual Chris­tians scattered over the globe has no more organization than a school conducted by a local church—that is, the organization extends no further than the walls of the insti­tution. It includes only those who are doing the actual work. It does not include the donors. They are not in the organization, and sustain no organic connection to the in­stitution or to each other. They are related only by a com­mon interest, and not by any organic union or legal con­nection.

We have shown that even the trustees are not bound together except by a common trust. The staff writers of a religious paper are scattered over some six or eight states. They are united in a common effort. They have a common interest and a common trust. They may at times meet and consult together, but there i s not one o n the staff that be­longs t o the corporation that publishes the paper. They in one sense constitute an organization, and yet they are no part of the corporation. This is the same sense in which the trustees of a school are organized.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 6 The kind of organizations that we are now considering are orphan homes, old people’s homes, missionary schools, and other schools—such schools as those that were founded and presided over by Alexander Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, T. B. Larimore, and David Lipscomb; such schools as are now being conducted by faithful brethren in Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, etc.; schools that meet the requirements of the educational standards of our day, but are conducted by Christians for the purpose of giving young people the opportunities to receive an education without being exposed to evil influences and to atheistic teaching.

Such schools are a necessity in our day, if we value the souls of our children, whether these schools teach the Bible or not. Of course, Bible teaching is the most important branch of learning, if we have regard for the development of character and the salvation of souls; but if any man thinks that it would make a school unscriptural to teach the word of God in it, then we could eliminate the Scrip­tures in order to make the school scriptural, and still have a crying, desperate need for Christian schools. But we have considered such organizations as mentioned above when owned—that is, the necessary property, build­ing, etc., owned—and operated by a local church, these institutions being necessary instruments in the hands of the church for the doing of the work of caring for orphans, for dependent old people, and for teaching or educating the young. These organizations extend no further than the walls of the institutions—that is, they include only those who manage and operate each institution—just the working forces. The work is being done by the church, and these workers are only the employees or agents of the church.

We have now come to the question of whether or not it is scriptural for a number of individual Christians to co­operate in building and operating such institutions. Let us ask a few questions in order to clarify the point:

Someone may offer an answer to the effect that for in­dividuals to build and to support such institutions would be to bind these individuals together in an organization that is not the church, but that is doing the work of the church. The institution becomes parallel with the missionary so­ciety. In replying to this, let us first examine that supposed parallel. This is as good time as any to put that to rest. A school or an orphan home is not any nearer parallel to the missionary society than it is parallel to the government of the United States. This should be seen in the fact that the missionary society builds and supports schools itself. Surely schools that are built by, dependent upon, and agents of the society are not equal to and parallel with the society. The society does the work the church was established to do. It employs, sends out, and supports teachers, preachers, and missionaries. These employees of the society when on the field doing the work the society sent them to do find it necessary to systematize and arrange, hence to organize, their forces. This systematized work becomes a school, an institution belonging to and supported by the society. The most zealous and the most jealous official of the society will never be heard complaining that these institutions usurp the function and steal the glory of the society. The churches, doing the work God ordained them to do, select, send out, and support teachers, preachers, and mis­sionaries. These workers, when on the field doing the work the churches sent them to do, accomplish this work by conducting a school. (Witness Brother McCaleb’s school in Japan and Brother Benson’s school in China.) These schools that are conducted by the missionaries of the in­dependent churches are, so far as organization goes, parallel to the schools of the society, but they are not parallel to the society that founds and supports the schools. The parallelism is between the churches and the society, not between the schools and the society, or between the schools and the churches. The schools are parallel to the schools. The society is parallel to the churches in this work —not in everything, of course. That is why the society is wrong, while the schools are not wrong. If the schools of the society do not usurp the function and steal the glory from the society, why should the schools that are supported by the churches be thought of as usurping the function and stealing the glory of the churches?

There are other reasons why schools are not parallel to the missionary society, but this should be enough here.

We may now consider the objection that schools or orphan homes that are cooperatively built and supported and cooperatively managed—that is, having a board of trustees or directors composed of men from different con­gregations—combine those supporting them in an organiza­tion larger than a local church. A little thought ought to convince even those who make this charge that it is not true. So far as the organization of such an institution is concerned, it is limited to the walls of the institution. It applies only to those who are doing the actual work, and does not include those who contribute to it. Such contrib­utors to, or supporters of, the institution sustain no organic connection to each other or to the institution. They are not tied together by any organizational law. They do not join, or in any other way become members of, any frater­nity, society, association, or company, except that to which they already belong—the church of the Lord. They are under no society rules or regulations, for the reason that they are not members of any society. To refer to whatever deed, charter, or other legal document that is used to secure the property for the purpose for which it was purchased, as the rules and regulations of a society, is equal to saying that a deed to a meetinghouse is the creed of the congrega­tion. In fact, the "creed in the deed" charge has far more truth in it than the charge that the deed and charter of a school include and combine or tie together all the donors to the school. That charge is simply absurd. But someone may suggest that the trustees from dif­ferent churches are bound together in one body—a body not the church.

They are only bound together by a common trust. They are not fellow members of a society. They and all other contributors are bound together by a common spiritual interest. Did Paul and his company, and especially the brother who was chosen by the churches, form a charity society because they were by the churches entrusted with money, and because they "administered" this "abundance" (American Version) or "ministered" this "grace" (Revised Version)? (See 2 Corinthians 8:17-20.) The churches were co­operating in relieving the poor, and Paul and his company were trustees of the funds. They were servants of the churches. The churches were in a cooperative or united effort, and were, therefore, bound together by a common interest, and Paul and his company, "messengers of the churches," at least one of whom was chosen by the churches (whose "job, ” emoluments and all, was created b y this united effort), were bound together by a common trust. But neither Paul’s company of trustees, or messengers, nor the churches whose messengers they were, were bound together by any kind of organizational law. They were not members of any society. They were doing their work simply and only as Christians. This work done by Paul and the New Testament churches was very similar to the work done by our orphan homes today. It was also parallel in principle to the work that is done by our schools—not the work done by the schools themselves, but the united efforts which create and operate the schools. But someone may say that it is no part of the work of the church to teach secular subjects—to educate the young in anything except the Bible. If we grant that it is not the work of the church, we must admit that i t i s the duty o f parents, and any philanthropic citizen as an individual may help parents in this good work. If educating people is not strictly a part of the work of the church, it certainly is a noble work for individual Christians to engage in. The state regards it as a part of its duty and spends millions each year in that work. All good citizens are supposed to favor education and to do what they can to promote it. Philanthropists have given many millions to the cause of education. Religious people have been the pioneers in this field. The first colleges in America were church schools. Education has been the handmaiden of Christianity. It takes some degree of education to enable a person to under­stand enough of God’s will to be a Christian. It takes edu­cation to prepare a man to teach his fellow men the will of God. It takes education to prepare men to meet the sophistries and the assaults of infidels. Certainly no Chris­tian whose opinion or whose objection is worthy of notice will in this age oppose education. The question, then, is whether we will educate our children under Christian in­fluence or under infidel influence. Christians who regard the souls of young people certainly have a right to build schools where true education, character development, may be had. And it is the duty of individual Christians, as well as of churches, to teach the word of God. Then, why may not Christian teachers as individuals teach the word of God to their students? On what sane ground could such work be opposed? But someone may inquire about the ownership of these schools: To whom do they belong? Do they belong to the trustees? No, the trustees only hold this property in trust. Does it—the property—belong to the donors? If so, in what sense did they donate? How was it a gift? Did they buy shares? If so, could not all the shareholders get together and vote a sale of the property and each claim his percent­age per share of the sale price as in liquidating any other business? Would not these contributors or shareholders in that case clearly form a company or a society? They would. But that is not the case. The contributors are not shareholders. Their money was a gift for a purpose, and they have no further hold upon it. They do not own the property of the schools. Does the church, therefore, own these schools? No. Even if we consider them "church schools," they would belong to the churches that have contributed to them and not to the Church. (The big "C" denotes a denomination, which we would have to have if we have church schools in the denominational sense.) When we come to consider the question of the churches as such contributing to the schools, if we find that it is scriptural for them to do this, will they not own the schools? No, they will not. Why should the churches own that to which they contribute any more than individuals should own that to which they contribute? The money given by a church is a gift and not an investment. No, the churches do not own the schools.

Then, who does own them? They are created for a purpose, for a work, for an ideal. They exist for a purpose, and they belong to that purpose and to those who engage in the work and fulfill the purpose. To illustrate: To whom does a house of worship—a meetinghouse—belong? You say it belongs to the congregation that built it. Yes and no. It belongs to them as a house of worship, the purpose for which it was erected, but it does not belong to them to sell and to use the money for some other purpose. The deed will name trustees who will hold that property for the purpose set out in the deed. It exists for a purpose and belongs to that purpose. If a congregation ceases to exist there, the property will have to be disposed of as the deed directs. No one can claim that property or its sale price as his own personal property. Other congregations may have helped to build that house, but they do not own it and cannot control it. It exists as a house of worship and be­longs to those who use it for that purpose, and as long as they use it for that purpose. If the time ever comes when there is no congregation at that place, and the house is not being used at all, it might be possible for those who worship at other places in the same manner as those who built the abandoned house, who wear the same name, etc., to establish a legal right to sell the property and to turn the money into a house at some other place that will be used exactly as the old house was originally used. The ownership of property is always a matter of legal record, and the record should, and usually does, tell how the property should be disposed of in any emergency that is at all probable. The same principles that apply in the ownership of the property of a local church, which property may have been purchased by contributions from many other churches, apply in the ownership of the property of Christian schools. This property has been purchased for a special purpose. It is dedicated to that purpose. It is deeded to that purpose. It is held by legal document and by such trustees as are named in the legal document for that purpose. Does that not settle the ownership question? Should churches, as such, contribute to the schools? This is to be answered in the next number.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, OrphanHomes, and Missionary Societies

No. 7

We now take an advance step in our study. We are ready to ask: Is it right for the churches as such to contribute to the Christian schools and colleges? If it is not right, why is it not? Is it because the institutions are wrong within themselves? If so, then it is wrong for individuals to support them. If you say it is wrong because it would tie the churches together and cause them to lose their con­gregational independence, we ask: Then, why does not the fact that individuals contribute to these schools tie them together in an organization and cause them to lose their individual independence? But we shall wait until next week to argue this question. We wish now to show that it has been the practice of the churches from the days of Alexander Campbell down until today to contribute as churches to the schools. This is no new idea, as we shall see. The following reports, found in the Millennial Harbinger and the Gospel Advocate, will show that this has been the custom of the churches and the schools all along through their history. In 1853 Alexander Campbell made a tour through Illinois and Missouri in behalf of Bethany College. He gives us the following report under the heading, "Notes of Incidents of a Tour Through Illinois and Missouri": The church of Hannibal pledged itself to raise five hundred dol­lars toward the endowment of a chair in Bethany College. Consider­ing their expenditures on a substantial and commodious meeting­house, and their other contributions to evangelical purposes, besides their ordinary charities, we regard this, in their case, as a liberal expression of their interest in the great work of raising up men to meet our own wants and the wants of the age. The church at Paris will do her part in this great work, and gave an earnest of it before we left. We expect from the churches of Paris and Palmyra (which we could not visit) their full share in this endowment. We rank them with Hannibal, who guarantees her five hundred dollars. From the church at DeKalb one hundred twenty-five dollars, also from Bethel, in Buchanan County, two hundred ten dollars.

We delivered two lectures in Liberty to large and interested auditories. The pecuniary result was a subscription of fourteen hundred eighty-six dollars to Bethany College. The church called Mount Gilead, some miles distant, did not participate in this con­tribution, as she, through her representatives, promised one thousand dollars.

Then in 1858 appeals were again being made for Bethany College, and D. Bates made the following appeal in the Mil­lennial Harbinger:

If the entire brotherhood unite in the matter (which we believe will be the case), it will be but a trifle to each one. We, therefore, suggest that the elders throughout the country lay the case before their respective congregations, and take up contributions forthwith. Let each member contribute according to what he has not grudgingly, nor ostentatiously, but freely, and in the spirit of Christianity; and let said contribution be forwarded to the treasurer of the college or whomsoever the trustees may designate. The following editorial note by A. Campbell introduces the article from which the foregoing paragraph has been taken:

We take great pleasure in subjoining the following communica­tion (furnished us in advance) from D. Bates, one of the editors of the Christian-Evangelist, published at Fort Madison, Iowa. We thank him for his words of cheer, and trust that the course of action therein suggested will be approved by the brotherhood. (Millennial Harbinger, 1858.) This is sufficient to show how Alexander Campbell and the other writers and preachers of that period looked upon the question of churches contributing to schools. And yet our anticollege brethren, in their efforts to discourage con­tributions to schools from either churches or individuals, often quote Campbell as saying: "In their church capacity alone they moved." He may have said that, but he did not say it to discourage or discredit schools.

Although the foregoing excerpts were written long be­fore the division had come, some brethren may still think that the men who wrote the above were digressive. For this reason we shall now bring to the attention of our readers something from men who were the stanchest op­ponents of digression that have ever lived. The Nashville Bible School, founded by David Lipscomb, and which is now known as David Lipscomb College, was the first school ever established among loyal disciples after the division. It is also said to be the first school that ever in the history of the world required all students to recite at least one lesson daily in the Bible. This school is now generally referred to as the mother of all our schools. In the years 1907, 1908, and 1909, E. A. Elam made appeals for financial help for this school in almost every issue of the Gospel Advocate. His appeals were headed "Help the Nashville Bible School." David Lipscomb joined with Brother Elam in these appeals, and submitted a complete financial report for the school. Also some of the contributions were sent to Brother Lipscomb. Brother Elam reported contributions received and published letters from some of the donors in an effort to stir others to liberality. Most of Brother Elam’s appeals and reports are found upon the first page of the Gospel Advocate of the years mentioned. On December 19, 1907, Brother Elam says:

Other students have responded readily to this cause. O. T. Craig of Ennis, Texas, has sent two contributions from different congrega­tions, and R. L. Whiteside handed me a dollar for the school when he was in Tennessee.

Here we have two congregational contributions and an individual contribution. On April 30, 1908, Brother Elam published a letter from E. Stephens of Woodbury, Tennes­see, from which I quote the following:

Brother Elam: Enclosed find ten dollars for the Bible School, which the church at Woodbury freely gives. It seems to me that the brethren and the churches throughout the South, and Tennessee especially, should be generous in aiding the Nashville Bible School. I have visited the school and know of the good and wholesome work.

Brother Elam commended this letter, endorsed its senti­ment, and used it to induce others to contribute. Then, again on October 29, 1908, Brother Elam published and com­mended the following letter:

Ennis, Texas, September 29,    1908.—Brother Elam: I enclose ten

dollars for the Nashville Bible School from the few Christians meeting here in a private house. We hope you will succeed in en­listing the interest of enough brethren to enable you to make all the needed improvements, and that the school may continue to grow in usefulness.

Fraternally, Then in the issue of November 26 of the same year, Brother Elam published and commended the following letter:

Watertown, Tennessee, November 2,1908.—Brother Elam: En­ closed find check for ten dollars for the benefit of the Bible School. This is the best we can do for you at this time, but we hope to be able to help more in the future. This is donated by the church. I hope the school is progressing all right. We are all well.

J. L. BRYAN.

If we should search through these reports diligently, we doubt not that many other congregational contributions could be found, but what has been submitted is certainly sufficient to show that the churches did contribute, and that Brother Elam and Brother Lipscomb, with the other trustees of the school, accepted the contributions and commended the churches that donated. It will be freely admitted that the reports show more individual contributions than church gifts, but a great many of the individual contributors gave only one dollar; a few gave one hundred dollars each. It is easy to see why so few churches contributed when we consider the conditions that then prevailed among the churches. Not a dozen churches in the land at that time supported a preacher for full time. It was a rare thing that any church had the money ready for a protracted meeting, even at the close of the meeting. What the preacher re­ceived was then made up by soliciting individual contribu- tions among the members. Many churches in that day did not even have a treasurer, and such a thing as a financial report was unknown to even the majority of the churches. Brother Elam himself makes mention of these very things and contends for systematic giving. He says that often what a preacher received for a meeting de­pended upon the last service of the meeting. If this service happened to be hindered by rain or other weather condi­tions, the preacher would be the loser. Brother Elam pub­lished a letter from J. R. Tubb of Sparta, Tennessee, in which Brother Tubb said that, due to Brother Elam’s teach­ing, their congregation was contributing regularly, and the average contribution was about ten dollars each Lord’s day! Brother Elam published this as an example for all to follow. And it took the writers of the Gospel Advocate more than two years to quit talking about the Sparta church and its marvelous work. Brother Elam published many letters written to Brother Tubb asking how on earth they did this, and they also asked how many members Sparta had and what amount of wealth the membership represented. The curiosity of the people in reference to this great church was so great that finally Brother Tubb submitted a report of the money that had been contributed by that church, as such, from the year 1883 up to the year 1906. The first year reported the contribution was thirty-seven dollars; the last year it was a little above a thousand dollars, which shows the tremendous growth of that church! The church had about one hundred nineteen members, and represented some one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars of wealth in 1906.

Now, since we have been teaching the people on giving —systematic giving, giving through the church, giving lib­erally each Lord’s day—and since the churches have grown in numerical and financial strength, is it any wonder at all that more churches, as such, contribute to the schools today than did a quarter of a century ago? The only dif­ference is a difference in the times and the state of develop­ment among the churches, and not a difference i n principle. Brother Elam and Brother Lipscomb and the other trustees —Brother Elam always spoke for the trustees in acknowl­edging the receipt of money—would have accepted money from five hundred congregations if they could have got it. And yet those who are now trying to create the impression that, in asking the churches to contribute to the schools, we are going in the way of the missionary society compare themselves in protesting against such contributions to Brother Lipscomb, who was caricatured as an old woman trying to sweep back the waves of the sea! In the very same issue of the paper in which Brother Elam made his appeals and reported money received for the school, both he and Brother Lipscomb exposed the society’s machina­tions mercilessly. Those good brethren had intelligence enough to distinguish between things that differ.

If we have now found that it has been the practice of the churches to contribute to the schools, and if we have sufficiently satisfied our readers that this is not a new idea which is being introduced to disturb the peace, we shall next week consider whether or not this is a scriptural method. We shall see whether or not this would make the schools "church schools," etc. Please wait patiently for the next article.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies

No. 8

Last week we saw that it has been the custom of the churches to contribute to Christian schools ever since the Restoration Movement started. Now we wish to consider some objections to this practice and see if these objections are valid. Just a little thoughtful study is all we need on this point. A few simple illustrations will make the matter clear. Hear the objections:

It is said that the colleges are individually owned and operated, and, therefore, churches, as such, should not con­tribute to them. But we have seen in a former article that individuals do not own the colleges in the absolute sense. The colleges were built for a purpose. They exist for a purpose—for an ideal. Those who are interested in that ideal may, therefore, support the schools. David Lipscomb left all of his property to the school he founded. What individuals now own that property? Who could dispose of that property and use the money for some other purpose? If it was scriptural for Brother Lipscomb, as a Christian, to give all of his earthly possessions to this purpose, would it now be unscriptural for a band of Christians to contribute to the perpetuation of that purpose?

Let us grant, however, that the schools are individual enterprises. Will any thoughtful man contend that a church cannot contribute to an individual effort? Cannot a church help to support a good work that is being done by an indi­vidual or by individuals? Cannot a church help parents clothe and feed and rear their children if there is a need for such help? If a preacher on his own responsibility should buy and equip a tent or buy a house and begin preaching the gospel in some destitute field, and then if some church or some half dozen churches should learn of his work, duly investigate, and find both the man and his work in every sense worthy and begin to contribute to him, would that make these churches the owners of the tent or house? Would that constitute these churches a missionary society or or­ganization? Would that take away the preacher’s right of individual judgment about the management of his work and put him under the direction and control of the churches? Would not the preacher still be free to work and preach as he pleases as an individual and an independent laborer, and would not the churches, all or any one of them, be free to cease to contribute to him whenever for any reason they should decide to do so?

Surely all informed men will answer these questions in the affirmative. But some brother might suggest that this preacher would have no right to begin such a work un­advised, and buy his equipment on credit, and then demand that the churches pay the debt and support him. This is conceded. However, he does have the right to begin such a work and then present its claims on their own merits in the belief that churches will help him. No church is obli­gated except as all are obligated to "preach the word." Every scriptural church will already be actively engaged in that work, and each one will be free to decide for itself whether or not it can, in addition to its other work, con­tribute to the independent preacher; and, if so, whether only one time or whether occasionally or whether regularly. The same principle applies in every detail to the colleges.

Some objector may say that this illustration is not apt; that the cases are not parallel. The preacher was preaching the gospel, which is the exact work of the church, but the colleges allow their students to engage in athletic sports at recess or on holidays. Well, suppose the preacher goes fishing or hunting or plays golf betimes, would that make it unscriptural for the churches to support him? When stu­dents spend their whole time, day and night, for weeks and months at the college—live there—they are compelled to eat and drink and sleep and take exercise, and do the other things that are essential to living and to mental and physical health. But the colleges teach athletics, you say. Certainly, and somebody teaches the preacher to play golf. Is it not better that the athletic exercise of young people be super­vised and directed by Christian men than by profane men and blasphemers? On account of the age of the students, the colleges are really helping to rear our children. They are developing lives in physical, mental, moral, and spiritual aspects. The students are in the developing period, and they would at that age be developing in some manner in all these aspects wherever they were. The colleges try to help them develop in the right manner.

Therefore, says one, the colleges are an adjunct of the home, and the church is forbidden to help them.

Think a little deeper, brother. Is it wrong for a church to help parents? Is it wrong to help rear and train the chil­dren that have no home?

Suppose another case: A good brother, on his own re­sponsibility and judgment, takes two or three dependent orphan children into his own home and feeds and clothes and trains them. He is poor, his house is not paid for, and he makes many sacrifices in order to give these children this home and training. A church or two churches would like to give this good man aid in his noble work. What shall we say? Can those churches do that thing scripturally? Would they own the man’s home if they helped him?

Yes, that will be all right, says the objector, but they could not form an organization to care for and educate those children. The home is an organization; and if it had fifty children, it would be a bigger organization. And if children are trained at all, they must have a place to eat and sleep and bathe and play, and they must be supervised in all this by somebody. That sort of organization is not unscriptural, and it is not different i n principle from the schools. The plain truth is that the parents who patronize the Christian schools have all that they can do to keep their children in school and have no money to contribute to the school. The patrons of the school are not the ones who built them or who maintain them. A large number o f them are preachers, whose children get free tuition. But some of these preachers have never done anything for the schools, except to criticize and hinder them.

David Lipscomb, who founded the Nashville Bible School and gave his farm and his home for the site, and then taught in the school from the day it opened until his death, without one penny of remuneration, never had any children. In Brother Elam’s campaign to raise money for the school he reports that C. M. Southall, of Florence Alabama, gave two hundred dollars—one hundred at two different times. To my certain knowledge, Brother Southall has never had a child or a relative in the school. But an objector says that individuals should build and support the schools, and churches should touch them not. Why should individuals do it? On what consideration should they act? What sort of requirement or duty is it? Is it a Christian duty? Or is it the duty of a citizen? When teachers teach on starvation salary, in order that preachers’ children may have free tuition, while the preachers fight and quibble about who should contribute, are they doing this as a Christian duty? What else could cause them to take the thankless task? Do they teach, and do the contributors give, because they love the cause of Christ, or is it for some other purpose? What is the motive back of all this, and on what basis are these sacrifices made? If this is done as a Christian duty, and for the good of the cause of Chris­tianity, should it not be done in the name of the Lord? Should it not be done in and through the church? If not, why not? If this work is not done as a Christian duty, on what other consideration are Christians allowed to use so much of their time and money? Should they not use this money in something that will b e for the glory of Christ and for the good of his cause? Does not Paul tell us to do all that we do, in word and deed, in the name of the Lord? Just what duties and how many duties are Christians, as such, to perform as individuals, and what and how many are they to perform through the church? Will some objector enlighten us?

Furthermore, do not Christians compose the church? What Christians do as Christians, is that not the church doing it? If ten thousand Christians contribute to the schools, would they not constitute a pretty good-sized church? If three hundred of these Christians lived in the same town, would they not compose a local church? If all the three hundred wanted to contribute to a school, could they put their money into one sum and send it by one check, or would they have to send three hundred individual checks? Would it be necessary for them either to quit contributing or to move to three hundred different towns? But our objector says that if five hundred churches, as such, contribute to a school, it would tie them together in a way that would destroy their congregational independence. Shades of Aristotle! Why does not the fact that ten thou­sand individuals contribute to a school tie them together and destroy their individual independence? What is there to tie them together except a common interest, by which all churches are already tied together? They certainly would not be tied by any organic or organizational law, by any by­laws or constitution. They have not entered into any cor­poration. They have not bought shares and been given votes. They have only donated to a good work from which all churches now in existence will be benefited, and many others brought into existence. Is a church "tied" to every­thing it may contribute to?

Oh, but the objector says that if five hundred or more churches contribute to a school, it will be equal to the missionary society, and to urge them to do so would be to overthrow all arguments against the society. But a man who cannot see that for five hundred or ten thousand churches to make one donation to a school, which would ever afterward function as a self-supporting, independent insti­tution, with no further demand upon the churches, and with no supervision over, and no influence, except moral in­fluence, over the churches, is different from churches enter­ing into organic union, by a perpetual connection with an institution that sells memberships at so much per, and is under a directorate, with votes distributed according to stocks held, and that will exercise lordship over the churches thenceforth—I say a man who cannot see the difference in these two things is certainly afflicted with a malignant case of myopia. It is difficult to believe that a man who cannot see that, after it is pointed out, could make a convincing argument against the society. He does not know the ground of objection.

Furthermore, if it is wrong for churches to contribute to schools and orphan homes because these institutions are equal to or similar to the missionary society, then why is it right for individuals to contribute to these institutions? May individuals as such contribute to the missionary so­ciety? If not, why not on this premise? The contention is thus seen to be absurd.

If a school, any one of them, could ever get completely builded, equipped, and endowed, it would then need no further contributions from either churches or individuals. If we could only get enough churches to make the original donation, the work would go gloriously on. There would be nothing in this that is even similar to "Church" schools— nothing like a denomination building a denominational school. No tax would be levied upon the churches. No appropriation by church officials would be made out of denominational funds. No demand would be made on a denominational treasury. (All these things take place when "Church schools" are built.) It would only be free, inde­pendent churches of Christ (not bound together, not units of a combine or corporation) voluntarily giving one liberal donation to a work that would honor God by keeping, through the teaching of his word, churches free and inde­pendent and unsectarian through generations yet to come. Would to God we could get the vision.

About Organizations: Christian Colleges, OrphanHomes, and Missionary Societies

No. 9 In this series of articles, "About Organizations," we have not made any special attempt to answer any charges that are made by those brethren that are usually referred to as "anticollege" brethren. In fact, we have not written with them in mind at all. We have endeavored to set clearly before our readers the grounds upon which such organiza­tions as schools and orphan homes rest, and what is the relationship of the churches to these institutions. We have done this for the sake of an understanding among those of us who support the schools, and in order that we might have a thoroughly thought-out and convinced attitude on the question. But in this, the concluding article of the series, we shall make some reference to those charges made by the opponents of the colleges, in the hope that certain fallacies may be seen. There will be a repetition in this of some points that have been made in former articles, but we think the different reasons for bringing them in will explain the repetition. Let this, too, be a continuation of "an honest study."

1. Are the Schools and Colleges That Are Now Supported and Operated by Members of the Body of Christ Church Schools? Those brethren who oppose the schools vehemently insist that they are "Church schools"; that they are owned, operated, and controlled by the "Church." They undertake to prove this charge by quoting from the charters of the schools, and by citing certain utterances of brethren, picked up at random, that are susceptible of that implication. We cannot admit the charge that the schools are "Church schools," for it is simply not true. Neither can we admit that even the independent churches that contribute to the schools own and control them, for this is not true. But there is a common interest that exists in the schools and in the churches. There is a relationship that exists between them that we should recognize and understand. When we do this, the controversy will be greatly simplified if not closed.

Suppose we should admit that the schools are owned and controlled by the churches, what then? Why, that would be to admit the very thing that is charged by our opponents, you say. Very well, if that is the point in dispute, will the disputing cease if we concede the point? No, a thousand times no, you say. But why not? Oh, because our oppo­nents would then have us convicted of digression, of sectar­ianism, you say. Sectarianism? Brother, you ought to learn what sectarianism is before you use that term. But your error here is a common error. Many brethren use that term in the same way. Merely because some sects do a thing we must not conclude that that thing itself is sectarian. If we do, we shall have to say that it is sectarian to build meet­inghouses, to sing hymns, to use hymnbooks, to publish papers, and to hold protracted meetings. And as for digres­sion, you are wrong on that point too. Instead of having us convicted, our opponents would be just at the beginning of their task. If we should concede that the schools are owned and operated by independent churches of Christ in a cooperative educational effort, and then call upon our op­ponents to show wherein this is unscriptural, we would rob them of their choicest quibbles and force them to meet an issue that really does need to be threshed out. If such a cooperative effort is wrong, why is it wrong? Wherein is it wrong?

We have seen that the churches of Paul’s day cooperated in relieving the poor. They had a fund, and entrusted it to Paul and his company. They were messengers of the churches. One man had been selected by the churches to travel with those who collected and disbursed the money. (2 Corinthians 8:17-20.) This was not a society functioning in com­petition with the churches. It was the churches themselves cooperating in a time of distress. These messengers were agents of the churches, and the only organization that existed among them was an agreed arrangement as to the work each was to do—the duty and responsibility that each was to have. Those who were doing the actual work that the churches were interested in were to that extent organ­ized. The organization did not embrace the churches, or those helped by the churches. That is, it did not combine or tie them together. I t was only the workers doing their work. The faculty and trustees of an orphan home, or a school owned and operated by a single congregation, form an or­ganization that is not the church. Again it is only the workers doing their work. Then, if we should have schools and orphanages that are built and supported by gifts from hundreds of churches, the trustees and the faculties of these institutions would form an organization that is not the churches, but those who compose the organization would be agents or employees of the churches. The organization would not in any way embrace or combine the churches. The churches would be independent of each other, and the schools and orphanages would all be independent of each other, though there were a thousand of them. They would not each one be a unit of a superorganization. There would be no organization except the necessary assigning of the workers to their tasks at each school. The organization would extend no further than the walls of the institution. Again it would only be the workers doing their work. But these schools would be doing the work God ordained the church to do, says an objector. Well, if they belong to the churches, are under the control of the churches, and are agents of the churches, and through them the churches are doing the work God ordained the churches to do, where is your complaint? It seems that you cross yourself up in your paroxysms of objections, brother. You rail at the schools as "Church institutions," and claim that the churches own them, control them, and could dissolve them, etc. If that be true, then the schools are agents of the churches, and the work that is done by the schools is, therefore, of course, done by the churches through the schools, just as the work that is done by our missionaries in the foreign field is done by the churches that send out and support the mis­sionaries. Yet you turn a logical somersault and argue next that the schools as independent organizations—inde­pendent of the churches and as rivals of the churches—are doing the work that the churches ought to do! Now, which position do you want to take, brother? Do you want to contend that the schools are "Church schools," and that the churches are doing their work through them, or do you prefer to argue that the schools are independent and rival organizations to the churches? We can’t let you have both claims.

Oh, but you say the school is an organization that is not the church. So is a Wednesday-afternoon Bible class taught in a meetinghouse. So is a "Bible-reading" class taught for six weeks. So is a protracted meeting. So is an orphan home that is owned by a local church. But these are only members of the church doing a work with the sanction and by the support of the church. They have no more organiza­tion than is necessary for the actual doing of the work. The same is true of the schools.

But, says our objector, this same argument is made for the missionary society. They say that the church is doing its work through the society. Let them say. The fool says there is no God, but we do not, therefore, turn atheists. It will be easy to show that instead of the churches doing their work through the societies, the reverse is true. The society does its work through the churches. It is over the churches —controls them. But our objector has already charged that the churches own and control the schools. According to his charge, the schools and the society are not at all alike. As shown in a former article, the society builds and sup­ports schools itself. When John T. Brown wrote his history of the "Churches of Christ" (Digressives) in 1904, the Christian Woman’s Board of Missions—C. W. B. M.—owned twenty-nine schools and four orphan homes. Brethren of Tennessee can never forget that the C. W. B. M. led the church at Livingston into digression by promising to build a school in that town. This board—or missionary society— did build and operate a school at Livingston, Tennessee. No one ever supposed that that school was a rival institu­tion of the C. W. B. M. But our opponents say that the schools and orphan homes rob the church of its glory. How can they do this if they are church institutions, as you charge? Do the schools and orphan homes that are built by the society rob the society of its glory? Do the schools and orphan homes that belong to the Roman Catholic Church rob it of its glory? Who has not heard that church praised for the good work it does in this line? Who does not know that through this work the Catholic Church has increased its power and in­fluence? Do the schools and orphan homes that are built and supported by the Masonic Lodge rob that lodge of its glory? Who has not heard this fraternity praised for its benevolent institutions, and the church condemned for not doing as much good work? Yet, according to the argument, if the churches should build such benevolent institutions, the churches would be thereby superseded, overshadowed, eclipsed, and destroyed. Again, we call upon our opponents to say which position they want to take. Do they want to contend that the schools and orphan homes are "Church institutions," and oppose them on that ground, or do they want to contend that they are independent organizations and rivals of the church?

2. The Schools and Orphan Homes Are Not Church In­stitutions, Nor Are They Rivals o f the Churches. Before we could have "Church institutions" we would have to have a Church —an organization, an ecclesiasticism. It is correct to speak of the church of Christ in a general sense, meaning that spiritual body that includes all Christians, and hence, of course, all congregations of Christians. But the church in the general sense is not an organization. A local church is an organization, but it is only local—does not include any but those who worship at that place. All local churches are independent of each other. To have a church in the denominational sense we would have to form the local churches into an organization with a governing head— either an individual or a legislative body. We would then establish headquarters, whence all governing decrees would come. This head, or these governing officials, would arrange for revenue. Then, out of these denominational funds the officials could vote an appropriation to build a school. That school would belong to the denomination, and would be under the control of the governing officials of the denomina­tion.

Years ago Vanderbilt University was under the control of the bishops of the Southern Methodist Church. A con­troversy arose about a large donation that was to be given to the university. Some question about whether the Board of Regents or the bishops should control the school was to be decided. The matter got into the civil courts. The bishops lost. Then the Southern Methodist Church relin­quished its hold upon Vanderbilt. It is no longer a church school. But then the bishops of the M. E. Church, South, voted to build two universities, one in Atlanta and one in Dallas. They did build the universities, which are now well-known Church schools. Of course, every tolerably informed man knows that the churches of Christ do not form a denomination. They have no organic relationship to each other. They have no earthly head, no legislative body, no revenue and no general treas­ury, no common funds, and, of course, no church institutions. As to expressions that are sometimes used by brethren that seem to imply that the schools are church institutions, that argument amounts to nothing. By the same proof we can show that the church is a denomination. In the same way we can show that the religious papers are church papers. In the Christian Leader of April 4, 1933, on page 7, under the heading, "Threatens to Publish Him," F. L. Rowe writes this sentence: "Our church papers are not looking for trouble, and take no pleasure in telling about it." Now, if our anti­religious-college brethren were also antireligious-paper men, they could collect a few such utterance as that and write a book to sustain their charge that these papers are church papers. But a whole volume of such sentences could not make these papers denominational organs—established and controlled by denominational officials in legislative session assembled. They are just not that, whatever language may be used about them.

Some years ago M. C. Kurfees, who was then an editor of the Gospel Advocate, spoke of the "constituency" of the Gospel Advocate. The Christian Standard thought it found in that word proof of a charge that was often made against "Dave Lipscomb’s paper" in the hectic days of early digres­sion. The Standard said that a "constituency is a body of people with a common representative." Eureka! It had found it! The editor of the Gospel Advocate had admitted that the paper was the head and representative or official organ of a body of people! Brother Kurfees defended himself successfully, but he never used "constituency" any more in referring to the readers of the paper.

But, in positive fact, the papers come much nearer being church papers than the schools come to being church insti­tutions. This is true when we study the matter from either end of the proposition. If we consider the control that the papers have over that section of the brotherhood that reads them, we would have much more reason to call them "de­nominational organs" than anyone can have for calling the Christian schools "Church schools."

All the subscribers to an anticollege paper are anticollege brethren. Either the paper fixed their faith or their faith fixed the policy of the paper. From either viewpoint the paper exists to represent a definitely fixed opinion. But when we consider the control that the readers exer­cise over a paper, we will see that they often speak as members of a "constituency," surely enough. An anticollege paper a few months ago issued what its editor called "a rough draft" under the heading, "Can’t We Agree on Some­thing?" The effort manifested an earnest solicitude for an end of factions, and for at least a working agreement and fellowship. It did great credit to the heart of that editor. Even if his terms were not all just what they should have been, his spirit was very commendable. But from all indi­cations this effort was not at all acceptable to his "constit­uency," and the editor has been defending himself for months. It would look as if this representative of a "con­stituency" did not properly represent its "constituency," and the "constituency" roared. In solemn fact, if the princi­ples of the "rough draft" were adopted and applied, it would have been the end of that faction or "constituency," and the spirit of party preservation asserted itself. And yet some of these brethren try to prove that the schools are "Church schools." Surely our logic would not be so faulty if our hearts were right.