Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
May 30, 1957
NUMBER 5, PAGE 9a-11a

"The Congregations Of The Church Of Christ" Salute You

James W. Adams, San Antonio, Texas

There is one thing about which we can be certain in this uncertain world. The so-called "co-operative" brethren of our day did not write, nor did they translate, the New Testament. Had they done so, Romans 16:16 would have been worded differently. Where Paul said, "The churches of Christ salute you," they would have written, "The congregations of the church of Christ salute you." Within the past few months, the expression, "congregations of the church of Christ," has appeared numerous times in books and articles written by leading brethren. Such nomenclature is in keeping with the trends of the day. Every species of error has its own peculiar vocabulary. In the Firm Foundation recently, a brother wrote, "In the past twenty years, literally thousands of congregations of the church of Christ have built new buildings or enlarged old ones." This particular individual is a promoter and defender of modern "co-operations" among the churches, and his practice is consistent with his vocabulary. On the other hand, a brother who is opposed to the modern trend toward centralization and amalgamation, wrote recently in the Gospel Guardian, "At present, there is no congregation of the church of Christ in that country . . ." It is possible that most of us have inadvertently used such terminology at one time or another. Perhaps our carelessness in regard to a pure speech has had much to do with the denominational concept of the churches of Christ and their work which has developed among those who profess to be New Testament Christians. The activities of the churches of our day and the arguments that are made in their defense declare plainly that the concept of the relationship and work of the Lord's churches inherent in the expression, "congregations of the church of Christ," is not a mere accident of terminology, but rather, that it represents a well established point of view which is a matter of conviction and faith on the part of thousands.

It Produced The Missionary Society

The expression, "congregations of the church of Christ," is born of a denominational concept of the church of God. The "co-operatives" among churches of Christ at this hour are its legitimate offspring. It was this conviction among the luminaries of the "Restoration Movement" that produced the missionary society.

Brother Alexander Campbell, in the controversy over the developing missionary society in the year, 1847, published without editorial comment an article in which it was urged that a congregation is related to the universal church of Christ as a member is related to a single congregation of which he is a part. Later, in 1853, Brother Campbell advanced the same argument in a series on "Church Organization." The argument was made in 1847 in a report entitled, "Co-operation of Churches in Kentucky." It was submitted by a committee from the "semi-annual meeting of the churches of Mason and Bracken counties, Ky." Note the following quotations:

"Your committee would, then, fix attention upon this grand truth, viz. — that the church is the body of our Lord Messiah. We would claim special attention to this great truth, because it is the grand basis of inevitable organization. It contains within it the vital germinating principle, that as naturally and necessarily produces a system of general organization and co-operation, as does the acorn, under favorable circumstances, produce the oak. It is impossible to conceive of such a body without organization; and if the body is a unit, its organization must be adapted to the unity of its nature; and, therefore, it conclusively follows, that the organization adapted to the one body, must be something other than the organization of individual and independent churches or congregations; for such organizations, in the absence of general system, tend rather to destroy the grand principle of unity; and Messiah's kingdom, instead of being a well regulated and organized government upon earth, must become and continue to be a mere chapter of accidents to the end of the volume."

"It is, therefore, manifest that the doctrine of the absolute independence of individual congregations, is not the doctrine of the Bible, and that it is necessarily schismatical in its very nature and tendency." (Millennial Harbinger, March 1847, pages 162, 163.)

"In view of the foregoing premises, we think it clear that an individual congregation bears to the one body the same relation that an individual member of a separate congregation bears to the congregation of which he is a member, and that this doctrine necessarily grows out of the great primary truth, that the body of Christ is a unit." (Ibid., pages 163, 164.)

These "co-operative" brethren of a century ago offered the following recapitulation of their report:

"1. In things merely expedient a congregation may declare and execute their will: but she has no legislative authority in matters of faith or morals.

2. The judicial and executive authority of the Messiah's kingdom on earth, is vested in the church by her constitution.

3. The same constitution that vest such authority in the church, indicates the organization necessary to its legitimate exercise.

4. The church is the body of Jesus Christ, and that body is a unit.

5. If the church is a unit, a single congregation is no more than a fraction of that unit, and stands related to it as a part of any one thing does to the whole of that thing. Therefore, a single congregation bears the same relation that an individual member bears to the congregation of which he is a member.

6. If the church be the body of which the Lord Jesus Christ is head, it must be an organized body; and if it be a unit. its organization must be adapted to the unity of its nature.

7. Such an organization cannot be the several or many organizations of individual and independent congregations: for each, in the absence of the former, do rather tend to destroy the grand idea or principle of unity.

8. If the church is a unit, of which the several co-operate congregations are but parts, it follows that, in a sense, the church is both joint and several, and therefore it must be a general as well as specific organization.

9. If the special organization consists of an association of individual members, analogy and expediency, as well as reason and revelation, unite in teaching that the general organization does, and must consist in an association of churches." (Millennial Harbinger, April, 1847, pages 185, 186.)

Now observe the fact that Alexander Campbell makes the same argument some six years later, and subsequent to the formation of the Missionary Society in 1849: "Church Organization — No. IV"

"Christ gave himself for the church. He also said, 'on this rock will I build my church.' He is now constituted head over the universe for the church; and by the church will be exhibited the wisdom of God. Christ loved the church. and gave himself for the church, and he is the head of the church. He placed 'in the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,' etc., etc. Therefore, every individual church on earth stands to the whole church of Christ as individual man to one particular church, (Emphasis mine, JWA) and the churches on earth are severally as much bound to co-operate with the whole body of Christ, in all matters of public interest, as one individual member, in any particular church, is bound to co-operate with it in any or in all public acts and duties." (Millennial Harbinger, June 1853, pages 303.)

It Is Basic To Present, Controversial, Divisive "Co-operations."

It has been the contention of the Gospel Guardian from the beginning of the present controversy that so-called "co-operating" brethren among the churches of Christ today are identical in their thinking and attitude with the brethren who formed the Missionary Society a century ago. This is unquestionably true with reference to the attitude and nomenclature which are the occasion of this article.

Brother Lewis Hale, in a recent book published by the Firm Foundation Publishing House, uses an entire chapter to champion the idea that the expression, "body of Christ," describes the universal church, hence authorizes the pooling of the resources of many congregations and their functioning as one through a single agency or authority. Of course, he repudiates the Missionary Society, and defends in its stead the practice of the elders of a single congregation becoming the governing body of such a "co-operation." Brother Hale is eulogized and endorsed, and his book approved, by men inseparably linked with the "co-operative" movements emanating from the Broadway congregation in Lubbock, Texas. We feel justified, therefore, in concluding that they endorse this view of the church of the Lord.

Brother Floyd I. Stanley is reported to have affirmed, in his recent debate with Brother Brookshire at Morton, Texas, that "the them, 'body,' never refers to a local congregation, but always to the church universal." He argued from this assumption that sponsoring churches in assuming oversight of radio programs, evangelizing of nations, etc., etc., are simply functioning as members of the universal body — the hand, the foot, the eye. He then concluded that: it is scriptural for churches to pool their resources in such congregations and function as one through them. Brother S. R. Ribble, an aged and respected gospel preacher who uses his considerable influence to give doctrinal respectability to the promotions of Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas, sat by Brother Stanley's side, and evidently endorsed the "body of Christ" argument. Until he publicly repudiates it, he is therefore committed to this concept of the Lord's church.

Brethren Logan Buchanan, E. R. Harper, and practically every other individual who has undertaken a defense of modern "co-operatives" among churches of Christ have uniformly argued for such on the basis of the fact that the universal church is "one body."

As was stated in the beginning. this is a denominational concept of the church of Jesus Christ. The church of Christ in the general sense does not have congregations. Its units are not congregations but individual disciples. This is clearly seen in our Lord's parable of "The Vine and the Branches." He said: "I am the true vine," "I am the vine, ye are the branch;" "If a man abide not in me as a branch . . ." (John 15:1, 5, 6.) The universal church of Jesus Christ is a spiritual relationship, not an organic body. It is composed of all the saved of earth, not the sum total of congregations of a particular faith and order.

The Consequences Of The "One Body" Concept.

Our good brethren who argue that the universal church is "one body," hence must pool resources and function as a unit, need to recognize the consequences of their argument, The local congregation is an organic body, hence functions as a unit under the oversight and direction of its "ruling" element, the elders or bishops. No organic body can function as a unit without a "ruling" element. Since the men mentioned above have argued that the church in the general sense is the body of Christ, hence must function as a unit, perhaps they will tell us what the "ruling" element of the church in the general sense is. They are obligated to do so.

It is not enough for them to say that Christ is the head of the church in the general sense. Christ is also the head of the local church. Christ does not in his own person nor through his Word direct the specific activities of a local church. He directs the church to assemble and worship. He does not direct the church with reference to the specific place, time of day, etc. He commands the church to preach the gospel. He does not direct the church with reference to whether it should have a gospel meeting at a particular place or time; whether it should have a radio program; or whether it should or should not distribute a particular tract at a particular place and time. He is the head of the church in matters of faith and morals. In matters purely discretionary, the elders of the local church are the "ruling" element in determining the course of action of the local congregation. Brethren Hale; Stanley, Harper, Buchanan, et al need to tell us, indeed, they are morally obligated to tell us, what the "ruling" element of the church in the general sense, the body of Christ, is. Who constitutes it? What are they called? What are their qualifications? By whom are they appointed? Over how many congregations do they rule? Is the scope of their "rule" limited or unlimited? If limited, what are the limitations, and unlimited? If limited, what are the limitations, and where are the passages that so teach? It is our conviction that you brethren will rue the day that you ever suggested "the body of Christ" argument when you begin to deal with these questions. Your "body of Christ" or "congregations of the church of Christ" denomination has no more authority for its existence than the Baptist denomination with its "ruling" element, The Southern Baptist Convention.

Of course, you good brethren make the elders of a local congregation the "ruling" element in your sponsoring church arrangement. Your logic has the elders of a local church constituting the "ruling" element in two bodies — (1) the local congregation and (2) the general church, or at least, a portion of it. In this concept, the general church would be a many-headed monster. It would have as many heads as there are sponsoring churches. Or if, as Brother Stanley contends, one congregation is a hand, the other a foot, and the other an eye, there would have to be a head over these members with reference to oversight and direction in matters purely discretionary. Churches of Christ have always contended for the rule of the elders or bishops. Brother Stanley's universal body would have to be governed by a universal eldership or bishoprick.

"The Line Forms On The Right."

All of you promoting brethren groom yourselves. Who knows but that "the congregations of the church of Christ" may see fit to select you as a part of this universal bishoprick as soon as Brethren Stanley, Ribble, Buchanan, Harper and others determine from the New Testament the qualifications of the office and the proper procedure for your selection. "Congregations of the church of Christ" indeed! Shades of Popery and Denominationalism!