The Berney Points Series: The "Church Universal" Concept
We continue our study of the "Divine Pattern of Church Organization" with an article on the "church universal" concept. The facts presented in last week's article are further confirmed by making a study of the term "church" and its use in the scriptures. In Matthew 16:18 the term is used in the universal sense — comprehending all the saved of the earth. In 1 Corinthians 1:2 the term is used in a local sense — comprehending only the saints at Corinth. It is significant that in the universal sense the term church is never used in such a way as to indicate an organization for the church. Therefore, the church in the general sense knows no earthly organization!
We also read of the churches of Samaria, Galilee and Judea. (Acts 9:31) These are churches in a given district. We also read of the churches of Asia and other provinces. (1 Cor. 16:19) But do we find in the revelation God has made to us on church organization anything about a district organization? We are forced to answer in the negative. Here are other questions, the answers to which are most significant. Since the term church is used in the Bible in the general sense, why didn't the Lord give us an organization for the church in the general sense? Why didn't he? Can it be that he did not want universal action through one unit of organization? Since we have reference made to churches in a given territory or district, why didn't the Lord give us a district church organization? Why didn't he? Can it be that he did not want district action through any one unit of organization? The only church action provided for in the New Testament is that of the local congregation! Hence, we must conclude that it is God's will that the world be evangelized, the poor be cared for, and the saints be edified in and through the independent functions of these local congregations.
Brethren, I'm persuaded that the foundation of our ills today is to be found in an unscriptural concept of church action. We get to thinking in terms of what the whole church can do in the general sense, but God gave us no general organization through which such action can be taken, hence, such thinking results in the creation of an organization through which general action can be taken. We get to thinking about what all the churches in a given territory or district could do, but, again, God gave us no organization for such action. Such thinking brings into being a district organization through which the district action can be taken. So you see such organizations come into being, first of all, because of an unscriptural concept of church action. Thinking unscripturally, we act unscripturally! I repeat, they are but the necessary products of unscriptural thinking! The same unscriptural concept of church action often makes out of a local eldership a society for "brotherhood" action. Correct this unscriptural concept of church action and you not only preclude universal organizations for universal church action — e.g., the "American Christian Missionary Society," district organizations for district church action — e.g., "Childhaven," but you also make impossible a society of a local eldership for "brotherhood" action — e.g., "Herald of Truth"!
In accounting for the digression that swept our ranks in years gone by, Brother Earl West places emphasis upon this unscriptural concept of church action. He refers to the missionary society and to Brother Pendleton who was one of the most influential preachers in the brotherhood who, nevertheless, went all out for the society: "The basic apology for the Society Pendleton based upon his conception of the church universal, and in this he followed closely the reasoning of Alexander Campbell. No man is prepared to see the Society as Pendleton saw it without beginning where Pendleton began. First, he filled his mind with the thought of the church in its universal aspect, ignoring for the time being the local church. God gave to the church — in its universal sense — the responsibility to convert the world. But God did not give the method by which the church — in its universal sense — was to convert the world. Therefore, whatever method the church — in its universal sense — uses is acceptable. The method is a matter of expediency. The church universal is left free to decide for itself. This is briefly the defense he made for it.
"... The study of church history reveals the fact that every time men thought in terms of the church universal, they ended up by forming organizations which in their work substituted themselves in the place of Christ. Roman Catholicism is the highest embodiment of church universal concept, and claims that its pope is the vicegerent of Christ on earth. So far as the church universal on earth is concerned, as viewed by a Romanist, the pope is virtually Christ.
"Protestantism thought in terms of the church universal, and set up synods and conferences. These synods and conferences have written creeds, created confessions of faith — in short, have made laws for the church universal, a prerogative that belongs to Christ. In the final analysis these synods and conferences assume the position of Christ over the church universal. Some, like the Baptist denomination, have tried to throw off the concept of the church universal for a time, and insist upon strict congregational polity. Yet they invariably thought in terms of the church universal and established associations which soon began to dictate to the local churches, a prerogative that again belonged to Christ. In the restoration movement, brethren thought in terms of the church universal, and with that concept formed a Missionary Society. Looking back on this history, as we can now, who can fail to see that this Society became the master, and soon dictated to the churches, a prerogative which belongs only to Christ." (Search For the Ancient Order, Vol. 2, pages 55-56)
Notice that these unscriptural organizations came into being because of an unscriptural concept of church action. These organizations were unscriptural long before they dictated to churches or exercised ecclesiastical power! They were unscriptural in their conception! Brethren THOUGHT unscripturally, and that resulted in the production of an unscriptural organization. Brethren, if we can get our thinking straight and hold it within the bounds of the holy scriptures, we will then think in terms of local action on the part of the local congregation and be content with God's divine pattern of church organization.
Cases In Point
That conclusions are being reached and arguments are being made based upon this denominational concept is becoming evident more and more as the days go by. I give you two cases in point: In Brother Brewer's reply to Brother Lewis' tract on "Childhaven," page 9, in an effort to defend "Childhaven," Brother Brewer makes an argument which in brief is: such institutional homes do not rob the church of glory because homes of the denominations do not rob them of glory. Here is his argument: "An institution, as applied to the church of the Lord, would mean that it is an ecclesiasticism, that it has an organized form with earthly head and earthly headquarters and the various congregations are units in the super-organization. An institution of this kind always has revenues or sources of income. It has officials who can appropriate funds out of its revenues for any work that the institution wishes to do. In this way denominations build churches, schools and orphanages. Then these homes and schools are CHURCH INSTITUTIONS, but they are not rivals of the institution that built them, and, therefore, they are not institutions in the same sense that the denomination that owns them is an institution. No one supposes that the orphan homes that are owned by the Catholics displace the Catholic Church or rob it of its glory. No one supposes that an orphan home that is built by the Odd Fellows or the Masons usurps the functions of those organizations or robs them of their glory. We well know that the denominations and fraternal orders receive credit and praise for the work they do in caring for orphans and for aged people, their homes do not get the glory."
Notice that Brother Brewer says, "the congregations are units in the super-organization." He also shows that the denominational orphanages are units in the super-organization. Of course, these institutions do not rob the Catholic denomination of any glory! Why! They are units IN the denomination! They are a part of the SUPER-ORGANIZATION! When my hand does something good, my whole body is honored. Why? It is a unit in the whole. BUT the church of our Lord has no SUPER-ORGANIZATION of which these institutions can be a part. The only organic structure the church has on earth is the local congregation. Therefore, the organization of the Catholic Church and the organization of our Lord's church are different! Brother Brewer's conclusion that "Childhaven" does not rob the church of any glory necessitates a false premise, namely, the church and the denominations are parallel in their organic structure. This, of course, is false! This denominational concept of the church is the foundation of our ills today!
The second case in point evidencing this denominational concept of the church is found in an article that makes the front page of the Gospel Advocate, October 23, 1952. It is written by Brother Howard White. I do not question his honesty and integrity; nevertheless, his article further evidences this denominational concept of the church. "A recent news dispatch in a New Orleans paper told of a mother of five young children who was arrested in a barroom. While she awaited trail for neglect, the children were taken to St. Vincent's Asylum. It will be noted that the home is a Catholic one. Such agencies have not detracted from the Catholic Church, but rather have they given that church such glory as it has. To argue that a home for homeless children takes the honor and glory from the church is to talk foolishness."
We agree that giving an orphan a home would not necessarily rob the church of glory. But to argue that the home he has in mind does not rob the church of glory is to make the same argument just reviewed. Catholic orphanages are joined to, connected with the gigantic SUPERORGANIZATION of the Catholic Church. They are subject to, governed and controlled by the high officials of the super-organization. Childhaven, however, is not joined to, nor connected with the church of our Lord in any organic sense. The two are not alike! Brethren, can we not see that our thinking today in many instances is saturated with this denominational concept of the church?
While there are problems before us, I am not a pessimist. I have this confidence in my brethren that when they realize that there are issues before us, we can in all honesty and integrity considerately weigh the things at stake in the light of holy writ, and emerge victorious. To that end I make my prayer.
Christianity has always been fraught with perils and always will be. Just as long as time lasts there will be dangers to threaten the future security of the church. Paul warned us of the same in 1 Timothy 3. His greatest fear, however, was from within! (Acts 20:30) Our greatest threat has always been from within, and always will be. I am persuaded that there are not enough demons in hell combined with all the hosts of Satan's dominion that can crush the church of our Lord from without! If we can but keep it pure on the inside the future triumph will be secure.