The "Church Universal" Concept

As every student knows, the word "church" is used in the Bible in two senses — one referring to the particular congregation, the other referring to the whole body of believers, or, the "church local" and the "church universal."

The "church local" has a divinely appointed governing authority and organization, the eldership. When operating under the New Testament plan, each congregation can function properly under this body of men. The authority of this body begins and ends with the particular congregation in which they are members.

The "church universal" has no organization, no headquarters, no earthly authority of any sort. It is utterly impossible for the "church universal," as such, to take any kind of action; express an opinion, send out an evangelist, receive a report, or even have a meeting.

One basic cause of so much unrest among Christians right now is that many are failing to make this distinction between the local church and the universal church. They' are attempting to do "brotherhood" jobs through an organization that God never designed for any such task — the elders of some local congregation. One has but to read the statements of some of the brethren to see how far afield they have gone down this tragic trail — the same fatal error that Campbell held, and which paved the way for the American Christian Missionary Society.

Underlying all the unrest in Germany, as well as in Africa, one can see the shadow of this mistaken concept. Because certain elderships have, to use their own words, "accepted the responsibility" of spending money which was contributed by hundreds of churches, they have felt that they were doing a "brotherhood" job. Consequently they have felt under obligation to make periodic reports to "the brotherhood" of their stewardship. The elders of Lubbock's Broadway church say, "We are constantly endeavoring to keep the brotherhood advised of what is being done in the German mission efforts." Why? Is it merely because they want to encourage the brethren and as a matter of interest inform them of progress in Germany? Or do they feel OBLIGATED to make such reports? If the latter, then clearly they conceive of themselves as acting, in a sense, as agents for the brotherhood.

The school in Frankfurt was advertised in their earlier literature as "The Seminary of the Church of Christ," but objection was raised to this and the name was changed to "The College of the Church of Christ." This "College" is under the direction and control of the elders of the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas. It is NOT under the control of the Westend church in Frankfurt — save as that church is under the control of Broadway's elders. This was one feature of the arrangement to which Brother Dick Smith objected. He could not accept the Frankfurt school as being simply on a par with a congregation's Sunday School or special training program when it is actually not controlled by that congregation at all, but is controlled by a set of elders many thousands of miles distant. Is the Frankfurt school a part of Broadway's work? Is it a part of the program of the Broadway Church of Christ, Lubbock, Texas? Again, we say this point needs some clarification.

It would appear that the Broadway church, through the Frankfurt school, is in a fair way to influence and control the attitudes and thinking of all the churches in Germany. Is it possible for a worker to remain in Germany and NOT participate in the program of the Frankfurt school? Dick Smith found that it was not possible for him to remain unless he was willing to accept the school and cooperate with its program. We wonder if there are other workers in Germany who are experiencing the same problem?

Seventy years ago our fathers fought a terrible battle with the digressives over the adequacy, autonomy, and independency of the local church. When the split finally became open and recognized, the issue was largely settled. Those who believed in the "church universal" having the right and the power to act went into the Disciples of Christ denomination; and simple Christians, believing in the all-sufficiency of the church, remained faithful to the Book. So well was the distinction made and accepted that apparently many faithful Christians thought the battle had been won once and for all. The result is that a whole new generation has grown up to whom this is entirely, unfamiliar ground. They have been taught; they have not met the problem; they have not had to thresh out the difficulties and the questions.

And so today we see faithful gospel preachers falling into the same old errors, making the same mistakes, taking the same untenable positions advocated sixty and seventy years ago by the digressives. It simply means that the battle must be fought all over again; simple Christians must go back and work over the ground that they thought was already secure. Once more we must fill our pulpits with men who will preach the old, old theme of the sufficiency of the church, the independency and autonomy of the local congregation. We must point out again that there is no "brotherhood" program or action possible for the Lord's church, that each congregation must do her own job, and that when one particular church gets into difficulty and needs help, the other congregations may come to her assistance.

The task is a prodigious one, for already many among us have gone far, far down the road to digression. But difficulty is not synonymous with impossibility. And we are convinced that there are considerably more than "seven thousand" who have not bowed the knee to the false concept. We face the future with confidence and with resolution.

— F. Y. T.