Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
March 23, 1961
NUMBER 45, PAGE 4,13a

"Put It Under Elders"

Robert H. Farish, Lufkin, Texas

Those arrangements for church universal function which have been labeled, "sponsoring churches," have come to the popular acceptance which they now enjoy because many members of the church were persuaded that to "put it under the elders" made it scriptural. A "sponsoring church" is a church whose elders have been persuaded, or have on their own initiative decided, to "assume" a work which has not been assigned to a local congregation, by the Lord. The divine arrangement of a local congregation is perverted into a "sponsoring church" arrangement when elders "accept" the oversight of a work to which every other church bears an equal relationship. This "put it under the elders" idea is the camouflage by which the old denominational concept of a church universal function has gained acceptance. Church universal function, while not generally avowed by members of the church of Christ, is yet a matter of fact. "Herald of Truth" of Fifth and Highland — the European evangelistic program of the Broadway church — and various benevolent, recreational and educational "projects" which have been "put under the elders" of churches are all examples of the church universal, at work.

This "put it under elders" idea seems to be the position of those who have a fondness for the "middle of the road." Brother Lemmons denies that there exists "sponsoring churches" in the sense that we are using the term. I suppose he means that we do not have "sponsoring churches" in the sense of an organization engaged in church universal function. We reply to this in the language of Robert C. Welch, "Also these brethren today remember that the idea of a church universal at work was very well refuted in the fight over missionary societies. Thus they do not want to call their ambitious programs by such a title today. They want to have it without naming it." (Gospel Guardian, Dec. 18,1952, p. 1) Yes we have it and I for one, plan to name it just what it is. It may be the middle of the road position to accept and defend a church universal function just so long as it is "under elders," but it is not the scriptural position.

In the earlier controversy on the organization and function of the church, which arose when liberal brethren began promoting their "projects" for church universal function, Pendleton was the champion of the missionary society cause. W. K. Pendleton assumed a function of the church universal and then from this arbitrary assumption, argued the need of an organization commensurate with the scope of work which he had assumed. In those days, those with "this large conception of the church universal" realized that if the church universal had "responsibilities and work," these "responsibilities" could not be discharged and this "work" done "within the limits of a single congregation."

Note the course of reasoning pursued by Pendleton in the quotation from his speech in defense of the American Christian Missionary Society:

"We fear that this large conception of the Church Universal is too little realized by many Christians of the present day. Their ideas of the church, and of the responsibilities and work of the church, circle too much within the limits of a single congregation. The kingdom of God is scarcely recognized as commensurate with the people of God, and the sphere of its cooperative as well as of its free individual effort, as being as wide as the Commission — 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.' There were Christians before there was an organized church." (Pendleton)

The idea of a "brotherhood" or church universal function is basic for the Missionary Society and also for the "Sponsoring church." The "sponsoring church" is the "Trojan horse" by which the idea of the church universal functioning is "getting in" in this latest digression. Preachers and elders of "sponsoring churches" can still point out that they have elders as overseers of the work. And because the members of the organization are called by scriptural names, many people believe the organization and its function to be scriptural. We need to again be impressed with the fact that the church of Christ has no functional organization larger than the single congregation and our "ideas of the church, and of the responsibilities and work of the church" cannot circle too much within the limits of a single congregation.

The divine pattern includes neither a church universal function nor a church universal organization. It is as much a perversion of the church for elders to "assume" a function without divine authority, as it is to create an organization not divinely authorized. "Putting it under elders" does not make it scriptural. The Holy Spirit has already put every thing under the elders which belongs under the elders. Study Acts 20:28; Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.

No group of men, regardless of their qualifications and the fact that they are designated by scriptural terms, is a scriptural eldership unless it is functioning in its prescribed sphere, both from the standpoint of character and scope of work.