Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
August 5, 1954
NUMBER 13, PAGE 13

I Agree With G. H. P. Showalter

R. L. (Bob) Craig, Lometa, Texas

Several months ago, specifically December 22, 1953, an editorial of exceptional quality made its appearance on the pages of the Firm Foundation. This editorial was the product of that paper's venerable editor, G. H. P. Showalter. No stronger or better worded article has been produced in any of the gospel papers than this one, as far as my judgment is concerned. It is based on principles, from the Book, that gospel preachers have contended for, lo, these many years. With your kind indulgence, I would like to present an excerpt from that essay.

"The supposed recognition of the necessity of bringing into existence these religious societies and conventions is of itself, an implication that the church, the local congregation in any locality is insufficient, incomplete and hence imperfect. But this is a grave error. If not, then would the Lord not have made at least some sort of provision for the more general and representative groups organized by uninspired men as time passed, and as exigencies, in the minds of men seemed to arise. Can the local church, the congregational group of disciples in any locality, do the work the Lord has commanded? The answer to this question is a most emphatic affirmative. They functioned perfectly well in the beginning.... and this was enough. At least they thought so; and the apostles thought so. And the apostles were guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Things read, received, considered and urged in the local congregation, and all things required or suggested are far more readily accepted than if the same things come to them from a distance, from some outside organization."

Contained in this short paragraph is enough to completely annihilate the societies of the Christian Church, that is, to the person who wants to be guided by the holy scriptures, and I would suggest that you look up that particular issue to re-read and re-study everything suggested there.

Because of the attitude on the part of many of the brethren back in the nineteenth century, the above principles were shunted to the background and almost completely disregarded. There were a few, that might be referred to as "contrary, contentious, hide-bound, mossbacks, etc.," who stood for just exactly the same things Brother Showalter has so ably presented; the idea that every congregation is separate from the other and able to fulfill the responsibility God has for it. These pioneer stalwarts stood firmly entrenched in their position to such an extent that they were referred to as "troublers of Israel." But theirs was a simple stand. God nowhere authorized the churches, as a group, to band themselves together in a society or a cooperative movement, to do his work. The local congregation was and is all-sufficient. if it is not, how was the Lord's mission for his people fulfilled in the first century, the nineteenth century, the first part of the twentieth century? Think with me for a moment. Has the Lord's work ever been done without the handing together in cooperative movements of the churches, the local congregations? You know that it has. Great sand has been accomplished in time past and at the present without the benefit of any kind of cooperative at all. Many congregations today are carrying on their activities separate and apart from everyone else. Of course, you don't hear much about these groups, because they don't advertise for funds, they don't advertise for prayers, they don't advertise at all. They just do what they're able to do as congregations, individual congregations of God's people, and they are doing some great things. Perhaps you'll hear about these people some day, perhaps not.

We see and hear about "sponsoring congregations on every hand. What does it mean? Usually it means that a local congregation has set itself up as a headquarters for doing a work "for the churches of Christ." I am not making the accusation that the "sponsoring" churches are an exact parallel to the "Missionary Societies" in every detail. But I am suggesting that the same idea lies behind both and that idea is in opposition to the scriptures and the editorial we quoted from in the beginning: that is, that the local congregation is unable to carry out the mission of the Lord. The idea that one church, one local congregation, becomes the organizational (if you don't like that word, use another) headquarters for something that is definitely too big for it and calls to the "churches of Christ" for support, is something that is foreign to God's word.

One of these large "sponsors" of a work for the "churches of Christ" recently came out with the very definite statement that they would not delegate to the elders or members of another congregation any part of what they referred to as "their work." While at the same time they were calling on all the congregations everywhere to delegate to them the right to oversee a portion of that congregation's work. But, someone may say, if they used the elders or members of another congregation in their work, that would constitute a board or organization larger than the local congregation. How true. Just as it constitutes an organization larger than the local congregation when churches all over the United States give to that group of elders the right to oversee a portion of their work.

Just to say that these things are not happening is not enough. They are happening. A work is organized for one congregation to carry on? No. Works are being presented in almost every issue of nearly all gospel papers that are definitely planned for other congregations as well as the one suggesting the plan. The question is: "Does one congregation have the scriptural right, authority, to plan, direct, and oversee, a program of activity for several congregations?" If it does have that right, then the editorial of Brother Showalter is wrong and the principles we have been contending for are wrong, and we are due, or overdue, an apology to our digressive brethren.

Brethren, let's "think on these things" a little more.