Truth Magazine

By Donald Townsley

My assignment has to do with one of the oldest questions to come out of efforts to restore the New Testament church in this country. The question of how congregations can cooperate in their work and not lose their independence came up early-on and has been discussed all the way through the restoration movement. The controversy of the last thirty-five (or more) years is only part of an on-going controversy that has been before God’s people for over one hundred years.

Barton W. Stone (and others) disagreed with the Presbyterian church on Calvinism. Stone began to preach that God’s love made salvation possible for all men who would accept His will. This caused his expulsion (and that of his followers) from the synod of Kentucky in 1803. He (and those who stood with him) set out to have no authority but the Bible. They formed the Springfield Presbytery, but soon saw that this organization was not in harmony with their plea for a return to the Word of God. So, on June 28, 1804 they issued “The Last Will and Testament” of the Springfield Presbytery an organization which had lasted less than a year.

Churches started by the Stone movement existed in many communities alongside churches started by the Campbell movement. These two groups found they had much in common – both denounced human creeds, and both advocated unity upon the basis of the revealed will of God. Many in these two groups wanted to unite, but they had some points of difference that had to be settled between them. One of the major points of difference was: “How can congregations of the Lord cooperate?” Those churches in the Campbell movement were in the Mahoning Association, and Stone thought they were too much like the Baptists. The Mahoning Association was dissolved in 1830, and Campbell and Stone got together in 1832. In his book, Quest For A Christian America (p. 7), brother Ed Harrell writes: “The actual process of union took place in an amazingly successful merging of local congregations at the grass roots level, or by simply agreeing to fellowship one another, that is, to accept one another as true ‘churches of Christ.”‘

The dissolving of the Mahoning Association did not stop the formation of organizations through which churches could cooperate. “Cooperations meetings” were held, which H. Leo Boles said was the first step toward the American Christian Missionary Society. At first the meetings were held only to promote the general interest in preaching the gospel, but they later took on the form of an organization. The brethren in a certain district or state would meet annually, report the progress of the Kingdom, and plan evangelistic work for the coming year. The work would then be put under the oversight of one congregation, the sponsoring church, then other churches sent their contributions to the church which had the oversight of the work. In an article entitled “Congregational Cooperation,” brother Earl West gives an example of the “Cooperation meetings” (where a president and secretary were elected), then goes on to say: “These district cooperation meetings were but miniature missionary societies, and quite naturally, the forerunner of the American Christian Missionary Society.” He also points out that Tennessee fell in line with other congregations in having district cooperation meetings; and when Tolbert Fanning began to have doubts that these organizations were pleasing to the Lord, he found himself at first standing alone in his section of the country. While brother Fanning had doubts, Alexander Campbell began to lay the groundwork (in the Millennial Harbinger) for the formation of the missionary society. By October of 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was established in Cincinnati, Ohio with Alexander Campbell as its first president.

In 1855 Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb established the Gospel Advocate to give a thorough study to the subject of congregational cooperation. Fanning believed a change must take place in the way cooperation was viewed before any work could be done to the honor of God. During the Civil War, publication of the Advocate was suspended, but after the war, in 1866, David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning started publication again. They hoped that the new Advocate would provide a medium through which the whole Society question might be discussed. Lipscomb opposed the Society because it “was a human institution, organized and directed by man, but designed to do the work which God expected the local congregation to do.” He directed his opposition not only at the Missionary Society, but also at the is cooperation meetings” which were very popular in Tennessee and elsewhere. He considered these cooperation meetings as “missionary societies in embryo.”

The formation of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 brought division in the body of Christ, and by 1906 the federal government recognized the church of Christ and the Christian church as two distinct religious bodies in its census report. Churches of Christ followed the New Testament examples by supporting preachers directly (Phil. 4:14-17). Each congregation, acting independently of all other churches, sent support directly to the man (or men) in the field.

After World War I problems again arose in churches of Christ over the “one-man missionary society.” One man would collect money from churches and then send the money to the preacher in need of support. These promoters were soon stopped by brethren who loved the truth and who exposed the unscripturalness of the arrangement.

After World War II (in the middle of this century), the 46 sponsoring-church arrangement” as a way for churches of Christ to cooperate in mission work and benevolent work became a major issue. The Broadway church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas became a sponsoring-church to evangelize Germany; the Union Avenue church of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee became a sponsoring church to evangelize Japan; and the Highland church of Christ in Abilene, Texas became the sponsoring-church for the Herald of Truth – a national radio broadcast. (The first program was aired by affiliates of the American Broadcasting Company on February 10, 1952. James W. Nichols preached the first sermon.)

These unscriptural arrangements were being exposed and opposed by such men as Roy E. Cogdill, Yater Tant, James W. Adams, W. Curtis Porter, Cecil B. Douthitt, Robert C. Welch, Robert H. Farish, Cled Wallace, Marshall Patton, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., just to name a few. Brethren began to debate the issue of “sponsoring-church evangelism” from the mid-fifties through the sixties. Debates were held in such cities as Indianapolis, Indiana; Birmingham, Alabama; Abilene, Texas; Florence, Alabama; Louisville, Kentucky; Tampa, Florida; and Montgomery, Alabama.

Brethren who supported the sponsoring-church arrangement considered Guy N. Woods champion of their cause on the debate platform. Woods was met in debate by such men as Roy E. Cogdill, A.C. Grider, James P. Miller, and others.

By the mid-fifties churches began to divide over these issues (institutionalism and sponsoring-church arrangements). In November and December of 1954, B.C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, spearheaded a movement to “quarantine” those preachers who opposed sponsoring-churches and human institutions in the budgets of churches. Brethren who opposed were branded as “antis”; preachers who opposed began to be fired and to have their meetings cancelled; brethren began to be forced from buildings they had helped to build into schoolhouses and store buildings to start over so they could follow the New Testament pattern; families were divided and friendships were broken! The spirit of innovation, fiendish and lawless, had taken over! The battle was heated and heartbreaking! It soon became apparent that the great majority of churches would align with the innovations and that a separation was inevitable. Those of us who opposed these unscriptural arrangements began to realize that the sweet fellowship of the past would be no more! It was with sadness we recognized (from studying past history) that this apostasy would reach its flood-tide and dock in the port of denominationalism!

A close look today at those who aligned with the spirit of innovation will show that the tide of apostasy is high. A few men among them are trying to hold back the move that is underway to have fellowship with the Christian Church. These men are fighting an impossible battle! They are trying to hold to the “old paths” and, at the same time endorse the sponsoring-church and human institutions when these are the very things that opened the gates of digression! The “conservative institutionalists” among the liberals have but one way to go if they want to hold to the “old paths” – that way is to give up innovations, repent, and come back to the truth. One cannot hold to error while trying to fight error and ever gain any ground! J.W. McGarvey tried to do this and failed!

The “sponsoring-church” concept is one which tries to activate the church universal in a central organization by having many churches pool their funds under one eldership. When this is done you have churches of Christ collectively acting together through a central agency – the sponsoringchurch. The work done through this arrangement is not being done by a local church because the sponsoring-church is larger than a local church. The elders of a sponsoringchurch have assumed a work larger than a local congregation – a work of brotherhood proportions! It is a work which places the funds of a number of congregations under the direction of one eldership – the sponsoring-church eldership. The elders are no longer elders of a local church but have become “brotherhood elders,” functioning in an office which the New Testament knows nothing aboutl In the New Testament elders were local (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28). The work of elders in the New Testament is assigned, not assumed (1 Pet. 5:1-3). The work of “sponsoring-church elders” is assumed. There is no New Testament authority for an “assumed” work, therefore, in the creation of the sponsoring-church you have a functioning unit unknown to the New Testament.

There is no evidence in the New Testament that any congregation did its work through another congregation. Antioch made up her own contribution and sent it directly to the elders of the churches which were in need in Judea (Acts 11:27-30). Here we have a church with an abundance sending to churches in need that they might do their own assigned work, not a “brotherhood work.” The church at Corinth made up her own funds by the giving of her members and sent it directly to Jerusalem by the messenger of her own choosing (1 Cor. 16:1-3). The Jerusalem church was in need (Rom. 15:25-27), and this contribution was to help her do her own work, not some “brotherhood work.” The churches of Macedonia sent wages directly to Paul as he preached the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor. 11:7-9). Each church supported him directly, they did not do their work through a sponsoring-church. Paul did not have a “sponsoringchurch” gathering funds for him from all over the brotherhood. He taught that churches were to have direct fellowship with the preacher whom they support (Phil. 1:5). The church at Philippi was one of the Macedonian churches which acted independently in sending support to Paul. They sent it to him by Epaphroditus, their messenger (Phil. 4:14-18). No church in New Testament times ever sent money to another church to preach the gospel – they always sent directly to the preacher. Someone will probably ask what difference it makes – well, the difference is that one is found in the New Testament and the other is not! That makes a big difference if you are going to work by the authority of the New Testament (2 John 9)!

The impact of the sponsoring-church upon the Lord’s church has been tremendously devastating! It has sown discord and division, and has opened the floodgates for many more innovations! It is the tide that (has) is sweeping the majority of churches of Christ into the mainstream of denominationalism. It has caused untold thousands to be lost in a Devil’s hell! Only the judgment will reveal the damage it has done!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 9-10, 21
January 2, 1986

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

For obvious reasons, Christians in America have valued education and have wanted their children to take advantage of opportunities to better prepare themselves through going to school. When time has come for these Christians to send their children away from home for “higher education,” they have been especially sensitive to the humanistic threats posed by teachers in state-supported universities or in private colleges operated by denominational, agnostic, or downright atheistic non-Christians. Surely every believer would prefer that his children be taught natural sciences, languages, mathematics, social science, the fine arts, behavioral sciences, etc., by teachers who are Christians. If at the same time the children were also taught the application of God’s word to these disciplines and to other great issues of life, so much greater would be the positive influence of their college experience.

Some have spoken of the positive impact of that type education on “the church” or upon local churches. That sound biblical instruction can fall out to the benefit of churches in which those who are taught worship could hardly be disputed but that is not the point of this essay. Our object is to recall the fact that although schools may have a positive personal benefit to parents and students and a consequent impact upon some local churches, colleges become instruments of division among brethren when they are seen as the church’s agent for teaching the Bible and are financially attached to the churches for funding.

A few through the years (Daniel Sommer, W. Carl Ketcherside, etc.) have argued that the Bible may not scripturally be taught by Christians in any organization other than the local church. The conclusion is that Christians may not collectively operate colleges in which the Bible is taught.(1) Only in limited localities has that view had a role in dividing churches. Most have recognized the right of independent colleges to teach the Bible so long as the schools were not attached to the church. Again, our purpose is to discuss “church-supported” schools. We are all aware of “the need for balanced vigilance” in keeping non-church supported collective educational activities from becoming abusive interjections into forbidden or inexpedient activities.(2)

If space permitted it would be interesting to cite various statements from representative brethren such as Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, et. al.(3) The choice of three important public exchanges which were of major importance in shaping the thinking of the brethren will serve to illustrate instead why we must not forget.

The Brewer-Otey Exchange (1938): Teaches That We Cannot Argue From What We Have Done

At the Abilene Christian College lectures in February, 1938, G.C. Brewer was asked to make some comments while forms were passed through the audience soliciting contributions to the College. Brewer’s remarks set off a storm among the brethren. Essentially he said that “if all the churches in Texas would contribute to the support and endowment of the school, such requests as then were being made would be unnecessary.” Brewer had argued in a series of nine articles in the Gospel Advocate (1933) that the church should support both educational and benevolent organizations owned and operated by the brethren. Brewer thought that contributions to colleges should be budgeted by local churches in their annual planning. He argued on the ground that churches had supported the colleges since the founding of Bethany College by Alexander Campbell in 1840.

W.W. Otey was present in that Wednesday evening audience. He went home and prepared an article responding to Brewer. Before sending it to the Firm Foundation for publication, Otey wrote the presidents of the five schools then operated by brethren. The president of Abilene Christian College expressed regret over Brewer’s comments. All said that they had not solicited churches with a view toward getting the colleges into church budgets. All had accepted contributions from churches, however. Otey argued that past practice does not establish a thing to be scriptural. He pointed out that schools were not churches and were, therefore, human institutions. They should be privately funded because their work was not the churches’ work. His articles appeared in the Firm Foundation during August.(4)

Brethren were caused to take their first serious look at this issue. Past practice which had often been taken for granted was called in question. We cannot refuse to examine our practices in light of Scripture. Nor can we prove what is scriptural by what we do.

The Hardeman-Wallace Exchange (1947): Teaches That We Must Be Consistent

In the July 2, 1931, issue of the Gospel Advocate, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., said: “If it were ‘permissible’ to have a Bible college as an adjunct to the church in the work of education and an orphan’s home in the work of benevolence, we quite agree that it would also be ‘permissible’ to have a missionary society in the work of evangelization. But the question assumes the point to proved. Nothing is ‘permissible’ as an auxiliary of the church which is not Scriptural.”

In January, 1947, G.C. Brewer met Carl Ketcherside in a public discussion on the Freed-Hardeman College campus. After the meeting, N.B. Hardeman wrote an article for the Gospel Advocate in which he stated his views in opposition to Ketcherside’s position that the college had no right to teach the Bible. In the article Hardeman went on to say that “if, however, a church believes any school is teaching the truth and is thus furnishing an avenue through which parents may train their children, and such a church desires to help the school to exist, it has the right to do so.”

Almost immediately Foy Wallace in his Bible Banner replied that the work of teaching secular subjects was not the work of the church and that a clear distinction must be made between the church and the school. Hardeman replied that no reason had been assigned why a church cannot contribute to a school. He did not, however, produce the Scripture that authorizes it.

In the October 23,, 1947, issue of the Gospel Advocate, N.B. Hardeman wrote: “I have always believed that a church has the right to contribute to a school or an orphanage if it so desired. . . . The right to contribute to one is the right to contribute to the other. . . . The same principle that permits one must also permit the other. They must stand or fall together.” He showed that both are human institutions with boards of directors involved in secular work as well as in teaching the Bible.

Both men saw the need to be consistent, even though those who knew them best thought each was inconsistent at times. Hardeman was especially seen as inconsistent by many when arguing that churches could not put the college in prepared annual budgets (such would indicate that the school’s work was church work), but they could make voluntary contributions as they wished. These men had to come to grips with the fact that opposition to the churches’ support of any human institution seen as doing work for churches opened the door to support of all others with similar claims.(5)

The Baxter-Cope Exchange (1963-64): Teaches That We Must Use Sound Biblical Arguments

In November and December, 1963, Batsell Barrett Baxter preached a series of three sermons at the Hillsboro church in Nashville, Tennessee on the subject, “Questions and Issues of the Day.” The sermons were published the following year in a tract. The seventh and concluding point in his discussion asked the question, “What About the Church Contributing to Christian Schools?” In this section he argues that it is the church’s responsibility to train the young including physical and secular education. In this, section, however, he appeals to only two Scriptures: (1) Ephesians 6:4, which instructs fathers to bring up children in the nurture of the Lord; and (2) 1 Corinthians 14:40, which calls upon brethren in the church to “let all things be done decently and in order.” On page 29 of his booklet he says, “It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphan’s home and the Christian school must stand or fall together.”(6)

The following June, James R. Cope, then President of Florida College, responded with an eighty-four page booklet responding to Baxter’s assertions. Cope had consistently refused to accept any contributions from churches to the College. He repeatedly called for Scripture to establish that any human institution should receive support from the church treasury. In conclusion he issued the following affirmations concerning the church and the college:

The local church is told to (1) relieve the poor; (2) support teachers of the word; and (3) edify itself. Florida College which I have served for 15 years is not told to do any of these things in behalf of or as part of any local church. It is not in the sinner-converting or church-edifying business.

Should Florida College begin accepting donations from local churches it would become thereby a party to lawlessness for God has addressed certain responsibilities to local churches as reflected above. When churches disregard these commands they rebel against God. When they made donations of their funds to such service organizations as Florida College they thereby act without divine authority in the face of divine direction as to the use of the church funds. There is not the slightest indication that money laid by in store on the Lord’s day was ever collected for anything other than supporting a teacher of the gospel, a poor saint or for expediting another command of the Lord addressed to the church. For a congregation to act otherwise is to act either in ignorance or rebellion to God. Florida College causes the Bible to be taught but for the church to subsidize Florida College for the purpose of enabling the College to do its own or the church’s work is not within the scope of any command Christ gave his church for the school is not any local church or group of local churches; it is not any apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher which the Lord set in His church. Neither it nor any similar body of Christians is mentioned anywhere in the New Testament in connection with any function of any local church. For a congregation to make such a connection now is to act without divine command, example or necessary inference. It is to disobey God.(7)

Conclusion

The question of whether churches may support schools was the primary issue in the beginning of the division over what we sometimes refer to as “institutionalism.” It soon gave way to the more emotional question of churches supporting orphanages. As we have clearly seen, “they stand or fall together.” The reader is invited to study any or all of the following which bring out clearly the specific doctrinal issues involved in our determination not to forget what has happened nor the divisive impact imposing the funding of schools upon the church has had.

Endnotes

1. See Matthew C. Morrison, Like A Lion: Daniel Sommer’s Seventy Years Preaching (Murfreesboro, TN: Dehoff Publications, 1975), pp. 105-119; Bill J. Humble and Leroy Garrett, Humble-Garrett Debate (Oklahoma City: Telegram Book Company, 1955); Marshall E. Patton, “Concerns About Non-Church Sponsored Organizations,” in Their Works Do Follow Them: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1982 (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1982), pp. 75-88.

2. Ron Halbrook, “Human Service Institutions Among Brethren,” Guardian of Truth, Vol. XXV (March 12 & 19,1981), pp. 167-69, 181-83.

3. Perry Epler Gresham, Campbell And The Colleges (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical S6ciety, 1973); David Lipscomb, “Bible School,” GospelAdvocate, Vol. XXXIII (June 17,1881), p. 377; Earl Irvin West, Life And Times OfDavid Lipscomb (Henderson, TN: Religious Book Service, 1954), pp. 199-215.

4. A lengthy documented discussion of this entire series of events is found in Cecil Willis’ W. W. Otey. Contender For The Faith (Akron, OH: Cecil Willis, 1964), pp. 286-335; Otey’s articles appeared in the Firm Foundation, August 2 & 9, 1938.

5. In addition to the Gospel Advocate and Bible Banner articles easily found under appropriate dates, a firsthand report of this exchange may be found in James R. Cope’s lecture, “N.B. Hardeman: Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater,” in They Being Dead Yet Speak. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1981), pp. 133-55.

6. Batsell Barrett Baxter, Questions And Issues Of The Day, (Nashville: Hillsboro Church of Christ, 1964), pp. 25-32.

7. James R. Cope, Where Is The Scripture (Temple Terrace, FL: James R. Cope, 1964), p. 83.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 7-8, 21
January 2, 1986

By Ed Harrell

No destructive theme is more recurrent in religious history than the human tendency to create auxiliary organizations designed to help the churches carry out their spiritual missions. No doubt many such enterprises are begun by well-intentioned men who believe they can help the churches work together more efficiently. In fact, however, missionary and benevolent organizations have been ineffective and self-serving burdens on the churches they were created to serve. Religious history clearly testifies that the emergence of denominational institutions is a measure of decay within a religious group. Missionary societies signal a decline of interest by local churches in preaching the gospel and the appearance of benevolent organizations is symbolic of a similar disinterest in genuine benevolence.

While such practical evidence argues against the support of such organizations, our objections to them rest on a far more fundamental and biblical question. Did New Testament churches relate themselves financially or organizationally to such institutions to accomplish their work? The silence of the Scriptures is resoundingly clear. New Testament churches preached the gospel and relieved the needy themselves. (See, for instance, 2 Cor. 11:8 and 1 Cor. 16:1,2.) If one is committed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity, the question of authority simply cannot be ignored.

The American Christian Missionary Society

The efforts to restore New Testament Christianity in America in the nineteenth century included strong anti-institutional teaching. Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone joined with other western preachers (particularly the anti-mission Baptists) in condemning the young missionary societies which had been formed by nearly every American denomination in the early nineteenth century. Alexander Campbell wrote in 1823: “Their churches (early Christians) were not fractured into missionary societies, bible societies, education societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in the world. The head of a believing household was not in those days a president or manager of a board of foreign missions; his wife, the president of some female education society; his eldest son, the recording secretary of ‘some domestic Bible society; his eldest daughter, the corresponding secretary of a mite society; his servant maid, the vice-president of a rag society. . . . They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved” [“The Christian Religion,” Christian Baptist, I (August, 1823), 6-7].

The early protest against missionary societies was two-pronged. [For a thorough discussion of these issues, see Bill J. Humble, “The Missionary Society Controversy in the Restoration Movement, 1823-1875” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, 1964).] Over and Over the restorers argued that the “church alone” was capable of carrying out all of its responsibilities. On the other hand, much of the attack was based on the abuses so clearly connected with the organizations. The less-educated and less-cultured preachers of the West were offended by the presumptuousness of the denominational leaders who had placed themselves at the head of these organizations.

The dual nature of the protest became apparent in the 1840s when efforts began to establish a missionary society supported by the churches within the restoration movement. Most of the early restorers, including Alexander Campbell, supported the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. The early supporters of the society included such later opponents as Benjamin Franklin, Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb. Its most outspoken critics in the beginning were Canadian David Oliphant and Kentuckian Jacob Creath, Jr. In a series of articles in the Millennial Harbinger, Creath accused Campbell of renouncing his earlier arguments against societies. Campbell replied that he had been opposed to the abuses connected with the societies and not with the principle of churches cooperating through organizations.

During the remainder of the nineteenth century the missionary society became the focus for a debate which would end with the separation of the churches of Christ from the more liberal Christian Churches. The restoration movement did not divide because of the existence of the missionary society – rather, the society provided a means for testing one’s commitment to the restoration plea. The founding of the society was symptomatic of a desire for denominational status; it resulted from a call for all “prominent brethren” to meet in Cincinnati. The loose interpretation of the restoration plea which justified the society would clearly allow much more innovation; in the course of the nineteenth century scores of other organizations appeared as the Christian Church established its denominational identity.

Thousands of Christians in the nineteenth century were forced to reevaluate their initial acceptance of the society. By 1855 Tolbert Fanning was opposing its existence in the Gospel Advocate. Partly, they judged that the missionary society did not work. It was no more immune from human abuse than the other societies which had been opposed in the past. Southerners were particularly offended when the American Christian Missionary Society passed resolutions supporting the Union during the Civil War. The ineffectiveness of the missionary society as a means of evangelization has been confirmed in the century and a half of its existence.

More important, however, was the scriptural issue raised by the society. Was there a New Testament precedent for such a missionary organization? One’s answer to that question revealed his understanding of the restoration plea. If Christians were to be bound by New Testament precedent, there was no authority for the society. If one was not bound, then the doors were open for countless additions. Thus, the missionary society issue provided a focus for a debate which had far larger implications.

Benevolent Organizations

Benevolent organizations which ostensibly served and were supported by local congregations were also opposed by the early leaders of the restoration movement. Barton Stone asked: “I would simply ask, what have the divine writers of the New Testament said respecting these societies? They are all silent as the grave” [“Dover Association,” Christian Messenger, VI (Nov., 1932), 344]. And yet, in spite of such objections, an orphan school was supported by some churches as early as 1846 and in the nineteenth century feeble efforts were also made to establish church supported homes for the aged and hospitals.

When the conservative restorers separated themselves from the Christian Churches in the nineteenth century, most understood the anti-institutional nature of their protest. Tolbert Fanning wrote in 1856: “I doubt the policy of establishing orphan schools. . . on the ground that these orphan schools, to my mind, are attempting to perform, in part, the labor which it is the imperious duty of each congregation to do” [“Institutions Originating in the Wisdom of Good Men – How Far Should They Be Encouraged,” Gospel Advocate, II (October, 1856), 308-3 10]. Very few benevolent institutions were supported by churches of Christ prior to 1950, and never without protest from those who opposed all church supported institutions. Nonetheless, by 1950 a few weak and struggling orphan homes had been established, and, along with the small schools operated by Christians, they had become the symbols of a renewed sense of denominational consciousness and pride. One recent church historian, describing the growth of institutions in the churches in Texas, entitled his chapter on that subject, “The Churches of Christ Become a Major Religious Body” [Stephen Daniel Eckstein, Jr., History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950 (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963)].

A challenge to the existence of such benevolent organizations was launched in 1949 in the Gospel Guardian, first under the leadership of Foy Wallace, Jr. and later by Roy Cogdill and Fanning Yater Tant. For the next several decades those within the restoration movement were once again called upon to judge the existing institutions within the context of the restoration plea.

While opponents of the missionary society had been quick to point out that such societies were ineffective, those opposed to benevolent organizations were more reluctant to attack the usefulness of such institutions as orphan homes. To do so seemed cruel and unfeeling, and the defenders of the homes often painted their opponents in those tones. But, in fact, all modern social theory argues that such institutions are undesirable. In all likelihood, the time will come when they will no longer be allowed by law. Unfortunate scandals in recent years in several institutions have simply confirmed that orphan children need the environment of a real home. God wisely placed that responsibility upon individuals [Jas. 1:27].

The real issue raised in the orphan home controversy, however, was the old one of scriptural authority. It took two forms. First, was there a New Testament precedent which allowed churches to turn over their obligation to relieve the needy to an institution, supporting that organization with funds from the local church treasury? It is clear that in New Testament days churches took care of their own needy. Second, did New Testament churches relieve all needy people or was each group’s benevolent responsibility to the “saints”? Every New Testament text affirms the latter, more realistic, end. (See, for instance, 2 Cor. chapters 8 and 9.)

The questions raised by the existence of church supported benevolent organizations, then, once again provided a focus for a division with the restoration movement. The churches divided not over orphan homes, however, but over differing applications of the restoration plea. In the thirty-five years since 1950 it has become clear that the arguments which allow church support of benevolent institutions also open the gates for the support of countless other institutions.

Conclusion

The growth of institutionalism in the churches of Christ has always been symptomatic of much larger problems in the minds of the people. The growth of institutions is often an unconscious (and sometimes conscious) effort to activate the universal church (to form a denomination). It signifies an unwillingness to accept the local church as the functioning unit of the church of Christ.

Most important, institutionalism marks the abandonment of the restoration plea for a return to New Testament Christianity. There is no New Testament precedent for church support for any institution. I have no doubt that many such efforts have innocent origins. Over and over again Christians have been challenged to abandon institutions which have arisen without scriptural authority; such a step demands loyalty to biblical truth, rather than self-interest. Thus, institutionalism has become a repeated focus for dividing the body of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 3-4, 18
January 2, 1986

By Irven Lee

Israel was oppressed by armies of idolaters again and again because God gave them up to be punished after they rebelled against His law and copied the idolatrous world about them. The Lord would deliver them when they repented and prayed for help. The apostasy did not begin the day the invading and conquering army marched across the land killing and enslaving. Attitudes that led to their downfall no doubt developed gradually over a period of time.

In a private conversation in the late 1930s in the Gospel Advocate office, R.L. Whiteside told me that institutionalism would be the occasion of the next great apostasy. I did not know him very well and did not recognize the wisdom in his remark. I thought our fathers before us had gone through that and had put that behind us. In my ignorance I overlooked the fact that the devil uses the same tricks over and over again with only a little change in names and points of attack. Hundreds of thousands of my brethren were as blind as I was so there was not the proper teaching to immunize against the central agencies’ taking money from churches and exercising control over them.

We were too ignorant of the devil’s devices (2 Cor. 2: 11). Further ignorance was there, too. Far too many were not so well informed of the divine pattern for the Lord’s church at work so we could be led to change the plan without even realizing that we were missing the mark. Our senses were not exercised to properly discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:12-14). Is there not still that lack of knowledge on the part of many who should know the difference between “clover and sneeze weed”?

It is human for the teenage boy, his father, and his grandfather to want to be accepted by their neighbors. This requires conformity. The world will love its own and speak well of those who copy its ways (Jn. 15:19; Lk. 6:26). The Lord forbids our conforming to please the world, but this failure to conform brings persecution which we do not like. We like the praise of men (Rom. 12:2; 2 Tim. 3:12; Gal. 1:10).

Our brethren did not invent the family life building or the idea of a central agency with money to have a national “Church of Christ Hour” similar to “The Lutheran Hour” or “The Catholic Hour.” We are more effective at following the (denominations about us than we are at leading our neighbors to the Bible pattern (1 Sam. 8:5).

During the depression years and the war years we were preaching to get people out of the world and out of human denominations, but we did not preach enough about getting the world and denominationalism out of the men. I remember. I enjoyed hearing men make the good confession and seeing them baptized. I did not realize that the devil was planning such an all out attack on these new recruits to the army of the Lord. The devil was willing for these people to be members of the church and still enjoy the social gospel dainties of food, fun, and frolic and enjoy the social drink, the social dance, and the immodest styles with a certain bit of freedom to use blasphemy and vulgarity with the crowd. That way they could seek to serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). The love of the world leads to apostasy (1 Jn. 2:15-17).

Shrewd and prosperous socialites can exert influence over elders and many quiet people who live by a higher moral code. These fluent worldly people can talk of “caring for poor little orphans” or whatever they need to talk about to lead the majority away from a “narrow-minded preacher.” They might even use “good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17,18). With feigned words they might make merchandise of the brethren, privily bringing in pernicious ways and damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1-3).

When the people who are so eager to be “accepted” by their worldly friends become a large number in the church, the lump by that time is leavened and will no longer endure sound doctrine. That church will find teachers who will say what they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Such lovers of a perverted gospel will, for a price, be able to get preachers who fulfill their wishes (Tit. 1:11). They can “heap to themselves teachers” of their own liking. It is very, very important to do the proper preaching, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting before the leaven of wickedness has spread through the congregation. (Carefully read 1 Corinthians 5.) One wicked person can be marked, avoided, and rejected (Rom. 16:17,18; Tit. 3: 10,11). A Diotrephes with his company can reject the sound brethren (3 Jn. 9,10).

A distaste for controversy over foolish and unlearned questions which gender strife is in order. Please read the letters to the preachers in the New Testament watching for words like “shun,” “avoid,” “refuse,” and “reject.” (See 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.) It is a flashing red danger signal when good brethren begin to object to any and all controversy. Error can freely enter the flock if there is opposition to opposing it. False teachers like to introduce heresy privily (2 Pet. 1:1).

If a certain false doctrine is being taught, brethren may be found who promote the error, others may oppose it, and others may insist on giving it the silent treatment. An ill wind of doctrine takes over where it is promoted and where it is not opposed. It stays out only where it is vigorously opposed. The line of least resistance is the “on the fence” position, but the popular false doctrine or practice ultimately takes over congregations that take such a position. Read your church history or observe the churches in your area if apostasy has brought division to some if you would be convinced of the need for fighting a good fight.

Jesus the Christ was one of the greatest controversialists this world has ever known. He was like a lamb in suffering the brutal treatments from the hypocrites and false teachers. He was the lion of the tribe of Judah in fighting their pride, hypocrisy, traditions, and love of the world. Have you carefully read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? No careful reader could overlook the fact that He was constantly in open word battles with those who opposed His message. He loved the souls of those with whom He did battle. Those who crucified Him were asked in His name to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. He prayed for them while on the cross, but He did not fail to try every possible way to turn them from error. See Matthew 23 for an example of His sharp rebukes.

A church is not destroyed every time a brave and effective battle is fought against error. “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. . . . Then all the audience kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul … and after they held their peace, James answered, saying . . . Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15). Error was corrected and truth was advanced by this earnest contention for the faith as commanded through Jude (Jude 3).

This matter of binding Jewish ordinances on Gentiles came up again and again at different places. Much of the book of Galatians deals with this danger. Even Peter and Barnabas were influenced by the pressure. “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. . . ” (Gal. 2:1,12). Our Lord demands that we war a good warfare (1 Tim. 1:8; Tit. 1:9,13; 2:15; 3:9-11).

Too many, even good people, are mentioning their dislike for controversy in religious journals, etc. It is by means such as papers that we can study and prepare before we are faced “head” on by the heresy. Unless brethren generally strengthen their knowledge and conviction on the marriage law very many churches are going to be harmed seriously as some have been. This is one example of what I am writing about. Heresy is pleased to enter “privily,” but truth is to be proclaimed boldly by people who are equipped with the whole armor (Eph. 6:10-20). Please do not say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.

The “afflictions of the gospel” and the persecution that godly people suffer grow out of the fact that true disciples stand fast against heresy (2 Tim. 1:8; 3:12). Paul the prisoner was thankful for one who was not ashamed of his chain (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Shall we raise the white flag of surrender or shall we fight a good fight? There is no concord between Christ and Belial (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Politicians and unsound brethren wonder “What will people think?” when brethren shun not to proclaim the whole counsel in season and out of season.

I began trying to preach when I was young, timid, and cowardly. Several expressed their pleasure and hope by saying: “Irven, I am glad you have decided to preach, and I hope you won’t be a fighter!” That sentiment was rather common in my home area. Do you have any idea how these churches of that area went during the turmoil of the 1950s?

The egotistical, arrogant, and bitter attitude expressed by B.C. Goodpasture in the Gospel Advocate guaranteed division. This attitude was expressed in the simple and easy to be understood words: “Quarantine the antis.” This carried the idea of: Do not listen to these that question the social gospel and church support of central agencies in public or private lessons. There were sincere but uninformed people who went along with this official decree who did not know what was happening. They thought there was something about some who did not believe in caring for poor little orphans. The problem of the social gospel and denominational machinery never entered their minds. They obediently followed the promoters of the big machines. Those who asked for book, chapter, and verse were crushed, if at all possible.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 2, 30-31
January 2, 1986