Individual Institutionalism
One of the greatest problems we face in taking a position on an issue of controversy is maintaining perfect consistency in regard to other matters that seem to be similar or parallel. It is this determined and conscientious effort to be entirely consistent with what we believe to be right, that often leads us to make radical changes in positions we hold. The new positions we come to hold are often very unpopular, and this together with the very idea of making a change subjects us to the ridicule of those with whom we disagree. Yet, they are just as guilty of making such changes, and for the same reasons, as anyone. The real truth is that such changes in what one believes is a common and universal process of thought. Nearly all Christians who study the Bible very much have made many and radical changes in their positions on Bible subjects, long before the current institutional issues entered the picture.
But our study on institutionalism and centralization have brought us face to face with some matters of consistency that have been troublesome to many. For example, if there is a difference between individual and church action, and orphan homes and colleges can be operated and supported by individuals but not churches, then could the missionary society be maintained on the same basis? Can the Gospel Press be thus justified? If so, can we bring any kind of religious organization into existence so long as it is maintained only by individuals? It not, how can we defend the right of religious journals to exist through which to teach the Bible?
One of the greatest concerns is that some brethren seem indifferent to any effort to learn the will of God as it relates to this problem. It is easier to brush aside and evade than to deal with. Others have decided that any institution, including the Missionary Society, can be scripturally established and maintained so long as it is supported by individuals. I believe this to be a most dangerous position, and will open the way for the promotion and maintenance of "individual institutionalism" to the point that the glory and all-sufficiency of the church will cease to have any meaning even to those who are contending for it so strongly today. If we sincerely believe the church is sufficient to do all the work that God has commanded, why are we so zealous to establish and maintain other institutions through which to do it, even individually? It seems to me that if pioneer gospel preachers of the past had been satisfied to build churches with the efforts they put into human institutions, we would be much better off today. I tremble to think the cause of Christ would have materially suffered if it had not been for "our" colleges, orphan homes, or religious papers. If so, their existence and increase today will not meet our spiritual needs, so far as pleasing God is concerned. If God indeed made the church perfect and adequate to perform all the scriptural work of his requirements, we had better set ourselves to using the equipment he placed there, rather than build up some other institution in and through which to carry out his assignments.
I am rapidly arriving at the terrifying realization that some brethren who have so consistently been contending for the truth on these issues through the years are unwittingly tainted with the notion that the Lord's work delegated to the Lord's church can be supplemented by a human institution, individually supported. Since we must have a standard for intelligent discernment, I submit the following proposition to be entirely in harmony with Bible teaching: Christians may group themselves together to form any organization to further their personal or social interests. Any use of such organization to duplicate the work of the church is sinful. The missionary Society does the work of the church exclusively. That is one reason it is wrong. The Gospel Press does the work of the church exclusively. That is one reason it is wrong. Individual support would make neither right. On the other hand, a college operated by Christians is designed to extend the function of the home. Teaching the Bible as a part of its curriculum is no more a duplication of the work of the church than is teaching the Bible in the home. But if the college was established for no other purpose than to teach the Bible and do the work of the church, it would be wrong. When I was in a "Christian college," it never occurred to me that the school was doing the work of the church, or even claimed to. Likewise, orphan homes in themselves do not do the work of the church, any more than does a housekeeper whom the church employs to care for some of its needy members. Orphan homes only perform a professional service in the field of child care which the church may purchase, as it may purchase other service. Such institutions may receive contributions from Christians only in the sense that Christians may also contribute to the Boy Scouts or any other worthy secular cause. If Christians wanted to group themselves together to "camp out" with their children, for the mutual association and recreation, and study the Bible while together, that would be right, but it would not be the work of the church.
Now, does the religious paper do the work of the church? It would be, if it solicited even individual contributions to enable it to supply a mailing list of its own selection, and directed its own teaching program. But instead, religious papers are published as a commercial enterprise, and sold to those who want to buy them. It is the same as if a publishing house prints books or tracts for sale. In fact, many publishing houses sell all these on the same basis.
I am not so presumptuous as to think the contents of this paper is the final word or a complete solution to the problem. I do sincerely hope that others better qualified will add more to the discussion, or make corrections that will be helpful. But there can be no doubt that an increasing disposition on the part of all of us to make the full use of the potential in the church God gave us, channeling all our talents and energies toward that objective that are often used in building up institutions, would indeed be a complete solution to the problem.