Truth Magazine

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

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

The truth makes one free (John 8:32), but the truth is not free. It must be bought, often at a great price (Prov. 23:23). The price may be high in terms of searching, sacrificing, and suffering. When one forgets the price paid by himself and others so that he may have the truth, he often forgets the truth itself.

The writer of Hebrews warns against drifting away from the truth (2:1). He tells his readers to “hold fast the confession of (their) hope without wavering” (10:23*). He reinforces it all by reminding of “the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward” (10:31-35).

By the end of the first century all spiritual truth was revealed. The faith was delivered once for all time (Jude 3). The Scriptures were completed. They give us everything we need for “doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

While the revelation of truth ended, the struggle so that “the truth of the gospel might continue with (us)” was just beginning (cf. Gal. 1:8, 9; 2:1-5). That struggle continues even as we write. Each new Christian needs all the help he can get with buying the truth and selling it not. Being reminded of past struggles for truth and sacrifices on its behalf is useful to that end.

Our understanding of the truth is greatly aided by our understanding of the past struggles between truth and error. Such struggles, though precipitated by Satan, are used by the Lord to advance the truth. In this way the Lord makes Satan’s best efforts backfire on him.

We must pray to be spared temptation in any form (cf. Matt. 6:13). Yet, when trial and tribulation come because of truth, the wise will profit from them (Rom. 5:3-5; Jas. 1:2). They can be disciplinary learning experiences, if we will allow them to be (Heb. 12:11).

Brethren must avoid schism, division, or faction (heresy – KJV). The church must firmly correct or reject any who cause such (cf. Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17,18). Yet, factions (heresies – KJV) are trials that serve a useful purpose. They often separate the genuine (approved) from the superficial among brethren (1 Cor. 11:19). During such controversies, our studying to “exhort and convict those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9) often forces us to me tune our own views. We may be forced to abandon indefensible positions borrowed from the world around us. After the present crisis passes, the knowledge gained can help avoid similar troubles in the future. The sacrifices and sufferings that often accompany a controversy, rather than defeat us, can I strengthen our resolve to press on to a better country. They can also cause us to be careful in the future, lest we have suffered in vain (Gal. 3:14).

The value of past struggles, separations, and sacrifices depends on how vividly we remember them. There is no value in remembering them with bitterness, resentment, or hatred. There is great value in remembering the reasons behind the sacrifices, and the issues that caused the struggles, and the lessons learned at the time. We need to remember these things often, though we “already know them, and are established in the present truth” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12). Like Israel of old, we need to be told:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal Peor; for the Lord your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the Lord your God are alive today, everyone of you. . . . Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren (Deut. 9:2,3,4,9).

Many of the Israelites who) had been at Baal Peor were still alive. Their eyes had seen what happened when their brethren accepted the invitation of the Moabite women to join them in idolatry:

They invited the people to sacrifice to their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the Lord, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor” (Num. 25:2-5).

They were to be careful “lest you forget the things your eyes have seen.” They were to remember them all the days of their lives. They were to teach them to their children and grandchildren lest they forget them. They simply could not let what happened at Baal Peor become a “dead issue” in their minds. There was always the danger that history could repeat.

Many of the problems of later 1900s might have been prevented if brethren had remembered the lessons from the problems of the later 1800s. Those of us who lived through confrontations with error must not forget them as long as we live. We must tell our children and grandchildren what happened. They need to know what happened, why it happened and what they can learn from it.

The church as been troubled by a number of major issues during the past 100 or so years. There have been open divisions because some joined themselves to the traditions of men. Consequently, there have been periods of unusually high levels of controversy. Many are alive today who have vivid memories of the sacrifices, sufferings and struggles during these periods so that “the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” When they tell their children and grandchildren of these things they are not asking for sympathy for what they had to endure. They “joyfully accepted the plundering of (their) goods.” They do not want this and future generations to have to repeat the same struggle, make the same sacrifices, and endure the same sufferings that they did. Nor do they want them to make the same mistakes they made. They want them to know the things their eyes have seen. They want them to know “the truth of the gospel.” They want them to appreciate the sacrificing, suffering, struggling, and studying that has made it possible for them to have it.

Satan has not retired from the mischief business. He will be looking for different avenues to make mischief for this and future generations as long as the world stands. Old issues seldom die, they just become dormant waiting for another opportunity to become active. Each generation must fight its own battles for truth. We hope that by keeping alive an awareness and understanding of past battles that our children will be prepared for present and future battles.

So, the articles on these pages are being written about some of the issues that have disturbed, divided and even destroyed congregations in the recent past. Some of this is still going on. Some of the writers lived through the thick of the fight about which they write and know firsthand the struggles. Some have had the opportunity to have known older brethren who were directly involved in the matters of which they write. Others know about their subject by having read things written during the height of the controversy of which they write. We will let you decide which one writes from which perspective. Each writes hoping to help all to see the “truth of the gospel” about his assigned subject lest we forget.

*Scripture quotations from New King James, unless otherwise indicated.

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

By Elmer Moore

One thing about those who are members of the Lord’s church is that they will speak out against things they believe to be wrong. This is because they believe something. They are people who claim to have respect for Bible authority, who believe that we must have authority for everything we preach and practice. This indeed is a commendable trait. People who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Be assured that anytime there is opposition to a practice that it will have an impact (make an impression) on God’s people. As is the case of so many things that happen, an impact or impression may be either good or bad, or may sometimes be both. I believe that opposition to “cups” and “classes” had and still does have an impact for good and bad. You ask how can this be?

An impact for bad is seen in the fact that contention resulted from both practices. Good is seen in two areas: First, that such contention will serve to identify “they that are approved” (1 Cor. 11:19). Secondly, I am convinced that the worship and work of the church is made more effective by the use of “cups” and “classes.”

We need to establish clearly what we are writing about. By “cups,” I mean the use of individual containers in serving the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper. By “classes,” I mean the practice of arranging students in groups to be taught, either by age or experience.

I shall endeavor to show that opposition to individual containers and the use of group teaching is without scriptural foundation, and that there is scriptural justification for both.

Cups and classes constitute two separate issues, that are not necessarily related. There are those who contend for one while opposing the other. However, I believe that opposition to both practices is the result of the same mistake, the inability to properly understand and apply Bible authority.

I am convinced that classes (group teaching) and cups (individual containers) were utilized in the first century church. I will, however, address my remarks to the problems that were encountered by those endeavoring to restore New Testament Christianity.

Be assured that the introduction of classes, by the “Disciples of Christ,” was met with aggressive opposition. They were denied the use of the “Sunday School” on the basis of “the close ties between the Sunday School and denominationalism.”(1) Among those who occupied a position of opposition was Alexander Campbell. In 1824 he wrote, “I have for sometime viewed both ‘Bible Societies’ and ‘Sunday Schools,’ as a sort of recruiting establishment to fill up the ranks of those sects which take the lead in them.”(2) It should be noted that in 1847 Campbell wrote, “I have never had but one objection to the administration of the system never one to the system itself. That objection was simply to the sectarian abuses.”(3) On the other side of the issue, Jesse P. Sewell in his 1919 lecture introduced a threefold rationale to support his premise that the church is essentially an educational institution. He reasoned that, “Christianity is preeminently a teaching religion, that the extension of the church depends entirely upon teaching, and that Christians are at liberty to teach the word of God at anytime and any place.”(4)This is not to imply that no one objected to the “Sunday School” from a scriptural standpoint; there were many who did.(5) Limited space will not allow us to pursue this further.

Concerning cups, individual containers, there were those who opposed their use and still do. Efforts to introduce multiple containers met with much opposition. The Christian Standard was active in opposing their use. An article appeared in that paper, March 1893, concerning the “movement1to have a separate cup for each communicant.”(6) A reply to the article previously referred to occurred in the Christian Standard charging such practices as “being an absurdity.”(7) G.C. Brewer is credited, by the “one cup” advocates, as introducing a plurality of containers in the “non-organ” churches.(8) Concerning this matter, brother Brewer wrote, “I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of individual communion cups and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central church of Christ at Chattanooga, Tennessee.”(9)

Classes And Cups: Arguments Viewed

I am convinced that opposition to cups and classes are both a result of an improper attitude toward the Scriptures, a failure to properly understand how to determine when a practice is right!

Examples

One of the basic mistakes of those opposing classes and cups is to demand an example (record of action) of the early church engaging in such practice. Even a casual investigation of their writings and debating will reveal that I have not misrepresented them. They demand an example of our practice while refusing to produce one for theirs.

The fallacy must be obvious. A practice may be authorized without being exemplified. The right to act may be determined implicitly (capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed) as well as explicitly (clearly developed with all its elements apparent). A practice authorized, either explicitly or implicitly, does not have to be exemplified. These objectors indict themselves of the guilt of special pleading (unwilling to apply the same criteria to their practice that they apply to others) by refusing to produce an example for all that they do (cf. Rom. 2:21).

Is Their Practice-Safe?

Another mistake of these brethren is seen in their efforts to prove others wrong because they claim to be doing that which is safe. This is something that merits investigation. I deny that their practice is safe! One’s practice involves what he teaches as well as what he does. Their teaching is not see! It is never safe to make something essential that the Bible indicates is incidental. When men do this they become lawmakers. It is just as bad to make laws as it is to ignore them. When we make a law where God has not, we become lawmakers, and assume a position that belongs only to God (Jas. 4:11-12). To do this is to “sit in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:9). It was safe to circumcise males; it was not essential to being a Christian (Gal. 5:6). So long as it was viewed in this light no problems resulted. When some determined to make it necessary, Paul disputed with them (Acts 15:1-2), refusing to give “place in the way of subjection no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).

“They Did – We Can – We Must”

Another fallacy is to find that in the New Testament something was done in a certain way and arbitrarily decide that. it must be done only in that manner. I believe that an example (record of action) may obligate us to that precise action (Phil. 4:9). However, there are some very definite rules that we must respect in determining when an example is requiring us to do something.(10) At this point those who object to classes and cups demonstrate their inconsistency. They realize there are some examples that only illustrate a liberty, what we may do. They realize this without being able to cite the criteria for determining that some examples require and some only allow.

Classes And The Command To Teach

We are authorized to teach the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). In order to teach, there are some things that are inherent. There must be a teacher, a student, material, time, place, and some kind of an arrangement. Whatever God has bound in these matters must be respected. However where He has loosed anything we had better not bind it. God has bound the teacher, Christians, whether individually (2 Tim. 2:2) or collectively (1 Tim. 3:15). He has bound the material, the gospel (Gal. 1:8,9). He has bound the students, aliens in conversion and saints in edification (Mk. 16:15; Eph. 4:15,16). But you will search in vain to find where God has bound the time, place and arrangement. We are to teach “in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2), in public places, private places and dwelling places (Acts 20:20; 28:30, 31). The New Testament reveals the arrangement of didactic discourse was used (Acts 20:7); the arrangement of debates was used (Acts 15:1-2); and also the group arrangement (Acts 20:17; Gal. 2:2). For men to bind an arrangement is for them to bind where God did not.

“Cups” Arguments Viewed

In an effort to prove that only one cup (container) can be used, brethren argue that Jesus used only one cup in instituting the Lord’s Supper, and that we must follow His example. It is well to note that these brethren cannot prove that Jesus only used one container. The Passover Feast, that they were observing, provided that each participant have his own container.” These brethren assume that there was only one container and that Jesus used only one. Even if they could prove that Jesus used only one container, this would not prove that we are obliged to follow that any more than we are obliged to take the supper in an upper room because He instituted the supper in one (Luke 22:12).

Their entire contention is based on the idea that the expression “the cup” cannot mean more than one container. In the first place, “the cup” is obviously talking about the fruit of the vine and not the container. Matthew and Mark use a metaphor (one thing is said to be another), while Luke and Paul use metonomy (where one thing is named to suggest something that relates to it), the cup for the contents. However, the expression, “the cup” occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and in this passage Paul states, “the cup of blessing which we bless . . . .” Paul was at Ephesus and writing to the church at Corinth and he used the singular expression “the cup.” If they only used one container at each place, the expression “the cup” meant more than one. It must be obvious that the expression “the cup” does not necessarily mean one container.

“Three Elements – Not Two”

The concept of the “one cup” advocates is more than just one container. These brethren believe that there are three elements of significance. (1) The “‘cup” represents the New Testament. (2) The bread represents Jesus’ body. (3) The fruit of the vine represents His blood. Their contention that the “cup” represents the New Testament is based on the structure of Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, which states, “this cup is the New Covenant in my blood, whereas Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, render it “my blood of the New Covenant.” These brethren deny that these four statement are parallel. However they admit that Luke and Paul are using the figure of speech that names the cup for its contents. Surely all can see that in whatever sense the “cup” is the New Covenant it is the contents and not the container, which is spoken about. The truth of the matter is that the reversal of the terms does not change the meaning whatever. The order of faith and confession is so reversed in Romans 10:9, 10. All four passages declare that the cup (contents) is a fair representation of Jesus’ blood that ratified the New Covenant. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 the inspired writer identified two elements of importance, i.e. “The cup of blessing which we bless. . . The bread which we break.” No, my friends the container holds no significance whatever.

The Elements Of Communion

The brethren also contend that the elements in communion include the assembly and Christ. If they should drop the container, break it and spill the contents while half through serving the communion, they would obtain another container and serve the whole assembly. They contend that no one has actually communed until all have. This is just not sol The elements of communion are the Christian and Christ. Paul declares, “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat. . . ” (1 Cor. 11:28-29). The personal pronouns show this to be individual, just as surely as they do in James 1:27, and John 15:1-6.

Summary

If brethren do not want to use group teaching that is their business. However, when they begin to teach and condemn all others who will not follow this “practice,” then problems arise. If brethren want to use only one container in distributing the fruit of the vine that is their business. However, when they begin to teach and condemn all others who will not follow their “practice,” then problems arise. I firmly believe that they are judging brethren to be unfaithful by their own law and in so doing are judging God’s law to be inadequate. This is the very thing that James is condemning in James 4:11-12.

Endnotes

1. Mirror of a Movement, Banowsky, p. 232.

2. Ibid., p. 233.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 235.

5. Ibid.

6. The One Cup, Victor Knowles, p. 67.

7. Ibid., p. 68.

8. Those Individual Cups, J.D. Phillips, pp. 9, 10.

9. Forty Years On The Firing Line, G.C. Brewer, pp. 12,13.

10. The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 144.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 19-21
January 2, 1986