What Are The Real Issues Involved In The Controversy Over "Institutionalism"?
It is always a tragic thing when people lose sight of the basic and fundamental issues involved in any study, discussion, or problem. It is also unfortunate that it is so easy to do. It is our hope in this article to help clarify the issues that are involved in the present controversy among brethren over the question of "Institutionalism."
Scriptural questions should be resolved by scriptures. If personal victory is the objective in a discussion, then the inconsistency of one's opponent, either in teaching or practice, might be relevant and material. In that sort of struggle one would expect personal recriminations or anything else that might be calculated to destroy the opposition. But if the truth is the object of the study or the discussion, then the Word of God alone is the standard that can be appealed to properly. For gospel preachers to affirm that a certain thing is scriptural and then spend their entire effort trying to vindicate what they are trying to defend by something someone else has done and make no appeal to a "Thus saith the Lord" is a reflection upon their attitude toward God's Word and their faith in it. It is a matter of "say not in thy heart — but what doth it say? The word of faith which we preach"! There should be complete unanimity of purpose that the issues, whatever they are, should be resolved only in the light of divine truth. Every effort should be in the interest of truth and from such a course we should not allow our minds to be diverted. What saith the Lord? That is the solution to the problem if we are interested in pleasing God.
The difficulty is separating the real scriptural issues from all of the matters of preference, opinion, judgment, prejudice, etc., that are ordinarily aroused in such a discussion. We can be sure of one thing, that is that present day problems cannot be solved by the approach that many are taking to them. For example:
1. Look at how much good is being done! Surely you won't criticize or condemn anything doing that much good!
Paul said, "Shall we do evil that good may come?" The answer is obvious. God's work must be done so as to please God or good is not done. People who engage in unscriptural worship justify it because it "lifts them up" and does them "good" — they think they get so much good out of it. But that does not make it right because God must be pleased or no spiritual good is accomplished.
2. We have done it this way for so many years it must be right.
That was altogether true of Jewish tradition but it did not prevent their making void God's commandments and rendering their religion vain. Matt. 15:1-14.
3. It is no more wrong than what others have done and are doing.
This is a poor brand of consolation. If it is wrong at all it will condemn those who are guilty. They will simply be held guilty along with the rest. There should be no comfort found in the fact that others are wrong with us.
4. Wise and great men in the church have approved it.
Trusting in human wisdom is always wrong. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound and bring to naught them that are wise. We are walking by faith and not by the way things seem to us. I Cor. 1:1831. II Cor. 5:7. Our faith should be in God. All men are fallible, even the greatest. Men can greatly help in learning what God has said, but they cannot determine the truth. Truth must always be determined by what God has said.
5. Those who oppose this work are unworthy. They have the wrong motive.
The character of opposers will not test the merit of their opposition. A scoundrel can stand upon truth in what he contends for sometimes. The worthiness of the work in the light of the truth is the test we should be interested in making. Besides, we do not know the motives in the hearts of others and God does not permit us to judge in such matters.
The issues involved are not what some seem to think. False issues only scuttle or muddy the water so that truth cannot be seen. We need to eliminate the false issues that have been raised in the discussion of present problems.
1. Whether or not churches can cooperate in doing their work is not the issue.
Who opposes churches cooperating? The charge has been repeatedly made but it is not so. It creates a false issue. The issue is "scriptural cooperation" — what kind of congregational cooperation is authorized in the scriptures? New Testament cooperation is not opposed by anyone. Whether or not churches may cooperate is not the question but HOW can they cooperate in harmony with the will of God?
2. Whether or not the church has an obligation to care for its needy is not the issue. No one has been heard to deny that the church out of its treasury is obligated by divine authority to care for certain ones in need. Only 'an infidel would deny that. God has prescribed that the church shall do it. I Tim. 5:1-16. The question is how shall it be done? Has God given a pattern for such work? Are there 'any limitations in the scriptures placed upon such work?
3. The question is not how shall the local congregation under its own elders provide facilities for caring for their own?
No one has undertaken to overrule the elders in the matter of what is expedient as to the details or facilities in doing such work. The right of each congregation to care for its own in harmony with God's will is not the question and the right of the elders of the congregation to use whatever means are the most expedient in order to do it cannot be questioned. But remember that in order for a thing to be scripturally expedient it must also be lawful. I Cor. 10:23. Surely anything that is contrary to God's law could never be expedient.
4. It is not a question of method. This is not the issue. Place, provision, someone to have charge of the work to be done or to do it; these are always necessary no matter what organization does the work. If the congregation cares for its own orphans and widows under the supervision of the elders, they must be cared for somewhere, by someone, and must have provided the things essential and necessary to their proper care. But the same thing is just as true if they are cared for by some organization other than the church. If a corporation is formed under a board of directors, that organization must still provide a place, someone to care for them, and the provisions necessary to their care. So the question of means, provisions, or method is not the issue. It is a question of which organization shall provide such method or means, the organization God designed, which Jesus built, and which the Holy Spirit revealed or one built by the wisdom and will of man. This is the issue. We would state the first primary issue in all of this discussion about present day problems like this:
Is It Scripturally Right For Congregations Of The Lord's Church To Build And Maintain Human Organizations And To Do Their Work Through Such Organizations As A Means Of Cooperating?
Much is involved in this question that deserves careful and prayerful consideration. For instance, has Christ given to His Church authority to build any other organization at all? Can the church rightfully build anything but the church? Does any congregation have the right to establish anything other than another congregation?
To answer such a question we need only to remember that authority is not exercised by the church. It is rather exercised by the Lord over the Church. Matt. 28: 18-20. Eph. 1:19:23. Catholics contend that the primary source of authority in religion is the priesthood or hierarchy of the church. Christians believe and the gospel teaches that "all authority" is in the hands of Christ; legislative, executive, and judicial. He exercises it in the church through His word. No one has any right to do anything in the Church of the Lord unless the Lord authorizes it in His word.
Where is the passage that authorized the churches or a church to build and maintain a human organization as a means of doing anything. This is the problem. This is the issue. Such a passage cannot be produced. It isn't in the word of the Lord. The whole problem then is one of reverence for divine authority, respect for the Word of God.
If Churches can build human organizations to do some of their work as a means of cooperating, then they can build human organizations to do all of their work. If not, why not?
If churches can build a human organization — a corporation under a board of directors, as a medium of cooperating in their caring for orphan children or the aged, then churches can build a human organization, a corporation under a board of directors, as a means of cooperating in preaching the gospel and we should apologize to the missionary society advocates, and to the Baptists for condemning their convention. We have been wrong, if such is right.
Moreover if we can add to the organization of the Lord's Church, remodel the government of God's people, why can't we formulate a human creed, and introduce any human practice into the worship we offer God that we might wish? Is it any more permissible to disregard divine authority and act without it in the matter of church organization than in the matter of teaching or worship? Where is the stopping point?
The second fundamental issue in present day problems can be stated in this fashion:
Is It Scripturally Right For Congregations Of The Lord's Church To Combine Their Funds And Centralize The Control Over The Use Of Those Funds In One Congregation And Under One Eldership As A Means Of Cooperating In Accomplishing Their Mission?
This, in fact, is exactly what is being done. One church solicits money from many churches to be turned over to them to spend in evangelizing Germany. Another congregation assumes a similar position in order to evangelize Japan. Many others follow suit and we have congregations acting in the capacity of brotherhood agencies through which many churches try to function. The elders of such congregations become brotherhood elders. It is a perversion of God's plan for the congregation and its eldership.
The Herald of Truth radio program is perhaps the most prominent example of such a perversion. The Highland Church at Abilene agreed to accept supervision of a radio program that had been promoted by two preachers, James W. Willeford, and James Walter Nichols. This congregation became the medium through which many churches seek to cooperate in preaching the gospel over the radio. But if the congregation can serve as a medium through which many churches can cooperate in preaching the gospel over the radio, it can serve as a medium through which all the churches can cooperate in preaching the gospel over the radio. And if they can cooperate through one church in preaching the gospel over the radio they can cooperate through one church in doing all of their preaching. Further, if they can cooperate through one congregation in doing their preaching they can cooperate through one congregation in doing all the rest of their work and Romanism is the inevitable consequence. It leads to one Church acting as a medium to control and direct all of the work of all the churches throughout the whole world and that is all Rome is. In that event all we would have to do is elect a Pope and the apostasy would be complete.
There Are Many Objections To Such An Arrangement:
1. There is no scriptural authority for one church sending money to another church unless the receiving church was in need. All of the writing, debating, discussing that has been done has not yet produced the passage authorizing anything else.
Antioch sent to several churches — to the elders of those churches — when they were in need. Acts 11:27-30. The church sending the contribution selected her own messengers and entrusted them with the responsibility of delivering the funds. The occasion for the contribution being sent was churches in Judea (Gal. 1:22) which had a greater obligation to care for their own needy than they were able to meet.
Churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia sent to one church, Jerusalem, when the need among the saints in Jerusalem was so great that the church there could not meet the obligation to care for them. 1 Cor. 16:1-3. H Cor. chapters 8 and 9. Romans 15:25-27.
Jerusalem Church sent Barnabas to Antioch when the disciples there needed spiritual help and the church, having just been planted, was weak and small. Acts. 11: 22.
Churches enabled Paul to remain in Corinth a year and six months by supporting him while he more firmly planted the Church of the Lord there. II Cor. 11:8.
These were all instances of cooperation between congregations. In each instance the contributing church sent through their own individual messenger to the work" that was in need and in no instance did they send through another church. Neither is there any instance in New Testament history of a congregation assuming to do or promoting g what they considered a "good work" which they were not able to pay for and calling upon other churches to come to their aid. The need in Judea in the first instance (about 45 A. D.) and the need in Jerusalem in the second instance of benevolence referred to (about 57 or 58 A. D.) were neither one a created need or a promoted project. They were instances where local congregations were responsible for caring for their own; but the obligation, because of the need, was so great those local churches responsible for it were not able to meet it without aid. ONE CHURCH SENT MONEY TO ANOTHER CHURCH ONLY WHEN IT WAS IN NEED. That is New Testament teaching.
2. No church ever sent a contribution through another church. When a church in the New Testament contributed to another needy church they always selected their own messenger to take the money. The messenger was always an individual or individuals — never another church. The messenger selected delivered the contribution into the hands of the church being helped. 1 Cor. 16:1-3; Acts 11:27-30.
3. For one congregation to become the agency through which another congregation seeks to discharge its responsibility is to pervert the purpose for which God instituted congregational government in His church. The independence and autonomy of the congregation in doing its own work and directing its own affairs is a fundamental principle in God's arrangement. A congregation is not a brotherhood medium in any sense in the divine arrangement.
4. When an eldership of one congregation functions as a board of directors for many churches they assume a function God never gave them or intended for them to exercise. The authority of the eldership is restricted to the members and work of the congregation over which they are elders. "Tend the flock of God which is among you." 1 Peter 5:1-4. "Take heed — to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Acts 20:28.
5. The equality of churches is destroyed when one becomes a "promoting" or "sponsoring" church and assumes control and direction of a work to which others can only send their money and be "contributing churches." Congregations are to be equal under Christ just like Christian individuals are to be equal; without any class distinction or rank.
When a church surrenders control over any work that it seeks to do even though it may be voluntarily done, that church shirks its God-given duty and is displeasing to God.
When any church seeks to concentrate within its control the money and power of other churches, it is too ambitious and thinks much too highly of itself to be pleasing unto God.
6. Brotherhood projects and promotions such as the "sponsoring church" type of evangelism, the Herald of Truth radio program, et cetera, are not the right of just a few congregations. If one church can undertake such a promotion, put out its propaganda agents and its brochures and literature to arouse and solicit funds from other churches, any other church and all other churches can do the same thing and the people of God are subjected to pressure control, promotional schemes, and political chicanery, that is destructive to Christianity and a threat to the very existence of the church of God.
We should be satisfied with the church as God designed it, as Christ built it, and as the Holy Spirit revealed it. The church of the New Testament day did the greatest job that the world has ever witnessed in carrying its message to the ends of the earth. The greatest growth in the history of Christianity was then achieved without the aid of any of these present day man-made, man-promoted, institutions and unscriptural arrangements. Each congregation then had the control and direction of the disbursement of its own funds and the oversight of its own work without any pressure control, coercion, "quarantining," disfellowshipping, or interference from any agency from without, even from other churches. If there is work to be done that one congregation cannot do alone, let other churches cooperate in doing it, but do not let any church be elevated above another or subordinated to another. Let equality reign in their relationship to such work, no church handling the funds of any other church, no church directing the affairs of any other church but each remaining free and independent of outside control and subject only to Christ.
Inter-congregational arrangements are not scriptural. They are without scriptural authority. They have neither principle nor precedent in the Word of God. They are therefore unscriptural and that means that when injected into the work of God's church they are anti-scriptural. We can solve these issues only in the light of God's Word. We can resolve our differences only by "speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent."