False Doctrine Mares Strange Bedfellows
Recently while reading Sermon Outlines On the Restoration Plea by C. C. Crawford, who is evidently a member of the Christian Church, I came across the following statements:
"(8) The International Convention of the Churches of Christ is not an authoritative body in any sense. It is not even a delegate convention. It is merely a mass meeting of Christians. Any decision or expression by this convention is at best but an expression of sentiment on the part of those individual Christians present and is not to be construed in any way as binding upon the free churches of Christ.
"(9) The United Christian Missionary Society is just a legal corporation. As such it receives and disburses funds contributed by the churches and is merely a tool of the churches and has not a single vestige of authority over them. The same thing is true of any missionary, benevolent or educational agency.
"(10) The autonomy of the local church is a principle which the churches of Christ can not surrender under any circumstances. To do so would be to forsake their New Testament position." (Page 130.)
Now brethren I need some help. Judging from the statements coming from some quarters, the only thing wrong with UCMS is that it is a "machine over the churches" or as Brother Woods says, "It is a machine using means." But Mr. Crawford denies this! He denies that it is a machine or that it has "a single vestige of authority over" churches. Now if Mr. Crawford is right, on what basis are our institutional minded brethren going to oppose UCMS? Certainly not because of its "abuses," which has heretofore been their complaint, for Mr. Crawford denies that these exist. (This reminds one of Brother Lyles; Crawford says that if such existed, they would be wrong, but he doesn't know anybody doing that. For an excellent reason as to why Crawford is wrong see Gospel Guardian of Nov. 29, 1956, page 10.) Wouldn't it be interesting to hear a debate between Brother Woods and C. C. Crawford as to what is wrong with the UCMS?
The only difficulty I can foresee is where is the building large enough to hold the crowd.
Notice further. For months now it has been pointed out that the same argument that will justify the "orphans homes" will justify the Missionary Society. This has been denied but to show that this is the truth notice that the argument used by Crawford is identical with the one used by Brother Woods in his debate with Brother Porter:
Crawford: "The UCMS is merely a tool of the churches." (page 130.
Woods: "Orphans homes . . . .are simply means which the church uses." (Debate, page 16.)
How parallel can arguments get? Now if Brother Woods is right, why isn't Crawford also right? Why not? On the other hand if Crawford is wrong, down goes Brother Woods arguments "world without end." Yes, the same argument that justifies the "orphans homes" will justify the UCMS. Truly, false doctrine makes strange bedfellows.
Let's notice some things about "autonomy." Once in a speech in the Birmingham area, Brother Jack Meyer, Sr., drew a diagram on the board showing that the difference between sending money to Herald of Truth and in sending it to UCMS is the difference between a human organization and a divine one (Some argument, huh?), Later in the same speech he stated that there was no loss of autonomy in the Herald of Truth type arrangement. After the speech I asked Brother Meyer that if churches sending to Highland did not lose their autonomy did the churches sending to UCMS lose theirs. Brother Meyer never would answer this! I wonder why? Brother Meyer says that in sending to Highland, churches do not lose their autonomy; Crawford says that in sending to UCMS, churches do not lose their autonomy. If Brother Meyer is right, why isn't Crawford? If Crawford is wrong why isn't Brother Meyer? And again we see that the same argument that can be made for the defense of the one is made for the defense of the other. Truly, false doctrine makes strange bedfellows!