Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
January 15, 1959
NUMBER 36, PAGE 9-10a

Individualism Or Collectivism?

Hoyt H. Houchen, Lufkin, Texas

Churches are often influenced by their environment. The church at Corinth is a specific and tragic example of this fact. The city of Corinth was notorious for its immoral conduct and the evils of that metropolis soon found their way into the church that was established there. But environmental evils of an immoral nature are not exclusive as threats to the church. The church can easily absorb the political and economic aspects of its environment. Although such worldly evils as immodest apparel, unwholesome recreation, incest, adultery, drinking, gambling, lying and stealing will corrupt the purity of the church if they are not resisted, God's people need also to realize that there are worldly evils of a political nature which have already infiltrated the church and if they are not opposed, the church will soon be supplanted by a socialistic order. The human institutions that are being promoted to be established and maintained by churches and through which the churches are to do their work are the reflection of the trend of socialism that is seen in our nation today. As individual enterprises are gradually being more and more placed under centralized control, the same trend has already found its way into the church and so gradually and with such astuteness that little or no attention has been called to it. While brethren who promote the socialistic tendencies within the church may not be sympathetic to socialism from a political point of view, nevertheless the attitudes that they express in their teaching and practice indicate clearly that they are revolutionizing the church into the very system that they would not want the government of our nation to be.

Socialism Defined

Socialism, defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (5th edition) is: "A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods." Funk and Wagnall's Desk Standard Dictionary defines socialism as "A theory of civil polity that aims at the public collective management of all industries." Socialism is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 20, page 887) as being "first applied to the doctrines of certain writers who were seeking a complete transformation of the economic and moral basis of society by the substitution of social for individual control and social for individualistic forces in the organization of life and work. (Emphasis mine. H. H. H.) On page 887 of this same reference work is the statement: "Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of private property by transforming it into public property (emphasis mine, H. H. H.) and the division of the resultant public income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population."

Socialistic Manifestations

From the definitions and descriptions of socialism given above, its salient features are collective management and control of private enterprises. Basically, socialism discards individual responsibility, it deprives individual freedom, and it destroys individual initiative. Such a system that so annihilates individualism is contrary to the very principles of Christianity. History reveals that socialism is not new, but that it has maneuvered its way into the life and work of people in the past. Socialism manifested itself in the feudal system in Europe during the Middle Ages when the vassals forfeited their lands to the lords. This same trend that presently endangers our freedom as American citizens is obviously active in the church of our Lord and consequently this divine institution is in great peril.

Individual enterprises such as benevolent societies, schools, farms, journals, recreation and radio programs are being subsidized by the church and are referred to by the promoters of these projects as "church of Christ orphan homes," "church of Christ schools," "Church of Christ papers," "church of Christ youth camps," and "the church of Christ radio program, Herald of Truth." Remember that one of the facets of socialism is "the substitute of social for individual control and social for individualistic forces." The cooperative ownership and control aspect of the socialistic order is observed in the present expressions among brethren, "our" orphan homes, "our" schools, "our" papers, "our" youth camps, and "our" radio program, Herald of Truth.

The church in given localities has become a social center of the community. Churches are including church kitchens in their meeting houses, they are erecting and maintaining recreational facilities, and they are hiring youth directors and youth ministers. Individual responsibilities are being transplanted to the church. It is no secret that the church in many places has become a "Red Cross" agency, distributing and controlling funds for the indigent of the world and it has become so occupied in its task of functioning as a "Junior Chamber of Commerce" that its defense, propagation, and support of the truth has become a thing of the past. Individual enterprises are revolving around the church like the hands of a clock.

In many instances, no longer is it true that the local congregation is the largest unit of organization. A combination of churches contributing their funds through one eldership to a work to which all of the contributing churches are equally related is larger in organization than the local church. It has become collective ownership through centralization and nothing else can be made of it! When the work of several congregations is activated through one eldership or through a board of directors, it has become the function of the church universal. Congregations relinquish their obligations to the sponsoring eldership and hereby the individual congregations submit their preaching and benevolent work to centralized control, either to an eldership, or a board of directors, or both. This only emphasizes the socialistic characteristic of cooperative ownership.

But not only do we see the obligations of individual congregations being given over to centralized projects, expressive of the "big things in a big way" attitude, but individual Christians are yielding their responsibilities to the church and thus Christianity is being substituted by "Churchanity." A preacher friend of this writer told him of a member of the church who was obtaining a divorce from her husband so she wanted this preacher to help her place her children in one of "our" homes. Brethren are "salving" their consciences by contributing a little money to the treasury of the church which in turn sends a donation to one of "our" orphan homes or homes for the aged and then they boast, "look at what the church of Christ is doing." God has given obligations to the individual Christian (I Tim. 5; Jas 1:27; Gal. 6:10, etc.) and he has given obligations to churches (Acts 6; 11:29,30; John. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8 and 9; Phil. 4:15, etc.) When churches establish, maintain, and operate through human institutions, both the responsibilities of the local church and the individual Christian are nullified. Individual initiative in both instances is stagnated. But individual responsibilities of the family are also being absorbed. Church promoted lectures on love, courtship, and sex seem to be the order of the day. Family responsibilities (Eph. 6:1, etc.) are being taken over by the church.

A failure to distinguish the undertaking of the individual from the church is common with the socialistic philosophy. Brethren are singing the tune, "what the individual member of the church can do, the church can do." This familiar refrain is heard in the October 15, 1958 issue of the "Sunny Glenn Reporter," in an editorial written by Brother Ralph Godfrey, superintendent of the Sunny Glenn Home. He entitled the article, "It is the church — Assembled or Un-assembled" and in this he endeavors to show that since individual members make up the church; therefore what the individual does, the church does. An individual Christian is a member of the church whether he is assembled or not. No one denies this. But his conclusion is false for he says "In that these disciples of the New Testament times were followers of our Lord who "went about doing good" it would follow that their benevolences done individually would be the work of the church." A man is in mighty poor shape who does not see the difference between what an individual member of the church may do and what the church may do out of its treasury. Does he suppose that individual members may turn their bank accounts over to the church and then have a church of Christ bank account for all the members of the church to draw upon? A church of Christ bank account would make as much sense as the church control and socialistic management of other things. If it is a one for all and all for one proposition, some of us whose bank accounts run low at times may have the solution here. But does our Brother not-realize that if the good done by an individual member of the church is the church doing good that it would also run in reverse? If bad is done by an individual member of the church, would that not also be the church doing it? If not, why not? If a member of the church lies, is it a lying church, or if he steals, is it a stealing church? If what the individual does the church does, then this writer knows some pretty mean churches over the country. The individual citizens make up our government of the United States but what the individual citizen may do does not mean that it is the United States doing it. I never could believe that when an individual member of the church kisses his wife that it is the church doing it too!

This writer recently had the privilege of hearing Martin Dies speak on communism. He pointed out that it promises to meet only the material needs of mankind; it is materialistic in nature, and it strives upon the idea that "the end justifies the means." It does not stop short of cold-blooded war to accomplish its purposes. These two characteristics of communism, which is essentially the same as socialism, are seen in the efforts of brethren to make out of the church an institution to feed hungry stomachs, making the church a materialistic institution, offering no more than physical benefits to a lost and dying world in sin. Brethren who are bent upon carrying out their unscriptural projects are interested only in carrying out their aim without any regard for scriptural authority. This socialistic order within the church thrives upon the idea that "the end justifies the means." Brethren who get in their way are black-balled, misrepresented, and ostracized.

The church is to be separate from the state, neither uniting with it or controlling it as is the aim of Catholicism. The church likewise is to be separate from human institutions and individual enterprises, neither being attached to them or controlling them. Brethren, while the church is "on the march" where is the next stopping place? Are we to stop at Moscow before reaching our final destination, Rome? Which will it be: individualism or socialism?