Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
September 24, 1953
NUMBER 20, PAGE 2

Organization

C. R. Mansfield, Ranger, Texas

There is an ever-growing idea amongst brethren that needs examination badly. It is readily agreed that the church "needs" certain things. However, we should be careful about stating WHAT the "church needs" are. We hear much in these days about the "needs" of the church. A typical statement that is used often to encourage brethren in some endeavor is, "One of the greatest NEEDS of the church today is, etc." Whatever the thing suggested may be, it is listed as a "need" of the church.

When we speak of "the church," most of the time we have in mind "the church" as composed of all the individual Christians and all of the local congregations that is, the church as a whole or ONE BIG CHURCH. The New Testament does not reveal anything that signifies that we should be thinking of "the church" in this manner. Yet, whether we mean it to or not, we are definitely aware that such statements as "the church is on the march," etc., encourage thinking of the church as ONE BIG CHURCH. While it is so that the New Testament certainly includes every Christian in the church that Christ purchased with His blood, no WORK of the church, no ACTIVITY or FELLOWSHIP of the church is referred to in the sense of the church universal as ONE BIG ORGANIZATION.

Some brethren today attempt to deny that they would allow any kind of organization whose functions would violate the complete independence of each local congregation, while, at the same time, they speak of "what the church ought to do" and they are referring to "churches" (plural) banded together in a "common" effort, a great "cooperative" movement or effort. In this they contradict themselves. There can be no "banding together" in a "common" or "cooperative" effort without first a "getting together" on the matter. When representatives of several congregations get together (even after securing complete agreement among their respective "memberships") in such a movement they, of necessity, must explore the possibilities of the things involved in the effort and the results it is hoped to attain. Should they stop at that there would be nothing gained by getting together — nothing accomplished. They must, then, devise ways and means to make the cooperative effort. This means that commitments and agreements must be made between them as to what each will do and the accompanying spheres of authority established. This is no more or less than plain "organizing" together in a common endeavor. It may never have an official name but it is an "organization" just as surely as if it did. There may not be one ounce of "pressure" put on any single congregation to "force" its compliance with or affiliation with this "organized effort," but just as long as two or more congregations remain banded together in the effort the "organization" exists and the work done is done by the "organization," and if any other congregation should "voluntarily" accept responsibility for any part of that work it becomes a part of that "organization." The claim, then, that such does not violate the local autonomy of the churches nor creates a separate "organization" (society) is but a clever "dodge," whether it was so intended deliberately or not.

Again, should the initiative for doing a certain work be taken by ONE organization which does the investigating, exploring the possibilities, assuming the lead, and "inviting" others who care to help them in it: those who so enter into that work with the "exampling" congregation, band themselves together with the first congregation and operate in that field with only that latitude allowed by the "sponsoring" congregation. This is even worse, in principle, than if the whole thing had been started by a number of congregations mutually banding together for it allows ONE congregation to exercise even more control over others. The New Testament reveals nothing of any ONE congregation instituting ANY certain work or assuming leadership in ANY certain field of endeavor. The New Testament knows nothing of a group of churches "banding together" in a cooperative effort as described above.

Surely, the churches (plural) have needs. The same needs are common to each church alike. Who first discovered those needs? The only right answer is that Christ knew them from the beginning. Christ has provided instructions that, when faithfully carried out, will insure adequacy in meeting those needs. To go beyond "the things written," those instructions of Christ, and "organize" that which He has not instructed us to organize, denies His wisdom and authority. Does some brother say that Christ did not, could not, foresee what the "needs" of the church would be? Did Christ purchase, at the price of His own blood, an institution which He could not properly own and operate? Is Christ capable of exercising the "all authority" He claimed to possess? Surely, brethren should be able to understand that Christ knew from the beginning what the needs of the church were going to be, and that if the "organized," "cooperative" efforts of our day had been, or were now, necessary or wise for the church or churches to use that they would have been included in "the things written," Christ's instructions. They are not in the New Testament.

That we are to care for the needy (orphans, widows, aged, etc.) is certainly commanded in the New Testament for the obedience of both the individual Christian and the local congregation. That when one congregation has more load than it can bear alone, other congregations are commanded to help it bear its load is certainly New Testament teaching. That any sort of organization may be formed, other than the local congregation's scriptural organization, for the purpose is certainly excluded from the New Testament. That appeals can be made by godly men and exhortations be made to the different congregations for help for needy brethren at any given place is certainly exampled. Any organization formed to expedite that relief is certainly not in the New Testament. That individual congregations voluntarily responded with help because of the teachings and exhortations which they received in this respect is recorded. Whatever measure of action that was simultaneous by several churches no where reflects a pre-arranged organization to carry on the work. Though evangelization and benevolence are not the same, the same examples hold for both in this respect. Truly, we must DO the work, led by Christ who knew (and knows) the "needs," never by anything or anyone not authorized in the New Testament.