Special Edition

The Church — Live Issues Old and New

This special issue on "The Church—Live IssuesOld and New" is one of the most significant studiesof this generation. It is a recycle of history andinvolves the same three important attitudes thatcreated the issues and divisions 150 years ago. These are: 1) The loose attitude toward the verbally inspiredWord of God; 2) The attitude toward the nature andfunction of the church; and 3) The attitude towardfellowship with error.

The competent editor of Searching The Scripturesassigned to me the subject which heads this article with the request that for the sake of continuity Isimply state some historical facts leading to thepresent digression without pausing to argue thepoint, and leave it to the other writers in this specialissue to present the case.

The characteristics of the digression among thechurches of Christ go back to the days of the apostleswhen "the mystery of iniquity doth already work ..." (2 Thess. 2:7) and predictions were made ofdepartures from the faith (I Tim. 4: 1-3). Throughthe centuries that followed the completion of the NewTestament one "issue" followed another, stemmingfrom attitudes toward divine authority, the nature and work of the church, and the matter of fellowship, and resulted in one division after another.

In preparation for this article I have read from anumber of sources which give a rather vivid description of the developing storm clouds and thecyclonic destruction among churches of Christ of themiddle nineteenth century. I shall try to briefly state some of these historical facts in their proper relationship to the breach in fellowship among thedisciples of Christ. The reader will please understandthat this article does not purport to be a detailed andcomplete accounting of the history from 1830 to 1978.We are only interested in giving a sketch of thehistorical divisions resulting from the issues of thepast.

Cooperation And The Missionary Society

During the 1840's an element among the churchesof Christ demanded greater missionary zeal, andsome of the foremost leaders in this movement set about to create some "COOPERATION" machinery for pooling the resources of many churches into onefund to preach the gospel. From 1840 to 1850 benevolent activity began by women who arrangedthemselves into "sewing societies" for the purpose ofmaking and providing garments and food for needypeople. This was highly commended by influential menwho were striving to affect and organize such an arrangement for preaching the gospel.

In 1847, Walter Scott and W. K. Pendleton campaigned for funds to be sent to the needy disciplesin the United Kingdom. (Quest For A Christian American, Edwin Harrell, Jr., P. 75). The collection was made under the sponsorship of thechurch in Bethany, Virginia. This was the first brotherhood benevolent campaign and the beginning of the church-supported institutional benevolent societies

which were to flourish later as a "Social Gospel" function.

But Barton W. Stone said of benevolent societies;"These benevolent schemes are Bible societies, Tract societies, Rag societies, Cent societies, Theological societies, Sunday School societies, Educational societies . . . I would simply ask, What have thedivine writers of the New Testament said respectingthese societies? They are all silent as the grave ..."[Quest For A Christian America, P. 76.)

The organization of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 produced the division between Disciples of Christ and churches of Christ and they were first listed separately in the U.S. Census in1906. This divisive, unscriptural organization was theresult of the constant demand for cooperation ofchurches on local, state and national levels. As this organization developed, two opposing philosophies became predominantly active: Liberal and Conservative. Unique from 1840 to 1906 was the factthat leaders who advocated or opposed the innovations abhorred division and tried hard to avoid a fracture in fellowship but the demand for the unscriptural organization was more important than the fellowship of the disciples of the Lord. They slowly drifted

toward a complete cleavage.

Cooperation among churches was the most important issue of the 1830-1850 period. The convention of the American Christian MissionarySociety met in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 24-28, 1849.In his absence because of illness, Alexander Campbell was elected the first president and D. S. Burnett was elected first vice-president. John T. Johnson of Kentucky made a resolution which passed "That the 'Missionary Society', as a means to concentrate and dispense the wealth and benevolence of the brethren of this restoration in an effort to convert the world, is both scriptural and expedient."A committee of seven was to be appointed to prepare a constitution for the society. Nothing in the constitution resembled anything authorized in the New Testament. (Attitudes and Consequences, Homer Hailey, P. 152).

Benjamin Franklin, who first favored the Missionary Society, but later became an opponent,together with J. W. McGarvey said the Missionary Society ought to die. W. K. Pendleton, Moses E. Lard, and Isaac Errett held the opposite view of theusefulness of the Missionary Society. The Gospel Advocate began publication again in January, 1866after four years of silence during the Civil War.David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning were editorsand they strongly opposed the Missionary Society and the instrument of music in worship.

Instrumental Music Controversy

The controversy over the use of Instrumental Music in worship to God became acute about 1860.Prior to this time there had been some efforts to introduce it but with no real success. Most historians give the credit to L. L. Pinkerton of Lexington, Kentucky for introducing the first instrument of music in the church at Midway, Kentucky in 1859. Amelodeon was used with the worship on this occasion.

Homer Hailey in Attitudes and Consequences, P.

result of the attitudes earlier mentioned. During and after the Civil War years the manufacture and use of "spirits" became a heated question. There was thecontroversy about the war and civil government. Thisissue continued after the Civil War. Slavery alsobecame an issue which separated many brethren.Some contended that the immersed into Christ could have fellowship with "other denominations" in meetings and general activities.

Among the issues of the 1850's to 1900's was thatof the divorce and remarriage problem. "Althoughdivorce was uncommon, such sins as 'adultery', 'desertion', and common law marriages, caused frontier church leaders considerable concern." (Quest For A Christian America, Edwin Harrell, Jr., P. 196).

There were problems of Christians marrying non-Christians, and in some cases they were compelled toconfess their sin.

"If most Disciple leaders believed that compliance with the 'laws of the land' was all that was demanded for a scriptural marriage, they were not so liberal onthe question of divorce. The generally accepted standard was: 'There is no release then to husband or wife from the marriage contract unless the other party has been guilty of fornication.' A few church leaders were liberal enough to concede that 'desertion', a practice not uncommon on the frontier,was a just cause for divorce and remarriage, but theywere exceptions." (ibid, P. 197).

The Sunday School question, the no-women teachers, and the no-literature classes became issueswhich still remain. The College and Orphan Homecontroversy which Daniel Sommer strongly opposedin the American Christian Review as being unscripturalagents through which the church was trying to functionbecame a heated issue. The "pastor system" was saidto have developed through the college system.

Premillennialism was promoted by R. H. Boll. Atone time he was the front page writer for the Gospel Advocate but started his own paper called Word and Work to promote his theories. In the 1930's the Gospel Advocate under the editorship of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. made a strong attack against Premillennialism. This led to his debates with Charles

M. Neal which broke the back of Premillennialism in the church.

The College Issue

There is no question but that the role of the colleges owned and operated by Christians played apredominate role in the controversies that broughtabout divisions since the days of Alexander Campbellat Bethany College. Those colleges that are nowowned and operated by "Churches of Christ" have denied from the beginning their solicitation of fundsfrom churches, but most of them have admitted taking contributions from churches when sent tothem. At the present time most of them are openlysoliciting and accepting funds from churches forvarious purposes.

From W. W. Otey, Contender For The Faith, pages 287-291, the following information was ob-tained which I believe to be pertinent to my purposein this article.

On Wednesday night in February, 1938, during thelectureship at Abilene Christian College, G. C. Brewerwas asked to make a few remarks to encourage theaudience to contribute to the college. Brewer suggested that if all churches in Texas would contribute to the support of the school, such requests from individuals would be unnecessary.Some who were present understood Brewer to say thatchurches who did not have Abilene Christian Collegein their budget had the wrong preacher.

Brewer took the position that it was scriptural forchurches to support the college. W. W. Otey wroteBrewer a letter about his statement and received a reply dated March 2, 1938 in which he said, "As to my statement at the college, you did not misunderstand me, but you left off a part of thestatement that I think should be included. I said that I had argued for the practice of putting theColleges and Orphan Homes in the congregationalbudgets, and I would be willing to argue for it again, ifargument were necessary ..." Brewer said he had understood this to have been the practice since Bethany College was founded in 1840.

Brother Otey wrote the presidents of several of thecolleges asking for their convictions and comments on

G. C. Brewer's statement.

On June 7, 1938 George S. Benson, president ofHarding College wrote W. W. Otey that HardingCollege did not solicit funds from the church treasurybut "that it would not be wrong for a congregation tomake a gift to a Bible school from the regular treasury of the church."

On March 4, 1938, James F. Cox, president ofAbilene Christian College wrote to Brother Otey thathe had never raised money through churches, nor hadhe authorized any one else to do so. He stated thathe had received some contributions from churches who wanted to do it that way and that he had notsent it back. He also stated that G. C. Brewer had not been authorized to make the statement he made and he regretted it had been done.

In June 30, 1938, E. H. Ijams, president of David Lipscomb College wrote Otey that during his connection with the college, and as far as he knew, nosolicitation from churches had ever been made,although a few donations from churches had beenreceived for needy and deserving students. He statedhis convictions that church and school were separateinstitutions, with school a supplement to the homeand not an adjunct to the church.

N. B. Hardeman, president of Freed-HardemanCollege wrote to Otey: "I am truly sorry that we cannot get settled on matters relating to our schools and the churches. I certainly do not endorse Brother Brewer's statements and would oppose any congregation's putting Freed-Hardeman College in their budget."

Sponsoring Church And Herald Of Truth

It was a short distance from the MissionarySociety of the Christian Church to the "Sponsoring

Church" and "Diocesan Elders" in foreign fields afterWorld War II and the Korean War. It became so popular among foreign missionaries that it was utilized at home.

The Herald of Truth Radio and TV programs of theHighland Church in Abilene, Texas was the "brainchild of James W. Nichols and James Willeford, according to one of the elders at Highlandwhen those elders "assumed" the oversight of theHerald of Truth in February, 1952.

Bible colleges became the spring board from whichthe institutional, sponsoring church, centralized control and oversight, orphan home, socialized gospel, and "fellowship everything", issues have developed. Adding to these are the normal falloutresults of immorality and further departures from the truth.

The articles that follow will deal specifically withthese departures that now divide the people of God.

Division over the work, nature and organization ofthe church is a reality. It did not come about suddenly but it did come throughout this land andhas spread to other nations beyond the seas. Everyright thinking child of God wishes this tragedy hadbeen averted and longs for unity based upon theword of God. The Psalmist praised the pleasantness ofunity among brethren (Psa. 133:1). Jesus prayed forthe oneness of all believers in him (Jno. 17:17-21).Paul outlined the disposition which endeavours to"keep the unity of the Spirit" and gave seven foundation stones upon which such unity is to bebuilt and maintained (Eph. 4:1-16).

Yet, the word of God warned that some would notbe content to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9-11). Paul said "some shall depart from the faith" (1Tim. 4:1). He told the Ephesian elders that somewould "speak perverse things to draw away disciplesafter them" (Acts 20:29-30). Those who would pervert the gospel of Christ are "accursed" (Gal.1:6-9). It is possible to "wrest the scriptures" to thedestruction of those so employed (2 Pet. 3:16).

Worse Than Division

While division among the people of God is deplorable, there is one thing worse than division andthat is unity in error. When departures from thefaith come we could all be united in the departure andall be lost together. Followers of truth cannot long remain in unison with followers of error. The New Testament is clear that promoters of error are to bemarked and opposed (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:9-11:Titus 1:9-11). Unity in error compromises the truth ofGod and leads to everlasting ruin. Every saint is atrustee of the faith "once delivered" and is charged to"contend" for that sacred body of teaching (Jude 8-4).

When Issues Arise

What are godly people to do when issues arisewhich threaten to divide brethren? Shall the issue be ignored in the hope that it will somehow go away?That will not work. It never has. Shall we wait to see how many will stand on one side or the other andthen cast our lot with the majority? Shall we makeour decision based on what great and good men thinkabout it? Shall we support a position on the groundthat "we have always done it this way?" Surely, these are false standards. We suggest some simplebut basic rules to help us in such times:

(1) Respect the authority of the scriptures. "Thyword is truth" (Jno. 17:17). "Whatsoever ye do inword or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus"

Page 5

(Col. 3:17). "If any man speak, let him speak as theoracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). Let no man be honored "above that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). We mustalso respect the silence of God, Where God did notspeak, we have no authority to act.

(2) Believe that scripture can be understood. TheLord addressed his word to our understanding. We are challenged to understand "what the will of theLord is" (Eph. 5:17). We are to "read" the "words"written by an inspired man that we might "un derstand" (Eph. 3:2-4). (3) Handle aright the word of truth. The word of God must be studied in context. We have preached thisover and over to the denominational world for years,and rightly so. But the instruction of 2 Timothy 2:15falls with equal weight upon us all. We must considerall that the Bible says on a subject. If more than one passage deals with a matter, then honest studyrequires that we regard the sum total of all God saidabout it before reaching a conclusion. (4) Resolve to follow whatever course truth demands. What is the benefit of finding truth on anygiven subject unless we are determined to accept it,regardless of the cost. We must be as the man whofound the pearl of great price and sold all he had inorder to obtain it (Mt. 13:45-46). (5) Stand for truth without bitterness. We do nothave to hate a brother who has not as yet seen whatwe have seen in the word of God. If brethren become enemies because of our stand for truth, then we arechallenged by the Lord to love our enemies and dogood to those who despitefully use us (Mt. 5:43-36).

The Danger of the Closed Mind

When one has closed his mind to any alternativeother than the one he has chosen, then it is very easyfor him to see and yet not see, to hear and yet nothear. In the time of Ezekiel, "certain of the elders ofIsrael" came before him. The Lord told Ezekiel that they had "set up their idols in their heart" and then warned that when men come to seek God's will with such idols in the heart that "I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of hisidols" (Ezek. 14:1-5). Jesus warned of those whose hearts were "dull of hearing, and their eyes they haveclosed" (Mt. 13:15). The church at Laodicea was blind to its faults and needed "eye-salve" that it might see (Rev. 3:18). Perhaps the most sobering warning of all was stated by Paul to the Thessalonians when he said "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of thetruth, that they might be saved. And for this causeGod shall send them strong delusion, that they shouldbelieve a lie: That they all might be damned whobelieved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Anything lessthan a sincere love for the truth opens the door of theheart to deception and delusion leading to everlasting destruction.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said "But thaton the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bringforth fruit with patience" (Luke 8:15). In the studybefore us in this special issue, we appeal to brethren with honest and good hearts to consider what is presented. "Prove all things: hold fast that which isgood" (1 Thess. 5:21).

Since the division of the 1950's and 1960's over the work, nature and organization of the church, most brethren on either side of the division have had little communication with each other. While prejudices andold bitternesses linger in the hearts of some, there isa new generation on the scene today which might beable to look at these issues more objectively and withless danger of rancor than was true of some in the past. Whether you consider yourself a ''liberal", "conservative", "middle-of-the-roader" or scorn all such labels, we simply ask you to give this materialfair and honest consideration. Through all these years, during and after the division, we have not personally stopped reading what brethren on the other side have had to say. We receive bulletins and periodicals from those who are now estranged from usand we read them. We have never written them angry notes demanding to be removed from their mailing lists, nor removed one of them from ours justbecause they reviewed something we had to say. Wehave always been willing to study both publicly andprivately with those of the contrary persuasion. Our personal files are full of correspondence with manybrethren over these years which bear evidence to thetruth of that statement. We have met with one or more preachers with whom we differed for frank butreasonable discussions. We have never slammed the door on such discussions, not even public debates,when they were conducted under fair and equal arrangements. That remains our disposition to the present hour.

It is from the conviction that there are good andhonest hearts who will study in the light of what theBible teaches that the writers of the articles in this special issue have worked in preparing theirmaterial. We ask all into whose hands this may fallto read carefully, prayerfully and honestly what youfind here. Compare it with what your Bible teaches and then accept or reject it accordingly. The contributors of this material have worked hard and without monetary compensation. We take this meansof publicly thanking them. If you appreciate theirefforts, then write them and tell them so. It is our earnest prayer that this material will shed light rather than simply generate heat. We plead for honest study.

Lack of respect for scriptural authority is at theroot of every problem of major proportion to face God'9 people. Authority is the right to command ordirect, to authorize a thing is to direct by authority. In spiritual matters all authority inheres in God.

Authority, legislative, executive and judicial, all,has been given into the hands of Christ. "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and onearth" (Mt. 28:18). Christ is "head over all things tothe church, which is his body" (Eph. 1:22-23). Thechurch, the spiritual body of Christ, as well as theChristian individual, can act to the glory of God onlyby the authority of Christ. He is the head who controls, the king who reigns by the law which he haslegislated.

Christ gave binding and loosing authority only tohis apostles. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shaltbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:19), is specifically addressed toPeter. However, a more general statement of thesame dimensions is applicable to all the disciples inMatthew 18:18. That which the apostles bound andloosed by the word of the Spirit had already beenbound in heaven. The finality of this is acceptedwhen we realize that every obligation and privilegeassociated with being a Christian is circumscribed byapostolic teaching. There can be no going beyond theirword in either direction. Proper respect for the authority of Christ is shown only by submission toapostolic teaching.

The authority of Christ vested in the apostles isexercised completely in the New Testament. This furnishes the apostolic pattern which is to be followedtoday. Being perfect and complete, the scripturesadmit no change or revision. Acceptance of this basic principle begets perfection within those who followthe scriptures and insures unity among them. The admonition, "let us walk by the same rule, let usmind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16), which was followed successfully in New Testament times continues to be the divine formula in matters of dispute today and where followed will produce thesame meeting of minds and unity of practice as it didthen. Significantly, questions and problems during the days of the apostles were settled by an appealto them. Acts 15 is a classic illustration of the effectiveness of this and authorizes no course but this in our own time.

New Testament authority is established in one of three ways. Command or precept involves a direct statement of instruction or direction. Approved example involves the practice in the New Testamentunder guidance of the apostles as they had receivedof the Lord. Necessary inference relates to thatwhich though neither expressly stated nor specificallyexemplified, yet is necessarily implied by the language.

Having made these initial observations we turn ourattention to the assignment of this article "kinds of authority." We immediately take note that there are two kinds of authority which must be recognized evenafter establishing scriptural authority. These are generic and specific which we propose to consider inthat order by defining and illustrating. Generic means, "general, opposite to specific." Specific means, "precisely formulated or restricted; specifyingor explicit." Recognition of these two kinds of authority is vital to proper application of scripturalauthority.

Generic or general authority includes anything,method, or means of execution, that comes within theclass or order of the precept, example or necessary inference. It includes all within the scope and class ofthe command necessary to the carrying out of thatcommand. God gives the authority but the choice asto the how of doing is left open to man. The action isset out but the how is not spelled out.

Specific authority excludes every thing not par-ticularily specified. God has made choice and man isleft no option. Mark it! General authority includes;specific authority excludes. As we attempt to illustrate we trust it will become readily apparentthat these distinctions are not as technical as they may seem.

Jesus commanded, "Go ye therefore, and teach allnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mt. 28:19). The command "go" is generic, the choice of how togo must be made. A number of options might beconsidered. A man might walk, ride, fly or take aship as he goes forth preaching the gospel. God didnot specify the how of going, choice of the options isman's to make.

Within the same context (Mt. 28:19-20) we havethe command to "teach." What is to be taught is certainly specified, the gospel. This excludes everything else. However, the command to teachis generic and one may teach in a number of ways.God did not tell how, the choice is with man respecting the options open to him. We may teachpublicly or privately, use a one on one approach or the class method. Since God did not specify which, noman has the right to bind a specific method. Somemake the mistake here of trying to make the genericcommand "teach", specific and forbid classes. This is abinding where God has not bound.

The command to assemble is generic. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together"(Heb. 10:25), necessitates a place. Where are weto assemble? Several options are open from which achoice must be made. Is the place to be in a home, arented facility or a meeting house bought and paidfor by those who are to utilize the facility? Which is it to be? Again, God did not specify. He left it to man's judgement to select the most expedient of theoptions open to him. Some have argued there is noauthority for the meeting house. Such fails to recognize the validity of general authority which includes the means or method necessary to thecarrying out of the command. The underlying failurein the assertion seems to admit only those things specifically authorized. Such reasoning usually includes water coolers, bathrooms, and the like, asbeing accepted facilities but without authority. I conclude that any facility essential to the commandto assemble is authorized. However, since the assembling is for the purpose of worship and spiritualedification, only those facilities conducive to this areauthorized. Recreational facilities, fellowship hallsand all such are precluded, along with the use of anyexisting facilities for such purposes, because onlythat which is expedient to the furtherance of thegospel is so authorized.

We now turn our efforts to specific authority in anattempt to illustrate and exemplify how specific authority excludes every thing not particularlyspecified. The command to Noah to build an ark outof gopher wood (Gen. 6:14) continues to aptlyillustrate. When God specified the kind of wood,gopher, this excluded every other wood. No circumstance, no amount of rationalizing on the partof Noah could have justified the use of pine,walnut, oak, or any other wood. All except gopher was excluded! When God specified the kind of woodno man had the right to add or substitute another orin any wise change.

The command to sing, "Speaking to yourselves inpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19), excludes every other "kind" of music. Instrumental music is excluded by the fact Godspecified "sing." Had God said make music, thegeneric, man would have been at liberty to choose thekind, whether instrumental or vocal. However, God specified vocal music, singing, and no man has theright to grant a liberty which God's authority excludes. The command to sing does include whatever is necessary to carry out the order: words,whether in book or from memory, tuning fork orpitch pipe, leader and the like.

The elements of the Lord's Supper are specified byprecept, example and necessary inference (Mt. 26:17,29; 1 Cor. 11:23-28; Acts 20:7). Unleavened breadand fruit of the vine excludes every other element. Thefirst day of the week implies every first day and atthe same time excludes every other day of the week.Yeast bread, milk, meat, ice cream, or any otherelement would be without authority, therefore sinful.The method of distributing the elements of the Lord'sSupper is not specified. Whether one container or onehundred is used in distributing the fruit of the vineamong the worshippers does not change the elementor in any way alter the observance of the communion.The container is of no significance, it symbolizes andportrays nothing. The word "cup" is used figuratively in Matthew 26:28 and stands for the content.

God has specified the congregation, local church, (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1), as the only organic entitythrough which collective work and responsibility is tobe accomplished. The specific here excludes any otherorganization in doing the work God has assigned thechurch. There is nothing larger or smaller than the local congregation by way of organization in the NewTestament. There is nothing else. Any failure toaccept God's arrangement is rebellion against divineauthority. This is precisely what has occurred withrespect to the church support of human institutionsin the work of benevolence. There is absolutely noauthority for the benevolent society, orphan home,through which the church presumes to work. No moreso in fact than there was authority for the missionarysociety of more than a century ago. In the one wehave envisioned the doing of the work of benevolence,in the other the work of evangelism, preaching the gospel, and in the both an organization, an arrangement, outside the realm of that specified. Obviously the support and endorsement of such isrebellion against the authority of God.

In the examples of New Testament cooperation thelesson is specific. Funds were never sent throughanother congregation but always to (Acts 11:27-30).Those in need had not by design set up some sort of brotherhood agency and then called for help. Inevangelism, funds were sent to the preacher in needdirectly (1 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). The application of this example today eliminates the sponsoring church arrangement, any shape or form of the missionary society, and any plan which does not giveexpression to the same New Testament practice.

Elders in every church is clearly authorized andrequired (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). God has specified their jurisdiction as "feed the flock of God which isamong you, taking the oversight thereof (1 Pet.5:2). Whenever elders become overseers of anythingelse but the work of the flock "which is among you"or the "flock over which the Holy Ghost made themoverseers" they are without authority from God andstand condemned. This very principle clearly indictsevery eldership which has assumed the oversight of a"brotherhood" project such as Herald of Truth, World Radio, and any number of schemes and arrangements which presume to activate the churchat large through common administration.

With respect to kinds of authority there are twoextremes which must be recognized and guardedagainst. One extreme is represented in the anti-classgroup of brethren who contend that in order for athing to be scriptural it must be specifically authorized. Upon this basis they reject the classsystem of teaching failing to recognize that such isbut means and method within the general authority and command to teach. When one means or method inherent in a general instruction is bound to the exclusion of all others the result is an extremist or crank. The other extreme is represented by those sometimes referred to as "digressives," among the Christian Church who contend that in order for a thing to be wrong it must be specifically condemned.This number seems to continue to grow even among us.

In summary we emphasize that for a thing to beauthorized there must be either precept, approved example or necessary inference in the New Testament. When the authority is general then anything included within the scope of the thing authorized is permissible. General authority thenincludes any means or method required to carry outthe command. But if God specified the kind ofmethod of executing his will then there is no substitute, no addition is allowed but everything of the same class or order is excluded. Thus specificauthority excludes.

May the Lord help us to recognize the need forabiding in the authority of the Scriptures and give usthe wisdom and courage to apply such authority toall we teach and practice.

In Revelation 11:1, John was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God." Before one can measure something there must exist some standard of measurement. We are unfamiliar with many of the categories of weights and measurements that are mentioned in the Bible. There are different opinions,for example, as to exactly how long a cubic was. Onething is certain, however. They knew. When a piece of cloth three cubics long was purchased, they knewhow much material they were getting.

If there were no commonly recognized standards ofmeasurement, mass confusion would result among merchants and their customers. When a lady orders apiece of fabric five yards long, she assumes that thestore's yardstick conforms to the standard.

In like manner, standards of authority are acceptedin every realm and relationship. Courts are necessaryfor the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of human rights. Decisions of courtsmay not always be popular. They may sometimes beappealed to a higher court. But finally the courtdecision must be accepted and conformed to. The courts, in turn, must rest decisions on existing laws.Such are their standard.

Confusion persists in religion over this simple andelementary fact. A common standard of authority isnot recognized and adhered to. Roman Catholicismaccepts three standards of authority: the Bible, the Pope, and traditions of the "Church Fathers." Various denominations accept different and differingcreeds, manuals, and catechisms as sources of religious authority. Some people base their religiousconvictions upon their consciences, feelings, whattheir parents taught them, or what a certain preacher says.

In Amos 3:3, the ancient prophet asked, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"Obviously, the answer is no. But in order to agree,they must have something to agree upon. I mightdraw a line and say, "It's 12 inches long." You maysay in disagreement, "That line is not a fraction over 10 inches." There's only one way to settle the dispute. Find a ruler. If we both agree to accept it asa standard of measurement, then we can be united onthat simple matter.

Well, God has provided man with a standard bywhich he may measure things in religion. When Jesuswas questioned about the greatest commandment. Heasked, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Luke 10:26). Such is the standard God has given.

Matt. 18:18 reveals that the apostles were given binding and loosing authority in what they taught. We must strive to continue in the apostles' doctrine. John 12:48 declares that the words of Jesus will serve as the standard of judgment in the last day. Thosewords are the standard of authority in our time.

The main question we are raising in this article is"How does the Bible teach?" Brethren have generallyagreed, at least until recently, that we may establish Divine authority in three ways: 1) by command orstatement from God's word; 2) by a divinelyapproved example; and 3) by an inference which isnecessarily implied in the Bible.

Let us now look at these one by one and see if thisis truly the case.

The Bible Teaches By Command Or Statement

There are many examples in the Old and New Testaments of God giving direct commands to men. In Genesis 2:17, the Lord said, "... thou shalt noteat of it," referring to the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil. That was a direct command. Then Headded, ". . .for in the day that thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die." That was a simple statement of fact.

Such direct statements and commands are hard to misunderstand. When the serpent came tempting the woman, he didn't try to twist the words of the command. He did not try to convince the mother of all living that the words did not actually convey themessage she had assumed. That would have beenhard to do, though, perhaps, not impossible. But rather, he questioned God's motives, and then accused Him of lying: "Ye shall not surely die: for Goddoth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then youreyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:4,5).

God's command and statement of Genesis 2:17 is not a bit clearer than His direct command of Acts

2:38: "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you inthe name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." I heard a preacher say not long ago: "Baptism won't save you. If you think it will help save you, you're hell-bound." But God plainly declared that baptism is anecessary condition of remission of sins. The Bibleteaches this by means of plain statements and commands.

Some other matters which are taught by direct

Page 9

commands or statements are: faith comes by hearingthe word of God (Rom. 10:17); one must have faith tobe pleasing to God (Heb. 11:6); confession of Christis necessary to salvation (Rom. 10:9, 10); one whodoes not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God's approval (2 John 9); we are to break the breadand partake of the cup in remembrance of Jesus untilHe comes again (1 Cor. 11:24, 25); we are to sing andmake melody in our hearts unto the Lord (Eph. 5:18,19); we are to give unto the work of the church uponthe first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2); we are tostudy to show ourselves approved (2 Tim. 2:15); weare to mortify (put to death) such things as fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness (Col. 3:5).

There are many such examples of direct commandsor plain statements in the Bible. We can easily seethat the Bible teaches in this manner.

The Bible Teaches By Example

If it can be shown that the Bible teaches byexample, then we must be concerned about studyingthe examples and being instructed by them. Some want to just toss the apostolic examples aside because of difficulties in deciding which are circumstantial and which are essential. Remember,however, there are difficulties involved in learning God's will by His commands. Questions like: "to whom was this command given?" and "under what circumstances was it given?" must be raised. God told Naaman, through the prophet, to dip seventimes in the Jordan. Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give it to the poor.

We cannot toss every command aside simplybecause they do not all apply to us. The same is trueof examples. We must give diligence to study andemploy the teaching of Bible examples.

The New Testament clearly shows the validity ofteaching by examples. In Phil. 4:9, Paul commandedthe saints to do what they had seen in him as well aswhat they had heard from him. Again, in 1 Cor. 4:16,17, the Christians were told to imitate, or follow the example of Paul.

To illustrate one legitimate use of Bible examples,in Jude 3, we are taught by direct command tocontend for the faith. As we study God's word, wefind many examples of how this was done by Jesusand His apostles.

In regard to the eldership, we learn in Acts 14:23that Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in everycity" where they had established a church. Many willsay that we do not have to be concerned about doingthat today. But one thing for sure: We have NewTestament authority for that. We know that it wasdone. It was done by an apostle who represented theLord in his teaching (2 Cor. 5:20). We do not haveauthority for any other form of congregational organization.

Again, in Acts 20:7, we find an example of thechurch partaking of the Lord's supper upon the firstday of the week. An apostle was with them, andshowed his approval by partaking with them. Manymaintain that such is not binding today. But onething I know. Assembling upon the first day of the week to break bread is approved by God. I can provethat. I cannot prove by God's word that any other day is so approved.

The Bible Teaches By Necessary Implication

Some say that God does not imply Hiswill . . . that this is just an invention by a group of literalists to justify their legalistic practices. But I believe it can be clearly demonstrated that the Bibleteaches not only by direct statement and example,but also by implication.

Everything that is ever said is said either implicitlyor explicitly. To say something explicitly is to say itplainly in so many words. To say something implicitlyis to say it by implication.

If I show you a square, and inform you that sideA-B is 12 inches, I have told you two thingsexplicitly: 1. the figure is a square; and 2. side A-B is 12 inches. But in telling you that, I am alsotelling you implicitly that the perimeter of this figureis 48 inches; that the area is 144 square inches: andthat the other three sides are also 12 inches.

Many people may not be aware that I have said allthat, but I have said it, nevertheless. To understandthe first two points is simply a matter of understanding language. But the other points arenecessarily inferred by logic.

If the Bible does not teach by implication, wemight just as well forget about it. There is not a statement in the Bible that is made specifically andexplicitly to me or to you. "Why tarriest thou? Ariseand be baptized . . ." (Acts 22:16) was said to Saul,not to Ken Green. I must reason that since I live under the same law, and since God is no respecter ofpersons, I must also obey that. Acts 17:30 says thatGod demands all men everywhere to repent. Evenhere I must apply logic. Since I am a man somewhere, I must repent.

This is so simple, we do not realize it, but we haveinferred that conclusion from a necessary implication.

A good example of the Bible teaching by necessaryimplication is found in Matt. 22:23-33. The Sadducees did not believe that the dead were conscious. Jesus did not use a direct statement to refute them. He quoted Exodus 3:6, 16: "I am theGod of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." When Godspoke these words to Moses, the three patriarchsnamed had been dead for some four-hundred years.Yet He said, "I Am" their God. Jesus added, "He isnot the God of the dead, but of the living."

The necessary implication is: Abraham, Isaac, andJacob are still alive as spirits, though physicallydead. This is the implicit conclusion.

Acts 15, A Classic Illustration

In the fifteenth chapter of Acts we find a classicexample of God revealing His will in the three wayswe have named. According to verse 1, the proposition under discussion was: "Except ye be circumcisedafter the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."Some were affirming that proposition. Paul, Barnabas, and others were denying it. There werelikely some who had not taken a definite stand one wayor another.

Now notice how they arrived at the truth. God did not tell them directly the answer to this issue. Hehad already revealed enough for them to know the answer.

First, Peter made reference to the direct commandGod had given him: "Men and brethren, ye knowhow a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe" (v. 7). This direct command from God is recorded in Acts 10:20: "Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them,doubting nothing: for I have sent them."

Now, to whom was Peter commanded to go? Touncircumcised Gentiles. Therefore this incident was highly germane to the proposition under study.

Next, some examples were set forth. In verse 8,Peter continued his words and showed that God had demonstrated His acceptance of these uncircumcisedGentiles by "giving them the Holy Ghost, even asHe did unto us." Then, in verse 12, Barnabas and Paul declared the miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. Surely then,they had not been wrong in preaching the samegospel to them that they had preached to the Jews.

Finally, they reached a conclusion that was theonly logical inference from the evidence. James said:"Wherefore, my sentence is, that we trouble notthem, which from among the Gentiles are turned toGod" (v. 19).

Respect For God's Silence

Another important matter which is illustrated inActs 15 is respect for God's silence. When the letter was composed which was to be sent out to Gentilecongregations, it spoke of certain ones who had goneout with the doctrine that one "must be circumcised,and keep the law." The inspired letter commented: "to whom we gave no such commandment" (v. 24).

Let us never imagine that we have outgrown thepenetrating question: Where is the book, chapter,and verse that authorizes this activity? If we cannotfind authorization by either direct statement,approved example, or necessary implication, let usbe still and respect His silence.

The Search for the Ancient Order

By Earl Irvin West

This two-volume work on the search for the landmarks of primitive Christianity covers the Restoration Movement from 1849 — 1906. Volume I traces the history from the early beginnings through the movements of Stone, Campbell, the early pioneer preachers, Lard, McGarvey and others. Volume II, carries on from the Civil War to "Horizons of Destiny."

Vol. I $11.50

Vol. II $11.50

Religious Supply Center

P.O. Box 13164 Louisville. KY 40213

The church of our Lord was conceived, designed, purposed, and ordained of God from eternity (Eph. 3:10, 11). It is a spiritual institution, equipped withspiritual means, for the saving of the spirits of menfor that great spirit world beyond (Matt. 16:18; Acts20:28-32; Rom. 1:16; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph.5:25-27; Rev. 1-4). While secular institutions are established, maintained, and fulfill their mission bycarnal motivation, economic enterprise, and with aview to material gain and earthly rewards, the churchof our Lord is established, maintained, and fulfills itsmission by spiritual motivation, eleemosynary enterprise, and with an ultimate view to eternal rewards. Indeed, the church is spiritual in nature.

This article concerns itself with the nature of the organizational structure and function of this institution. Other articles in this special issue dealwith other aspects of the spiritual nature of the church.

A failure to understand the nature of the organization and function of the church has resultedin two extremes. On the one hand we have approvalgiven to institutions which supplant and reflect onthe all-sufficiency of the church. On the other handwe have opposition to some institutions that have arightful and legitimate place among men. Missionary,benevolent, and edification societies whollyeleemosynary in nature exemplify the former, andsome publishing companies of religious literature,Bible colleges, and foundations exemplify the latter.Concerning the latter, it should be observed thatwhile exceptions may be found involving abuses or aprostitution from the legitimate basis, such does notmean that all such institutions are guilty. This article should make clear when and under what conditions such violations are found. The real issue in either instance is the all-sufficiency of the church.

The principle of all-sufficiency in relation to boththe Bible and the church has been misunderstood. Consequently, confusion and division result. In thepast (more than now) some opposed religious literature (quarterlies in classes, tracts, books of sermons, papers, etc.) on the grounds of the all-sufficiency of the Bible. On the other hand some see no harm in creeds, manuals, catechisms, etc, as standards in religion. However, a more careful studyof this issue shows that the all-sufficiency of theBible precludes the latter. This is true because suchis made the same in nature and use as the Bible,namely, a standard of authority. This same principle,however, allows the former because such is not thesame in nature and use as the Bible. Of course, if

Page 11

such were used as a standard, it would reflect uponthe all-sufficiency of the Bible as readily as the other.

Some see no harm in a missionary society or inbenevolent and edification societies which are the same in nature as the missionary societies. On the other hand some oppose publishing companies of religious literature, Bible colleges, and foundationsupon the grounds of the all-sufficiency of the church.However, a more careful study of this issue showsthat the all-sufficiency of the church precludes theformer. This is true because such is the same in nature as the church, namely, an eleemosynary missionary, benevolent, and edification society. Asidefrom their mission, the distinguishing and identifyingmark is found in being eleemosynary in organizationand function. However, this same principle allows thelatter because such is not the same in nature as the church. Of course, if such were to become eleemosynary in nature, it would reflect upon the all-sufficiency of the church as readily as the other.

Webster defines the word "eleemosynary" to mean:"1. Relating or devoted to charity or alms. 2. Givenin charity or alms. 3. Supported by charity." When identifying the nature of the church this word mustbe understood in a twofold sense. It is both supported by and devoted to charity. This meansthat it is supported by contributions and in turn makesfree distribution of its product or service. While theword may apply in other instances to other organizations partially eleemosynary in nature, it isthis twofold view that identifies the true nature of the church.

I remember that when the "sponsoring church" arrangement became a live issue among brethren thatthe expression "centralized control and oversight" wasthought by some to be too cumbersome and arbitrary. However, time and common use have shown it to be most accurate and effective in identifying the kind of cooperation opposed. Perhapsthe same thing may appear concerning the word "eleemosynary," but in the light of the whole of revelation on the true nature of the church, it mostaccurately and effectively identifies that nature.

The church and the missionary society parallel eachother in mission and nature. Both are dependentupon contributions for their existence, and both makefree distribution of the gospel at their own discretionand under their own oversight. Publishing companies,Bible colleges, and foundations do not (if so, they areexcluded from consideration at this point). These make available gospel lessons (either written or oralfor either individuals or churches) not on an eleemosynary basis, but rather on the basis of economic enterprise. They are service organizations—SELLING their products or services.They are not the same in nature as the church and,therefore, do not reflect upon its all-sufficiency.

Now let me clarify some points that may beconfusing to some. What about contributions made tosuch organizations? Donations to such an organization would not change its nature. It wouldnot use the contribution to make free distribution of the gospel at its own discretion and under its ownoversight. Rather, it would be used to keep itself inbusiness. In this highly competitive world this is often necessary in order for some businesses (of worth toChristians) to exist. The distribution of the gospelwould still be made by the purchaser of the productor service—not the seller. Upon this basis, such anorganization does not parallel the church in nature. Itis not wholly dependent upon contributions nor doesit make free distribution of the gospel as does thechurch—it is not eleemosynary in nature, in the twofold sense of that term.

What about such an institution giving away someof its products or services? It must be conceded thatsuch could change the nature of the institution. Itwould depend upon a few things. If such were donewith a view to promoting the business (as all business enterprises do) commensurate with advertising principles, such would not change itsnature. The basis of operation would still be thesame—a service organization selling its products orservices.

Another point confusing to some involves the Biblecollege and publishing companies. Some see a significant difference between tracts of a publishingcompany and teaching done in the college. However,more careful consideration shows them to be parallel.The writer of the tract teaches whoever reads it. The publishing company makes available this teaching forthe purchaser who in turn uses it to enlighten himself or someone else. The teacher in the college teaches whoever hears the lesson. The college makes available this teaching for the purchaser (whoeverpays the tuition) who in turn uses it to enlightenhimself or someone else. One learns from a written lesson through the eye. The other learns from an orallesson through the ear. Both learn from a lesson purchased from a service organization which is notthe same in nature as the church. Therefore such organizations do not reflect upon the all-sufficiency ofthe church as does the missionary society which iswholly eleemosynary in nature. Such organizations nomore reflect upon the all-sufficiency of the churchthan do quarterlies, used in Bible classes, reflect uponthe all-sufficiency of the Bible.

Brethren, the all-sufficiency of the church is a verybasic and fundamental Bible principle. It cannot beignored without digression and apostasy. However, wemust exercise the greatest caution to avoid any extreme that would put us in the class of the Pharisees of old, namely, making laws of our own.This would make us guilty of following the "traditions of men" (Mk. 7:7-9).

Congregational Cooperation

of the Churches of

Christ

by H. E. Winkler

A well arranged and documented book of 158 pagesdealing with church sponsorships, centralized power andcontrol, orphan homes and Herald of Truth. Diagrams and charts help emphasize the truth.

Order from: Religious Supply Center

The Lord designed the church according to his ownwill and circumscribed it with certain distinguishingmarks which are clearly set forth in the Scriptures.No one of these essential features of the church is more important than any other. "All things" must be"according to the pattern" (Heb. 8:1-5; 1 Pet. 4:11). But history shows that no part of the divine plan forthe church has been abused with greater destructive consequences to the whole than what is generallycalled the organization of the church. This was theinitial error that paved the road to Papal Rome andthe most significant failure of the Protestant Reformation. It was also the opening wedge thatdivided the churches of the Restoration movement and led the larger portion of them into denominationalism. The Lord's design for the organization of his church, therefore, must remain amajor concern of those who desire to "speak wherethe Bible speaks" and to "be silent where the Bible issilent."

The Scope of Church Organization

The organization of the church cannot be understood without recognizing that the word "church" is used in two different senses in the Scriptures. The universal church is the spiritualbody of Christ composed of all the redeemed soulsover whom Christ reigns as head (Eph. 5:23-27; 1:22-23). However, the universal church has no organization on earth. Each member of the body isunited with Christ, but this union is affected andmaintained by individual submission to his will. Theapostles were set in the church as special representatives of Christ with authority to make known the Lord's will for the present age, but theirconcurrent reign with Christ is through the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; 2 Tim. 3:17-18). A careful search of the Scriptures reveals no trace of anyearthly head or hierarchy over the church. Neitheris there evidence of any organization within the bodyof Christ on a national or regional basis.

However, the New Testament does show the organization of Christians on a very limited andclearly defined level to carry out certain collective responsibilities. This is the local church made up of the disciples at a particular place who meet, work andworship together according to the will of Christ. Thisuse of the word "church" pertains to separate local congregations, such as, "the church that was at Antioch" and "the church of the Thessalonians" (Acts 13:1; 1 Thes. 1:1). The independence and autonomy of the local church is exemplified in theNew Testament. Each congregation had its own local membership. For instance, "the church of God whichis at Corinth" consisted only of the saints in that city(1 Cor. 1:2). Each congregation maintained control ofits local fellowship. It received faithful brethren intoits number, retained spiritual oversight of its

members (through its elders), and expelled those whorefused to walk uprightly according to the truth(Acts 9:26-28; 11:26; 1 Cor. 5:13; Rev. 2:14-16). Eachcongregation also performed its own divinely assigned mission.

The Divine Order in the Local Church

"All things" pertaining to the church were subject to Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). This, naturally, embraceseverything that concerns the local church, as well aseverything that concerns the universal church. Theapostles' teaching was bound on all congregationsequally. Paul reminded the Corinthians of his ways inChrist which, as an apostle, he taught "everywhere inevery church" (1 Cor. 4:17). His instructions to onechurch were ordained "in all the churches" (1 Cor.7:17; cf. 14:31-34). Thus, there was uniformity in allthe churches. The apostolic order established in onecongregation is necessarily the order established in allothers. This was not only true in the first century, itis also true now, for what the apostles bound on thechurch then is still bound (Matt. 18:18).

The organization the Lord designed for the localchurch is very simple. Each congregation is self-governed under the spiritual care of men divinelychosen to oversee its membership. These men are known as "elders" or "presbyters" (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 4:14). The word indicates that those to whomthe Holy Spirit applies it are mature Christians,experienced in the faith. But other descriptive termsare also used to designate the elders of a localchurch. They are called "bishops" or "overseers" to show the nature of their work (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5-7). They are also called "pastors" or "shepherds"indicating the manner of their oversight (Eph. 4:11).Their service as shepherds is further seen in the pastoral word rendered "tend" or "feed" —"tend the flock of God" (1 Peter 5:2). It means "to act as a shepherd." (W.E. Vine.)

Soon after Barnabas and Paul established the churches of south-central Asia Minor, they "ordained(appointed for) them elders in every church" (Acts14:23). Four important facts are stated or implied inthis action. (1) Each church had its own elders. (2)The elders of each church were plural in number. (3)The elders within each church were equal in authority. (4) The eldership of each church was independent of and on an equality with the elders of allother churches. These facts are in harmony with and are underscored by all else the Scriptures teach concerning elders. No congregation that respectsthese facts will have any problem in regard to theorganization of the church, provided the men chosento serve as elders are qualified for the work.

Elders who function as the Lord intends will be on guard for the spiritual welfare of the flock over whichthey have responsibility (Acts 20:28). They will "take care of the church of God" (1 Tim. 3:5). They will"rule well" and "keep watch over" the souls entrusted to them (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17). Theywill

Page 13

uphold and defend the word of God, keeping thechurch in the way of truth and protecting it fromfalse teaching (Titus 1:9; Acts 20:29-31). Moreover, they will perform their duties without "lording it over" those allotted to them, but will prove to be "examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3). The qualifications for elders make it certain that thosewho serve as shepherds of the Lord's people are willing and able to do the work to which they areappointed (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

The elders' oversight begins and ends with the local church. It is limited to the members, work and resources of the congregation in which they serve.The Ephesian elders were shepherds of the flock ofGod at Ephesus, but they had no responsibility overthe flock at Smyrna, nor any other church in Asia orthe world (Acts 20:28). Peter's exhortation to elders also limits their oversight to "the flock of God amongyou" (1 Peter 5:1-4). What more could be said to more clearly ascribe the bounds of elders' authority?

In addition to elders, the Lord provides for deacons in the local church to assist the elders. Paul's letter to the Philippians shows that deacons were anestablished order in the congregation with the elders.It is addressed to all the saints at Philippi "with (including) the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1).Evangelists in the church are charged with preachingand teaching the word of God (2 Tim. 4:1-5; Acts8:5; 11:26; 20:20; 21:8). But evangelists are not in charge of the church. Like deacons, teachers andother members of the congregation, they serve underthe oversight of the elders.

The Sufficiency of the Lord's Plan

The congregational organization the Lord gave forhis church is fully sufficient for all governmentaldetails of its work. This sufficiency is obvious fromthe fact that the organization is exclusive (Cf. 2 Peter1:3). If more were needed, more would have beengiven. No other order can exist by apostolic authority. Nothing else is "according to the pattern."Nothing more may be set up "in the name of Christ"(Col. 3:17). Anything added to the Lord's plan for congregational independence carries us beyond the teaching of Christ and into that realm where there isno fellowship with God (2 John 9-10).

The Lord's exclusive plan necessarily eliminates any means for the function of the universal church, whether by a confederation of churches or an intermediate agency to act for the churches. The Lord's church needs no outside organizations or inter-congregational arrangements through which to workin evangelism, edification, benevolence, discipline, oranything else that concerns its mission. Conscientiouselders who understand Paul's instructions to their Ephesian counterparts in Acts 20 will not delegate any part of their work to any other elders or institution on earth.

The first century churches operated only in their separate congregational capacity. The local church "sounded forth" the word of the Lord in its own and adjacent regions (1 Thes. 1:8). It supported preachersat home and abroad, sending directly to their need (1Cor. 9:14; Acts 11:22; Phil. 4:15-16). It provided relief for its indigent members and when sister churches were destitute it sent directly to their necessity (Acts 4:32-35; 11:27-30). It was also fully sufficient in edification (Acts 20:28). Nothing—noboard, ecclesiastical order, or intermediate eldership—stood between the church and its work. None was needed; none was allowed.

The Danger of Disregarding the Lord's Plan

More than a century ago, David Lipscomb wrote,"We sincerely and earnestly believe all organizedbodies for religious purposes outside of, within, aboveor below the congregations of the Lord are sinful andtreasonable." (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 18, 1870, pp. 27-28.) Sin is the violation of God's law and treason, specifically, is a betrayal of trust or a breach of faith.Disregard for the independence and autonomy of thelocal church, whether by overt institutionalism or weakly camouflaged under a "sponsoring church,"violates God's law and is a breach of faith. This is exactly what institutionalists are guilty of and Lipscomb used well-chosen words when he labeled their practice "sinful and treasonable."

There is other danger also inherent in institutionalism. Once brethren overstep the boundsof divine authority to work through organizationsoutside their own congregation, they open the floodgate to further apostasy. It is only a matter oftime until such churches lose their New Testament distinctiveness and blend smoothly into the denominational landscape. Those who try to justify institutionalism will pervert the word of God to achieve their purpose. This is seen in the futile attempt to find a missionary society in the GreatCommission, a "sponsoring church" in Acts 11:27-30, and a benevolent board in James 1:27. Another real, though less apparent, danger is found in the difficulty men have in ever returning to the simplicityof the apostolic order once they have tasted the intoxicating power and glory of institutionalism.

"Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to allthe saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, withthe bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). This is the onlyorganization the Lord gave for his church. Each congregation is an independent body with its own elders, deacons and other members. Each does its own work under its own elders. There are five good reasons why this plan should be explicitly followed byevery church of Christ on earth. (1) It is authorizedby Christ. (2) It is simple and practical. (3) It is all-sufficient for what is needed by way of organization.

(4) It is a strong force in holding the disciples ofChrist to the right course in all matters of teaching,faith and practice. (5) Disregarding it will end in spiritual ruin. As the lamented James M. Pickens expressed it so long ago, "If the door is set ajar forinnovations, how shall we determine where it shall stand or that it should not stand wide open, and thatcontinually?" (The Christian Monthly, Aug., 1870, p. 233.)

God designed the church (Eph. 3:10-11), established it on earth (Mt. 16:18), and gave it awork to do. This work is a divine work because the church is a divine institution. This work is the greatest work because the church is the greatest institution. This work is a glorious work becausethe church is a glorious institution.

The parable of the vineyard depicts the church as aworking institution. Jesus said, "For the kingdom ofheaven is like unto a man that is an householder,which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard" (Mt. 20:1). A vineyardis a place of work and the church, being likenedunto it, shows that it, too, is a place of work.

The work assigned the church is three-fold: (1)evangelism, (2) edification, and (3) benevolence. Wewill be referring to the work of the local church as weproceed to address ourselves to the work of thechurch in particular. There is a work that the churchin the distributive sense (all individual Christians) isto do that runs parallel to the work of the local church, but we are not concerned in this article withthat specific matter. Let us notice the work given tothe local congregation in the order stated above.

Work of Evangelism

Mankind is lost in sin (Rom. 3:23). The gospel isthe only power to save (Rom. 1:16). Consequently, God wants the gospel preached (Mk. 16:15; I Cor.1:21), and has given the obligation to the church.

The church's marching orders to evangelize aregiven in Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15. Jesus said to gopreach the gospel to every creature. In the parable ofthe sower, Jesus showed that the church is thesowing agency (Mt. 13:3-9). The church is to hold forth the words of life (Phil. 2:16).

First century churches sent preachers out into theworld to preach the gospel. The church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas andSaul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid theirhands on them, they sent them away" (Acts 13:1-3).

Paul reminded the Thessalonian church how theyhad sounded out the gospel. "For from you soundedout the words of the Lord not only in Macedonia andAchaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speakanything" (I Thess. 1:8).

While Paul preached at Corinth, his financial support was supplied by churches of Macedonia. Hetook wages of other churches to do a service atCorinth (2 Cor. 11:8). Congregations in Macedoniahelped spread the gospel through Paul.

The church at Philippi assisted Paul financially inpreaching the gospel, "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departedfrom Macedonia, no church communicated with me asconcerning giving and receiving, but ye only. Foreven in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto mynecessity (Phil. 4:15-16).

Friends, churches of the first century weremissionary minded. In a period of about 30 years, thewhole world had an opportunity to hear the gospel(Col. 1:23). Twentieth-century churches need to exemplify their interest in the lost and put forthevery effort to take the gospel to the world.

Work of Edification

In addition to evangelizing the world, the church isto develop its own spiritual strength by edification(Eph. 4:16). In God's divine arrangement, he setoffices in the church for the equipping or perfecting ofthe saints.

Referring to offices or functions in the church, Paulsaid that the Lord "gave some, apostles; and some,prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastorsand teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for thework of the ministry, for the edification of the bodyof Christ" (Eph. 4:11-12).

The apostles and prophets revealed the truth (Eph. 3:5), the evangelists are to proclaim the truth (2Tim. 4:2), and the pastors (elders) are to see to itthat the truth is taught in the church (Acts 20:28-31). By faithful teaching of the truth the saints willbe perfected to do the work of the ministry (service)and the building up (evangelizing) of the body ofChrist.

Members of the church are to be mature, coming tothe "unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of theSon of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure ofthe stature of the fulness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, andcarried about with every sleight of men, and cunningcraftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph.4:13-14). It is the business of the church to ground andstabilize itself to prevent false doctrine from leading itastray (Col. 2:6-7).

Paul instructed the Corinthians that "forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church" (I Cor. 14:12). Inverse 26 of this same chapter, Paul stated that whenthe Corinthians came together to exercise spiritualgifts, "Let all things be done unto edifying."

May each church be committed to developing itselfto the extent that its members can teach others (Heb.5:12), have love, knowledge and discernment (Phil.1:9), growing faith and an abounding love towardeach other (2 Thess. 1:3), and can resist the Devil inall of his devices (Jas. 4:7; I Pet. 5:9; 2 Cor. 2:11).

Work of Benevolence

Along with evangelism and edification is the workof benevolence. This work is limited, however, in itsscope as the Scriptures plainly teach. Some have amisconception that church benevolence should be

Page 15

general, helping all humanity. But this would be animpossible task, exhausting all of its supplies with noresources left to do any other work God gave thechurch to perform.

God even limits the saints whom the church mayhelp. Listen to Paul: "If any man or woman thatbelieveth have widows, let them relieve them, and letnot the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5:16). God says weare to take care of our own, and not burden thechurch, so that the church can relieve those saintswho have no one to care for them. If we do not provide for our own, we are worse than an infidel (ITim. 5:8).

The church at Jerusalem relieved the needs of its destitute members who remained in Jerusalem after their conversion to the Lord (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). The needs of widows were supplied by the liberalityof the saints (Acts 6:1-6).

When a great dearth came throughout the worldand affected the saints in Judea, the church atAntioch sent relief unto the brethren in Judea,sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:27-30).

At another time, when the saints of the Jerusalemchurch became destitute and in want, churches in Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia sent money to alleviate the need at Jerusalem. We read, "For it pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make acertain contribution for the poor saints which are atJerusalem" (Rom. 15:26). "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to thechurches of Galatia, even so do ye ......And when Icome whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters,them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem" (I Cor. 16:1, 3).

We can clearly see that when a NEED arose amongthe people of God, the church rallied to their aid.Brethren were concerned for one another and they demonstrated their love by giving to help their physical wants. May we reflect the same interest for each other.

Brethren, the foregoing things constitute the workof the church. Let us be satisfied with the mission that God gave the church and not prostitute its workinto unauthorized activities.

Things Not the Church's Work

When the church ventures into unauthorized areas,it is treading on ground that is without divine sanction. None of the following things is a work ofthe church, although some churches have become involved in them.

(1) Social reform. The church is not a "social institution." The gospel it preaches is not a "social gospel." Although the gospel will bring about socialreform, it does so by changing the inner man as tohis thinking and conduct. The first century churchdid not initiate a campaign of social reform and equality.

Paul said, "...as the Lord hath called every one, solet him walk....Let every man abide in the samecalling wherein he was called. Art thou called being aservant? Care not for it: but if thou mayest by madefree, use it rather" (I Cor. 7:17, 20-21). Christianity was to make a better man out of a person, regardlessof his social position. Any inequities would eventuallybe eradicated by changing man's heart.

(2) Recreational activities. For the church to be involved in recreation for the young or old, isforeign to the purpose for which the church was established. (3) Business ventures. The church is not in the money making business. Money for the church is tobe raised by the members giving as prospered uponthe first day of the week (I Cor. 16:1-2). There is noscriptural provisions for the church to be competing with the business world in merchandising, farming,manufacturing or any other form of economic en deavor. (4) Secular education. The church is to teach the Bible, not secular subjects, such as math,English, science, literature, etc. The church is not tobe in the secular school business. For the church to operate secular schools, such as kindergartens, is aperversion of the church's energies and resources. Brethren need to get the church out of the secularschool business, both in participation and in contributions from the treasury. (5) Domestic relations. Though the Word of God is to be preached in dealing with all problems, the church is not a center for counselling on marital problems, mental and emotional disturbances, economical hardships, parent-child problems, etc. If preachers are bent on being counselors, let them qualify with the State, set up their private office, andkeep the work of domestic relations out of the church.This is not the function of the church, and neither iscounselling in these areas the work of a gospel preacher.

In conclusion, let's respect the divine pattern forthe work of the church that is revealed in the Bible,and let's energetically get involved in the work Godhas assigned the church to do. Doing nothing is nobetter than doing the wrong thing. While we pointout the danger of unlawful works the church mightget into, let's not be guilty of the sin of do-nothing. (Some of the points borrowed from Walking By Faith by Roy Cogdill.)

When I began preaching, I never heard of anyonefailing to differentiate between the work of the churchand the individual. However, with the coming of theinstitutional craze, many vain and foolish argumentsmade their appearance on the record of human transactions. Some might ask, why would one arguethe church may do what the individual does? The answer is obvious. Liberal brethren desired to broaden the base of church activity. That is, usemoney from church treasuries for which the biblegives no authority. Then someone came up with theincredible idea that the church is made up of individuals; therefore, the church as a unit may dowhat the individual does. Some leave out the word "may" and argue what the individual does what thechurch does.

The word church is a collective noun like flock,herd, or band. One might say about a flock of geese,"The flock have bands around their necks". Certainlywe know they are in a group, but the bands are individual. One might say "The church sings."Certainly we understand the singing takes place in anassembly but we do it as individuals. We also couldsay "The church prays" or "The church observes theLord's Supper." It is understood we pray and observe the Lord's Supper when assembled but do itindividually and not as a unit. It shouldn't be necessary to explicate further on such simple matters.In order to illustrate the point let us take a couple ofpassages. First, a passage where the word church isused in a distributive sense. That is, the individualsfunctioning as individuals and not as a unit. In Acts

12:5 Luke says, "Peter therefore was kept in prison;but prayer was made without ceasing of the churchunto God for him." Please note the "Church" prayed.Did they do this as a unit or individually? In the firstplace prayer is an individual matter and no one cando it for you. I am not even sure they were assembled when they did the praying! The bible doesnot say. Even if they were like the flock, it must bedone individually. Now for a passage where the church acted as a unit. In 1 Tim. 5:16 Paul said,"If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged;that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Gentle reader, you will note in this verse you have unit or collective action. The word church here means taking it out of the church treasury. I have askedmany opponents in forensic frays if the word "CHURCH" in this text means taking it out of the church

treasury and I have never received a negative answer. All freely admit Paul meant, "Do not take it out ofthe church treasury." As a matter of fact, I do notknow of a single way the church may act as a UNITexcept in the spending of its funds. Do you? If so,what is it and where is the passage? It (the church)acts as a UNIT when it spends its money. WhenPaul said, "He robbed other churches taking hissalary or wages" (2 Cor. 11:13), did they do this as individuals or as a unit? The word "wages" from "opsonion" means a stipulated salary such as thesoldier receives. It is obvious the churches acted as units in supporting this great evangelist.

Plain grammar can help in the study of thisimportant question. In the Plain English Handbook byWalsh (revised addition) which is used by manypublic schools we have this information on page 27."A pronoun which refers to a collective noun is singular if the group acts as a unit; but the pronounis plural if the individuals of the group act as individuals". Mr. Walsh gives us an example of both. For the singular (unit action) he gives, "The band has won fame because of its leader". Please notice the singular pronoun "its" which means UNIT action! Now, let us take a controversial passage and makethe application. I shall underline the pronoun and itsantecedent (the noun) for emphasis. "Let not the church (noun) be charged; that it (Singular pronoun) may relieve them that are widows indeed" (1 Tim.5:16). This proves beyond any reasonable doubt thatthe word church in this text refers to UNIT or COLLECTIVE action. Mr. Walsh in his grammargives us a second example demonstrating individualaction. He says, "The band has ordered their new instruments." Please note the plural pronoun "Their" which means they acted as INDIVIDUALS in ordering their instruments. Now, let us take a secondcontroversial passage. Please remember, we are nowlooking for a plural pronoun. Our passage for study isGal. 6:10. Some argue the "We" and "Us" of Gal.

6:10 refer to Unit or Collective action and thus seek to justify supporting sinners out of the church treasury. The real antecedent of "We" and "Us" is obviously "Brethren" of verse two, Chapter one.However, some argue the antecedent is "Churches"of the same verse. Let us for arguments sake say theantecedent is "Churches." With the rule in mind let us read, "As we (churches) have therefore opportunity let us (churches) do good unto all men,especially unto them who are of the household offaith." I have again underlined the pronoun with itsantecedent, the noun, for emphasis. Our rule, according to Mr. Walsh is that if the pronoun isplural, we have individual action. Would anyone be sonaive as to argue that "We" and Us" are not plural? I doubt it. When brethren go to Gal. 6:10and argue unit, church action, not only are they introuble with the text but plain grammar boomerangson them! Remember our cliche? Some of us feel like old Jeremiah, the weeping prophet who said, "Ohthat my head was waters, and mine eyes a fountainof tears, that I might weep day and night for theslain of the daughter of my people."

Page 17

Back in 1960 Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, Austin, Texas wrote a fine article on this very subject. Brother Lemmons and I differ on manythings but I appreciate his unstinting stand on this important subject. The article is so good I want toquote a part of it. Incidentally, this article appeared inthe May 3rd, 1960 issue of his paper. Here is what Reuel says:

"It seems to us that the one and only real principle underlying all the 'issues' of our present time is that of church action versusindividual action.

We believe that if this one principle could beresolved the 'issues'—all of them would disappear. We repeatedly hear the slogan voiced that 'Anything the individual can do the church can do.' We do not believe it. We believe that there are certain things an individual can do, and an obligation to do,that the church cannot do. The very fact thatthe Lord provided for an organism called thechurch is proof positive that it has some functions peculiar to itself. If there were no functions peculiar to the church it would benon-essential. There would be no need for it if other capacities could provide all the functions of which it is capable.

Here are some things the individual can do that thechurch cannot do, all from a single chapter (1 Tim.5).

(1) Show piety at home, and to requite their parents. (2) Provide for his own, and especially those ofhis own house. (3) Marry, bear children, guide the house. (4) Relieve one's own widows, and 'let not the church be charged.' (5) Lay hands suddenly upon no man. (6) Drink no longer water, but use a little winefor thy stomach's sake.There are others in this same chapter. Here are somethings that the church can do that the individual cannot do from the same chapter: (1) "Take into the number" a widow with certain qualifications. (2) Refuse "young widows" with certain disqualifications. (3) Be "charged" with caring for certain types ofpeople.There are some others in this chapter that seem to bechurch responsibilities.These examples from a single chapter will convinceany thinking person that there are plenty of instances in the Bible of things that an individual can do that achurch cannot do, and vice versa.It is true that the church is made up of individuals,and that the only way the church can function isthrough its members (individuals) but let it never besaid that all individual work is church work."

When one argues the church does what the individual does, the end is catastrophic. Let us notesome of the problems. In 1 Cor. 5, the church at Corinth was told to withdraw from the fornicator. If the church does what the individual does then the church committed fornication and then had to withdraw from itself! Who could believe it? Paul said, "Demas hath forsaken me" (II Tim. 4:10). Ifthe above doctrine be true, the church forsook Paul! In Matt. 18:17 Jesus said the sinning brother's case was to be taken before the church. If the above doctrine is true then the church had to go before thechurch. Or if you prefer the wayward brother couldbe taken before himself for correction. Paul said Peter was leading about a wife, (I Cor. 9:5) if theabove is true the entire church was leading about awife! Ananias and Sapphira were killed for lying, ifthe above doctrine is true the church was killed in Acts five. Actually friend, I feel somewhat ingeniousin dealing with such reasoning. May God hasten theday when all brethren will return to the ancient landmarks of Bible authority.

The introduction of human institutions and centralized control among churches of Christ has been a divisive problem at least twice in recent history. Both times its tornadic destruction has cut an irreparable swath across the Lord's church, leaving in its path broken families, shattered hopes, bleeding hearts, and in some instances, bitterness which defies description. Its tenacious advocates have caused the church in many places to be almost totally ineffective in her fight against the forces of denominationalism and Catholicism simply becauseshe was completely embroiled in her own internal difficulties. After the great controversies of the 60's and 60's and the accompanying quarantines, the lines of demarcation became clear and we actually ceased the warfare, though the "cold war" continues to some extent today. We must now fight off the tendency torelax. And we must show a new generation the evilsof institutionalism and how she can again raise herugly head if we do not maintain our vigilance and ourintimate relationship with the Word of God.

What Is Cooperation?

The word "cooperation" suggests a working together. It is comprised of "operation," a working, and "co," which carries the force of together. So, when we speak of congregational. cooperation, we simply mean congregations working together. There are two kinds of cooperation. There is joint cooperation where there is an actual pooling of resources, an agreement toward a form of management, and the employment of both to achieve

a common and mutual goal. There is also cooperationwhich is carried out by autonomous congregationsacting independently but concurrently, performing such actions as will result in the achieving of a mutual goal without any mutual funds or commonorganization.

To deny that churches in New Testament times cooperated would be foolish indeed since Inspirationaffirms such. The pattern for such cooperation is asclear as is the pattern for proper worship in song oras to who is a fit candidate for baptism. Churchescooperated in both benevolence and evangelism.However, it must be carefully observed at the outsetthat such cooperation was not of the sort where there was an intermediate institution, nor a pooling ofresources between the local church and the work to be done, nor is there any instance in the New Testamentof several churches sending to one church which hadassumed to do a work to which all shared equalobligation.

The pattern for cooperation in evangelism is clear.Churches cooperated by sending funds to a preacherin order to aid him in his commitment to preach the gospel. In Phil. 4:14-16, we notice how Paul receivedfunds from the Philippians. In II Cor. 11:8, he statesthat he "robbed other churches, taking wages ofthem, to do you service." If we plan to follow the New Testament pattern as to how churches cooperated in supporting a preacher, we must sendthe money directly to the evangelist, not through some agency and not through some "sponsoring"church! The pattern for such is as clearly stated asthe one for what day we observe the Lord's Supperand how often (Acts 20:7).

Cooperation in benevolence is also clearlydemonstrated in the New Testament. When a church became financially unable to perform as it should because of some great need, other congregations sentto help relieve that need. For instance, in Acts 11:27-30, there is shown the process of one church aidingseveral needy churches. Antioch sent funds to theneedy saints in Judea, "and sent it to the elders bythe hands of Barnabas and Saul." Some would have us believe that the funds were sent to Jerusalem where distribution was made. There is no such indication in the context. In fact, the passage saysplainly that the funds were sent "to the elders" and where "they determined to send relief and "in Judea'." There is no way to read into this passageany sponsoring church arrangement, except one wrestthe Scriptures!

In Rom. 15:25-27, I Cor. 16:1-3, II Cor. 8:6-7, and9:3-5 we see the pattern for several churches relievingthe needs of one church. When churches in Corinth,Antioch, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi, sent fundsto aid in the care of needy saints in Jerusalem, therewas a common concern, a common goal, but there isno indication at all of a common fund, or a commonorganization to manage such a fund. For instance,the funds were not sent to Antioch or Corinth as "sponsor" of the work to be done. In fact, everychurch had its own fund (I Cor. 16:1-2), as well as itsown messengers (1 Cor. 16:3-4, II Cor. 8:23) and noteven an inspired apostle was allowed to choose the men who carried the funds to Jerusalem |Cf II Cor.8:20-21).

This is how the New Testament churches cooperated, both in benevolence and in the preachingof the gospel. As such it constitutes the patternapproved by God for cooperation today and whensuch a pattern is violated, it is just as serious as isthe violation of the pattern concerning the worshipand organization of the church.

What Is A Sponsoring Church? The sponsoring church is a local congregation whichassumes to do a work for other churches because it considers itself especially qualified to oversee that particular endeavor. The sponsoring church assumes, in every instance with which I am acquainted, to do a work which it is financiallyunable to accomplish alone and so, at the outset ofthe project, intends that funds from other churcheswill be solicited. For example, when the Highlandchurch in Abilene , Texas, assumed the oversight ofthe Herald of Truth radio program, it did so realizing full well that a cooperative effort of deriving fundswould be necessary to sustain the project. The Broadway church, when forming the Lubbock Children's Home in Lubbock, Texas, understood fromthe beginning that she was undertaking a work which she had not the wherewithal to accomplishwithout soliciting funds from other congregations. So, we see that the very foundation for the sponsoring church is seen in its assuming a work larger than hercapability to accomplish and in the solicitation of "brotherhood" funds in order to realize the project.

What Is Wrong With the Sponsoring Church?

In New Testament times each local church was autonomous, each with its own elders, deacons, andmembers (Phil. 1:1). It functioned with Christ as itshead (Col. 1:18), being fed by its pastors, and servedby its deacons. In no instance is there even the slightest indication that one eldership was superintendent over more than its own flock. In fact,in I Pet. 5:2, the elders are told to, "feed the flock ofGod which is among you, taking the oversightthereof . . ." Not one time in all the New Testament is there a case cited or a reference made where one group of overseers are either charged with or allowedto oversee the work or members of another flock! Nor is there ever a situation cited where one congregation's elders ever came to assume for their flock a "sponsoring" role by which to care for or superintend a work on a brotherhood level. The NewTestament speaks of no organization larger than thelocal church by which any work assigned or authorized is to be accomplished. Since the sponsoring church arrangement is an obvious deviation from the New Testament pattern of local autonomy, it is wrong.

The sponsoring church assumes a work for which ithas no obligation. The assuming of a work with priorknowledge that such a work is without the means ofaccomplishment, is both illogical and unscriptural.Nowhere in Scripture is there an obligation enjoinedon any local church which is larger than the ability toperform it. In fact, the word "responsibility" is comprised of "response" and "ability." Ability is the limiting factor in any work assigned to the Lord's church. To assume a work knowing there is not theability to accomplish it necessarily means that morethan one congregation must be involved in it; and ifsuch can be lawfully assumed, that ALL congregations can be involved in it! Such an arrangement FORCES (obviously, by pre-intention!)the elderships of other churches to surrender thecontrol of both funds and oversight to a sponsoringchurch or be slanderously described as being "anti-cooperation!" The process is more than cooperation,it is coercion! Subtle coercion, but coercion nonetheless!

Unscriptural cooperation such as is seen in the sponsoring church arrangement, whether in benevolence or evangelism, not only causes supporting churches to surrender autonomy, but thesponsoring church as well. For instance, the institution called the Lubbock Children's Home functions not as the benevolent arm of the Broadway church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas, buton behalf of all the churches who contribute to it. The same is true of the Herald of Truth; it is not theevangelistic method employed by the Highlandchurch of Christ in Abilene, Texas, but belongs toALL churches who contribute to it. Funds for the Lubbock Children's Home are not generally sent tothe Broadway church, but to the home itself, or evenif sent to Broadway, they are earmarked for the institution, not the church's treasury. So, who is itthat oversees the funds at Broadway or Highland?For years, the sign in front of the Lubbock Children'sHome has read "LUBBOCK CHILDREN'S HOME,CHURCHES OF CHRIST," an open admission that itbelongs to a cooperating "brotherhood," not to Broadway. The Children's home is NOT Broadway atwork, it is the contributors who fund it at work." Thesame is true of Herald of Truth. To deny such is todeny the obvious. Both projects are brotherhood ventures not local churches at work! Such cooperation as we are seeing in the sponsoring church arrangement today surrenders the oversight of both the "sponsoring" eldership and the "cooperating"eldership to the institution formed, a clear violation of New Testament precedent.

In New Testament times, the basis for anycooperation was need. When the need no longerexisted neither did the cooperation. The sponsoringchurch creates a permanent need. In doing so, it violates the New Testament order. Furthermore, noneof the New Testament examples show any churchgiving anything to another church for accomplishinga work to which all churches were equally related.The command to evangelize the world is the work ofevery church and there is NO example in the New Testament of one church contributing funds to helpanother church evangelize the world, for all churchesare equally obligatory to such an assignment.

Let Us Return To God's Order

God's way has always demanded the following ofthe approved pattern (Gen. 6:14-ff, Ex. 25:9-40, I Chron. 28:11). He has always made the pattern andthe assignment inseparable (I Cor. 10:11, Heb. 9:23, Heb. 10:1, etc.). The actions performed by the NewTestament churches as recorded in the Scripturesform the pattern for church action today. Anything itillustrated as binding then is binding today and anything we cannot establish by its approved actionsor by some apostolic precedent or implication isdisallowable and sinful (Cf Isa. 55:8-9, II Jno. 9, IPet. 4:11, Rev. 22:18-19)!

If we can call for a return to the New Testament pattern regarding instrumental music, certainly it is inorder to call for a return to the New Testament pattern regarding local autonomy. If we can call for such a return regarding church support of missionarysocieties, surely it is not out of order to call for thepattern regarding scripture-approved cooperation. Andif we can call for a return to the New Testament pattern regulating the time for the observance of theLord's Supper, surely we can do so with regard toone group of elders overseeing a "brotherhood" work.

Brethren, we cannot ignore the oracles of God inone place and apply it in another. Either His word isthe authority or it is not! If it is (and it is!), let usfollow it explicitly and demand a passage for all thatwe teach, believe, or practice (I Cor. 4:6). And if wecannot find the authority for what we do, let us desistfrom it and refrain from its use, no matter the consequences (Gal. 1:6-10).

God has warned against and expressed Hisdisapproval of any entangling alliance between thedivine and human, sacred and secular, safe andsinful. "Her priests have violated my law, and haveprofaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean andthe clean. . ." (Eze. 22:26). "O God, the heathen arecome into thine inheritance; thy holy temple havethey defiled. . ." (Psalm 79:1). "It is written, My houseshall be called the house of prayer; but ye have madeit a of thieves." (Matt. 21:13).

What Is The Church?

When the "fulness of time" had come (Gal. 4:4) and the proper foundation had been laid—a recognition of His deity—Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). His churchcame into existence on the Pentecost day of Actschapter two when the obedient on that day, as now,were added by the Lord (Acts 2:38-47). It is Hisspiritual body, kingdom, holy temple, royalpriesthood, house or family, vineyard of spirituallabor, the saved.

The Lord's church is not just a church among churches, or another institution. It is unique in every way. It bears no organic relationship to anyinstitution on earth, nor is it dependent upon any human arrangement for its existence, growth and ultimate redemption.

What Is An Institution?

To "institute" is "to set up or establish." Theword "institution" as we shall use it in this studymeans: "An organization or establishment institutedfor some public, educational, or charitable purpose."—Webster. Whether an institution is divineor human depends upon whether it was established by God or man.

God's Institutions

It has been stated many times that God has ordained or authorized three institutions—the home, the civil government, and the church. Whilethe church may sometimes support people who live ina home, it does not work through a home. (More onthis later.) Other than to comply with its laws andaccept its protection, the church has no relationshipto civil government. The proper place and work of thethird divine arrangement—the church—is what weare discussing in this study.

The church is truly a divine institution. It was planned by God from eternity (Eph. 3:10, 11), builtby and purchased with the blood of His Son (Matt.16:18; Acts 20:28) and revealed by the Holy Spiritupon the pages of the New Testament.

What Is A Human Institution?

From the definitions and observations alreadygiven, it is obvious that any other arrangement orinstitution in the spiritual realm is human in originand design. All denominations are human institutions. The same is true of institutions within the body of Christ. All such were built and are controlled by men. They cannot offer salvation nordisplace the Lord's church in any way.

How Is The Church Organized?

The organization of the church is simple and sufficient, not complex and dependent. Others will discuss this, but we must establish some points and principles as they are directly related to our subjectand a proper understanding of it.In the universal or distributive sense, the church hasno earthly organization. It cannot be scripturally activated and has no work. On the local or congregational level, the church is organized witheach autonomous body consisting of elders, deaconsand saints (Phil. 1:1). The congregation is the onlydivinely authorized arrangement for the collective action of Christians in the spiritual realm.

Is God's Arrangement Sufficient?

To an informed believer in God and His word, thatis a foolish question. One may as well ask if the sunis sufficient to light the earth, or the Son to savemankind, or the Holy Spirit to reveal God's mind, orthe New Testament to guide Christianity.

The basic needs in the Lord's work are: (1)supervision, (2) administration, and (3) supplies ormeans. These we have in God's arrangement where the elders supervise, the deacons serve, and the saints contribute of their time, talents and resources.This is a practical and sufficient arrangement in all ofthe work which God has authorized the church to do,namely, preach the gospel, edify itself, and care forits worthy needy (Eph. 4:12 and related passages).

What Relation Does The Church Have to Human Institutions?

The simple answer is: No relation at all! Why isthis true? Because of what we have already observedabout the church, its organization and work. The arrangement which we diagram below will illustrateand prove our point.

If So, How Many?

If the church is related to and may work throughhuman institutions, then how many may it use in itswork? Can it do all of its work through humaninstitutions? If it may do part of it that way, whynot all? Where and why could we draw the line?

In the Harding College Lectures of 1952, Jack G.Dunn made an observation which is pertinent to what we are discussing. Having observed that Harding College was a human institution and should never betied to the church, brother Dunn said:

"Some of my brothers evidently think that thechurch can function through a human institution.This is the old 'missionary society' issue revived. And this idea, carried to its logical extreme, wouldreduce the church to a money-raising body, and turn all of the church's functions over to human institutions. Let the human institutions do the teaching, the works of benevolence, and let the churchsupport them, some say. Well, if the human institutions can supplant the church in these functions, then surely they can supplant the churchin money-raising also. The church, then, would haveno reason whatsoever for existing!"

Good thinking! Churches which contribute to and work through any human institutions should considerthe ultimate and inevitable end of such action.

Are All Human Institutions Parallel?

Is it consistent to argue that the church may do itsbenevolent work through human institutions but cannot preach and edify through such institutions? We think not, yet some hold to such untenable positions. Two interesting quotations are in order atthis point in our study:

"Some three or four years ago we expressed theopinion on this page that certain brethren would allow 'the issue' of church support of a privateenterprise to be fought out on the orphan home level,where highly emotional values can be brought tobear, and where they can, and do, overshadow reason; and that later, when these brethren thoughtthe time was ripe, the pitch would be made to put thecollege in the budget upon the basis that 'church support of a private enterprise has already beenproven.' The low rumblings of the gathering stormhave been heard for some time now, and more

recently there have been flashes of lightning!" (ReuelLemmons, Firm Foundation, May 2, 1961.)

"Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphans1 home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far asprinciple is concerned. The orphans' home and the Christian school must stand or fall together." (Batsell Barret Baxter, Question and Issues of The Day, page 29.)

Yes, if the church may work through one humaninstitution it may work through any of them, forthere is no difference "so far as principle is concerned."

Supplying A Missing Link

Those who feel that the church is related to and must work through human institutions are trying tosupply a "missing link" in God's plan. Any Biblestudent should know that there is no organization orarrangement in the New Testament by which churches are tied together or which can activate the church on a county, state, regional, national or universal level. So men have built such organizationsand declared that without them churches, at leastmany of them, cannot work effectively. In his debatewith brother W. W. Otey in 1908, J. B. Briney defended the missionary society by saying:

"Now, is there any objection to those small congregations co-operating with each other? I ask myfriend how small congregations that are not able tosend a missionary each are to co-operate? How arethey to take part in this work? Now, the societyprovides for that." (Otey-Briney Debate, page 199.)

If God had wanted congregations of His people tiedtogether He would have arranged for such and given instructions for such organizations and the qualifications for the board members. He has given the qualifications for every other work or position inthe church.

Inconsistent Claims Our brethren who defend church supported humaninstitutions say that they believe in the all-sufficiencyof the church (the congregation) in doing God's will on earth. They have declared such even while debating the right of churches to work through human institutions! We know of people who say theybelieve in the all-sufficiency of the scriptures. Weknow they must, for their human creeds say so. Getit? Their human creeds say so, and we could give numerous quotations from creeds and manuals declaring that the Bible is all that we need as a guide. People who really believe that will neither

publish nor follow human creeds, and those who truly believe in the all-sufficiency of the church will notdefend or support human institutions in the workwhich God has commanded of His people.

Making the Divine Human

As we have already noted, the New Testament authorizes a plurality of elders in every church. Butas surely as elders can err and men apostatize, thedivinely-authorized and otherwise good arrangementcan get out of place and the work authorized and circumscribed in the New Testament and therebybecome a human arrangement.

"A great apostasy, maybe, is being plannedunawares in the various things the local churches aredoing under the elders. Institutionalism is dangerousbecause it is a departure from the apostolic way.Human societies to do missionary work is wrong, butno more so than human organizations to take care ofthe orphans or old people or even the young folks.Happy is the man that condemneth not himself inthat which he alloweth. Why not take care of all thework of the Lord as in the New Testament times? Do you say times have changed? Then the church is notsufficient, eh? Look out for a great fall." (Life and Times of CM. Pullias, Gospel Advocate Co., page 577.)

"I submit this proposition: Any individual Christian, or group of individuals, smaller than alocal congregation; or any group of individuals orchurches larger than a local church; or any individualchurch itself that begins thinking in terms of whatthe whole brotherhood should do. and goes or sendssomebody to the churches to see that they do it, andacts as an agent or agency through which the brotherhood does it, thereby constitutes itself a full-grown, blown-in-the-bottle, fourteen karat missionarysociety of the deepest dye! There is no way on earthto whitewash it. There is no city of refuge where hemay hide from God's displeasure. To call it something else, or to leave it unnamed, is a meretechnical dodge. It is not condemned because it issimilar to a missionary society, but because it violates the same fundamental principle the societyviolates—namely, the initiative and autonomy of thelocal congregation." (W.E. Brightwell, Gospel Advocate, Dec. 20, 1934, page 1223.)

An eldership out of its God-ordained place becomes a human arrangement. When brother David Lipscomb voiced opposition to the sponsoringchurch type of co-operation, he said that such would"make a society out of the elders of the church."

Others Have Said The Same

Through the years, many brethren have defendedthe all-sufficiency of the church as the only divinelyauthorized institution for the work of Christians, andexpressed opposition to church related and supportedsocieties of any and every kind. If space permitted, we could give such quotations (mostlyfrom the pages of the Gospel Advocate) from Foy

E. Wallace, Jr., H. Leo Boles, F.B. Srygley, James A.Allen, A.B. Barret, J.D. Tant, John T. Hinds, Tolbert Fanning, M.C. Kurfees, E.A. Elam, J.L. Hines, R. L. Whiteside, C.E.W. Dorris, F.B.

Shepherd, C.R. Nichol, David Lipscomb, Roy H. Lanier, Sr., Reuel Lemmons, George DeHoff and

Guy N. Woods.

Conclusion

May we plead that the church be the church and dothe work of the church by the simple and sufficientoperation of the arrangement God has given—thecongregation. There is no authority in the scripturesfor the church contribution to or working throughhuman institutions.

In my autographed copy of Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons (Nov. 1-8, 1942), volume 5, page 50, brother N. B. Hardeman said in the sermon "The Mission and Work of the Church" delivered in Nashville, Tennessee, "Again, I say to you, withcaution and thought, that it is not the work of thechurch to furnish entertainment for the members and yet many churches have drifted into such an effort. They enlarge their basements, put in all kindsof gymnastic apparatus, and make every sort of anappeal to the young people of the congregation. I havenever read anything in the Bible that indicated to methat such was a part of the work of the church. I amwholly ignorant of any Scripture that even points inthat direction." That was commonly understood andpreached in those days, because as Hardeman said onpage 52, brethren understood "The work of the church can be stated under three heads: (1) thebuilding up of every member in it; (2) the work ofbenevolence; (3) the preaching of the gospel to sinfulhumanity."

Brethren understood the work of the church was primarily spiritual in nature. "For the kingdom ofGod is not meat and drink; but righteousness, andpeace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17).

Each of the writers in this special issue of Searching The Scriptures has in some way made hiscontribution to opposing these unscriptural practicesand several of us have debated these issues when we could get liberal minded brethren to do so. In aneffort to defend these unscriptural practices, ourliberal brethren began to play down the importance of having Scriptural authority for all we did. The ideathat scriptural authority was established by precept,approved example and necessary inference was lookedupon lightly— very lightly. Liberal brethren began toreap shortly the consequences of their liberal attitudeand many of them without realizing what was happening began to see church sponsored recreation come to be an accepted reality. As Bible teaching found its way to the back seat, church sponsoredrecreation came to the front. Now it is the feature attraction with many liberal churches. Not all liberal churches and preachers feature this as a part of theirwork, yet they associate with those churches thatfeature such. It is not uncommon for a liberal preacher that does not go along with church sponsored recreation but that goes along with the'sponsoring church' and church support of orphan homes to be invited to some church with much recreational equipment, buildings and activity andsay not one word about it while he preaches for thema week.

Entertainment and recreation sponsored by somechurches of Christ are not just somebody'simagination but are a reality. Look at a few of manyexamples that could be given.

(1) In a paid advertisement of the East WalkerChurch, just out of Jasper, Ala., in The Community News, Wed., April 7, 1976, page 1-B there appearedan invitation to "come ride the bus to the East Walker Church of Christ" and "after worship join theWorld's Largest Easter Egg Hunt." The "special guest" was 'Big Bird' and "Bert, Earnie, Oscar andCookie Monster will be in Childrens Bible Hour." There also in this ad appears "Big Bird" standing inthe meeting house door. While I understand the preacher, Flavil Nichols, did not approve, there werethose in the congregation that were lacking in Bibleknowledge and placed the ad. (2) The Memphis, Tenn. Commercial Appeal, July 17, 1976, tells about the "$250,000 multipurposebuilding which will include a full-sized gymnasium"including "regulation basketball courts" of the East Frayser Church. "It will be the first gymnasium builtby a Church of Christ in Memphis." It will have "a fellowship hall to accommodate 150 persons" and "a kitchen." "The objectives for the building will be Bible instruction and community service through fellowship and recreation." (3) From the Memphis Tenn. Getwell Church's bulletin, The Getwell Reminder, Feb. 23, 1978, page 4, "The East Hill Minstrels, an excellent singinggroup sponsored by York College of York, Nebraska,will present a program of popular music at the Wooddale Church of Christ, February 28 at 7:30 p.m.The program is designed to appeal to young peoplebut all are invited. No charge.' (4) In the March 13, 1977 Broadway Bulletin, of Lubbock, Texas the schedule of "The New Beginnings" which is the "Broadway Youthreachsinging group" is given on page 1. "They will presentconcerts for congregations in New Mexico, Arizona, California and Nevada." "Their objective is not merely to entertain, but to tell in a fresh way howtheir lives are different because they know the Lord."Concerts for the purpose of entertainment are presented for churches of Christ. The April 10, 1977bulletin shows this group in the pulpit at Broadway.

From Broadway's Feb. 27, 1972 bulletin, they tellabout their "youthreach" program which is "gearedto attract youth outside the church." On "March 5-'I

Page 23

Can't Believe I Ate the Whole Thing', Activities—The World's Largest Sundaes—Who Can Get the MostGrapes in their Mouth —Peach Shaving Contest . . . . Food — Alka Seltzer and water." Then on "March 19 — "Beep—Beep—Zooom!!! Activity

— 27 minutes of Roadrunner. Devotional — Peanuts slide presentation of friends. Food — Fried Chicken and coke (Bring your own dime)." Then on"April 16 — 'My Frog Jumps Higher Than Your Frog.' Activities — Frog Jump — Cricket Circle — Turtle Race. Devotional — Peanuts slide presentation on family relations. Food — Pizza and coke (bring your 10c)." In this same bulletin I read "One of our most important youth meetings of the year is this Sunday evening. We'll be outlining our outreach and view a film "Charlie Churchman and the Clowns." . . ."We need to then, You need to bethere. And for the sake of the souls of yourfriends, God wants you there." Such blasphemy!

Broadway's Jan. 15, 1978, bulletin tells that "the National Training Institute" which is "a professional training ministry developed for churches of Christ" "will present an area—wide teacher and supervisorytraining series at the Greenlawn Church of Christ." The cost of this "is $20.00 per teacher." Who would have ever thought the day would come that a churchof Christ would be having something it cost $20 to attend?

Their Dec. 18, 1977 bulletin gives some "dates to remember" and some of them are "December 18 Senior High Christmas Dinner, Youthreach Center,""January 1, Harding College Chorale to Sing In Teen—Age Class, 9:15 a.m.," "January 6—9,College age student Center Advance, Gold Pan SkiLodge, Eagle Nest, N.M." and "January 26—28, Senior High Ski Retreat, Colorado." The Jan. 22, 1978 bulletin says, "over 130 college and universitystudents attended the Annual College Ski Retreat in Eagle Nest, N.M." "Not only was the weekend full of fun in skiing and fellowship, but ten people responded to the Lord's message and requested prayers. Two young ladies . . .were baptized intoChrist." Their Aug. 7, 1977 bulletin says "Summer 'Son' Shine Seminar' will be Aug. 13 and among other things will include "classes in career planning" which will include "banking, insurance, sales and business, nursing, skilled labor, teaching, government and minister." And the April 2, 1972 bulletin says "Five hundred water balloons — all gone! The senior high had quite a battle. It was lots of fun. . . . made . . .'s evening. He didn't even see that stupid water balloon coming. Then there was the balloon stomp and balloon sit. Whilethe fellowship was great the devotional time togetherwith God was even better."

(5) From Union Ave. Church in Memphis bulletin, April 2, 1978, page 2, "Fellowship Weekend we appreciate the Fellowship Committee doing "double duty" this weekend. On Saturday morning at7, ... and will personally cook breakfast for the men and boys of the congregation, then on Sundayfollowing the 10 a.m. service, they will supervise thesetting up and the cleaning up after a fellowship luncheon. Beverages, dishes and eating utensils are furnished but all members who eat are asked to bringenough meat, salad, vegetables and desserts for theirown families, plus one. Visitors are invited to stay asour guests." Union's April 9, 1978 bulletin tells of a ' 'retreat" they are having and the ' 'regular registration form" gives the "registration fee" as "$8.50" and one is told to make "check payable to Union Avenue Church of Christ."

(6) From a promotional brochure of the Madison,Tenn. church, reproduced in the Eastland News, Sept. 13, 1976, Ira L. North says they are going to have a "Sunday School Spectacular." This includes an "all—night singing," "dinner on the ground," "a memento of this historic day will be given to each adult attending" and "special entertainment by KittyWells and Johnny Wright and their group."

(7)" From the June 25, 1972 bulletin of the Okolona Church of Louisville, KY. by a picture of cake, cup cakes, cookies and coffee under the word "fellowship" I read "There will be a fellowship Sunday night, July 2nd, after the services. Every family is asked to bring a cake, pie, cookies or sandwiches. Drinks will be furnished. All are welcome

— please come and stay for this fellowship."

(8) In an undated Bemis, Tenn. bulletin preacherRoyce L. Dickinson says "Skating Party—Big Success, One hundred twenty seven were present for theyoung people's skating party last Thursday night."In contrast their "personal work program" had only

9. This is a good indication of the interest in mostchurches of carnal and spiritual things. Nine with spiritual interest in teaching the gospel and 127 withcarnal interest went skating.

(9) Several years ago Olan Hicks (not the formerChristian Chronicle editor) affirmed in a written discussion with me that "The Scriptures teach that the church is at liberty to sponsor and use such things as recreational activities as facilities to its mission." (10) Brother Albert Hill signed to affirm with brother Carrol Sutton "It is scriptural for a church topermit use of her building for Bible-centered schoolsand kindergartens, fellowships, meals and social gatherings" and to deny "It is not scriptural forchurches of Christ to offer contests, picnics, partiesand free gifts to all bus riders as incentives to encourage attendance at services." These propositions were signed about four years but Albert and theAthens,Ala. West Hobbs St. church have not had thecourage to have the debate; however, the propositionsrepresent their position. (11) The June 19, 1968, East Memphis Shopper's News had an ad for "Camp Haiyaka" "sponsored by Jackson Avenue Church of Christ" and consisted of "swimming, hiking, softball, tennis, basketball, crafts, cookouts, archery, nature study, horseback riding, boating" and Jackson Avenue charged "$40.00 for two weeks" (East Florence Contender