Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
NEED_DATE
NUMBER 49, PAGE 8

Division: Who Is Causing It?

Cecil Willis, Akron, Ohio

I am sure that no right thinking person is completely satisfied with the condition of the church today. The Ship of Zion is sailing through stormy waters, and it looks as though She has yet to sail through bloody seas. In the long ago, the weeping prophet, Jeremiah, mourned over the condition of God's people, much as many of us now mourn over present day conditions. Jeremiah said "For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt: I mourn; dismay hath taken hold of me." (Jer. 8:21.)

It is human nature readily to take credit for anything good that occurs. It also is our disposition to disown, and deny that any ill effects which occur are to be charged to our account. All attentive people realize that the church is about to suffer another major disruption. In many localities these divisions have already come. The Lord built His church and made it congregational in government. This fact eliminates the possibility of an instant split in the church. Denominational churches can split in a day. Not so with the Lord's church. The delegates of a denomination can meet in an official assembly, disagree, and immediately divide. But division can only come in the Lord's church a congregation at a time.

For the last several years this process of dividing has been underway. Many cities have already undergone the ordeal. In most major cities, the process is yet underway. A few places have been virtually untouched by it as yet. It is obvious that two widely divergent attitudes toward authority exist in the church today. The farther these two different attitudes are pursued, the more divergent become the two groups. So that division, potentially and actually, is spreading over the brotherhood like an uncontrolled brush fire.

And like a brush fire, somebody set it off. It did not just happen to begin. Somebody is going to bear the responsibility of the division that now is rampaging through the church. All want to "pass the buck." Yet the responsibility of this present or impending division lies at the door either of those who are advocating the things over which we are dividing, or at the door of those who are objecting to the things over which we are dividing.

The things causing the trouble are institutional orphan homes, church-supported-colleges, and centralized combines such as the "sponsoring churches," exemplified in The Herald of Truth, certain benevolent works, and some foreign and domestic evangelistic endeavors. These are the things that divide us at present. Other things now seem certain soon to become a part of the controversy. "Church of Christ Hospitals" now seem certain soon to make their appearance — just as soon as sufficient funds can be diverted from already existing institutions to finance the establishment of new ones.

There might be some difference about when churches first supported colleges. There will not be any one who will deny that this practice began after New Testament times. There certainly will be no difference as to when churches of Christ built their first hospital, as this has not yet been done, though it is now seriously being talked around. Institutional orphan homes, as presently operated, are of relatively recent origin. At least all admit that there is no evidence of such in the New Testament. No one has found any of these institutions in some secluded part of his New Testament, undiscovered until lately by some institutionally inclined brother. Virtually everyone admits that violence has been done to no scriptural principle if churches elect not to function through these institutions. Perhaps some would say they are necessary, like a few of their spiritual fathers said concerning the instruments of music being necessary. But the very best that has been claimed for these institutions by most of their heartiest defenders is that they are "expedients." They are therefore only optional, at best.

If the "promoters" would stop promoting, the "objectors" would stop objecting, and peace once more would reign. The church never would have split over the instrument if the promoters would have stopped promoting it. It is also true that the church would not have split over the instrument if the objectors had stopped objecting. But had they done so, we would all be using instruments of music in our worship. And surely we are not ready for that (though many brethren could not now give a valid reason why they do not use the instrument). In fact, there are many brethren who are not using the instrument for only one reason — they have become prejudiced against it. They have forfeited every scriptural objection to it they ever had, in a vain effort to defend other things that are defensible only on the same basis as is the instrument.

Brother Alexander Campbell condemned himself in the following statement, for he "made" and "contended for" a "new institution." But he properly shows us who bears the responsibility of the looming division of the present, as well as the responsibility of those tragic divisions already past. Campbell says: "HE MAKES NO SCHISM WHO DOES NO MORE THAN THE LORD COMMANDS ... HE WHO MAKES A NEW INSTITUTION . . . AND CONTENDS FOR IT . . . MAKES THE SCHISM." Those of us who object to the present day "new institutions" did not make them, nor are we now contending for them. Hence, the advocates of these "new institutions" make the schism, and therefore must accept the responsibility of any division that might occur as a result of these "new institutions."