Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The challenge of spreading the gospel includes a place for “the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). In the course of his work, an evangelist may “abide still” at one place and function as part of a local church, giving rise to the expression “a located preacher” (1 Tim. 1:3). Some brethren have opposed that arrangement. In surveying the preacher’s work, we shall assess the impact of opposition to located preachers.

The Work of An Evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5)

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation.” “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 2:2). The heart of every Christian should throb with the same confidence in and determination to spread the gospel as Paul had. We all have the sacred duty and privilege of “preaching the word” (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:3-4). “The Christians of every age are under the same obligation to preach the gospel to every creature that the apostles were. How are we doing it?” (M.C. Kurfees, ed., Questions Answered By Lipscomb and Sewell, p. 503)

All Christians share in evangelism, but a man who especially devotes himself to this work is an evangelist or a gospel preacher in the sense of 2 Timothy 4:1-5. Not every Christian was recommended unto this work. While others stayed in some trade or profession to earn a living, Timothy devoted himself to long hours of study in God’s Word, to sacrificial efforts in proclaiming the truth, and to diligent labors in training new teachers (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:13-16; 2 Tim. 2:1-3; 4:1-5). The evangelist must “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” as he presents the truth to both sinners and saints, but he has no office or position of authority over the affairs of the church as elders do (Tit. 2:15; Eph. 4:11).

The preacher may divide his time with secular work to provide his physical needs, but that limits his time for daily study and evangelism (Acts 18:3-4; 17:17). To free his time for spiritual labors, individuals may share their material blessings with him (Acts 16:15; Gal. 6:6). One or more churches wanting to have fellowship in spreading the gospel may provide him financial support (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8). The latter arrangement is in the realm of liberty and expediency on the parts of both preachers and churches, just as is the question of whether a person marries or not. But no one is to doubt that preachers have the scriptural right “to forbear working” and that churches ought to be ready to support them when circumstances warrant it. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:1-14).

An evangelist may travel from place to place, preaching where Christ has not been named or visiting established churches to build them up (Rom. 15:20; Acts 14:21-23). Such work is right, but abuses can occur. Travel can help to hide dishonesty, immorality, false teaching, compromise, double talk, laziness (less need for fresh study), and greed (taking financial support from a church without staying to face and resolve problems in the church). He may not abide long enough with a church to help train local brethren to preach and teach; then they must depend on “outsiders” for most of their teaching program.

Some brethren insist that a true preacher must travel almost constantly on the theory that the word “evangelist” means a traveling missionary. But the word means one who brings, and expounds the good news of salvation in Christ, no matter how long or short his stay. One theory says that we can “preach” (but not teach) the “gospel” (but not doctrine) to the “lost” (but not to saints), but we “teach” (not preach) the “doctrine” (not gospel) to “saints” (not the lost). By this theory, preachers cannot address established churches but must always be afoot. Actually, “preach” and “teach” maybe used interchangeably (Rom. 2:21). The Apostles had only one message or revelation, not a “gospel” plus a “doctrine,” and it was called the gospel, doctrine, message, word, truth, will of God, way, light, faith, treasure, and testament or covenant (1 Cor. 2:2; Eph. 4:5; Col. 1:5; 1 Jn. 1:5, 7; 2 Jn.9). Paul could preach the gospel to saints and Peter teach the doctrine to the lost (Rom. 1:7, 17; Acts 5:28).

Since Ephesians 4:16 speaks of the church edifying itself, some say this requires “mutual edification” or public preaching by the general membership, excluding a located preacher. This makes the passage teach mutual sermons in public assemblies. In that case, women are included because it says “every part.” The passage simply teaches Christians to help each other and to seek to save the lost, according to our abilities and opportunities. The body has many members and functions – all are not mouths (1 Cor. 12:14-20). Arrangements for public teaching are matters of expediency, including the role of a located preacher.

Another abuse of the work of a preacher who travels is his pastoring the church. Some bluff a local church by claiming, “You cannot cancel my appointment to preach (because I am a member here, or because I oversee this church, etc.).” Some openly claim “evangelistic oversight” until they choose to personally select elders, based on a misuse of what Paul said to Titus, “. . that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders. . . ” (1:5). Paul did not tell Titus to oversee the church or to choose its elders, but to preach the word -including the qualifications for elders – so that he could ordain elders (2:15). When men are to be ordained or appointed to an office, the church itself does the selecting (Acts 6:1-7).

An evangelist may abide, remain, or locate in one place and work with an established church for any length of time. Paul established a church in Ephesus and ended up staying three years (Acts 20:31). Timothy was to “abide still at Ephesus” and “do the work of an evangelist” even though there were elders there (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:5). A preacher may be paid wages in order to give his full time to this work. Some object to the wages being stipulated in advance, but the Holy Spirit used a word for the preacher’s pay which can include a stipulated salary just as a soldier received (1 Cor. 9:7; 2 Cor. 11:8; Lk. 3:14). The work of a located preacher is scriptural, but he must guard against many of the abuses mentioned earlier. He must never try to be a one man pastor nor fail to develop local talent (2 Tim. 2:2).

Opposition to Located Preachers

Why do so many churches use a located preacher? It increases the time he has for evangelistic work in all phases and therefore increases the fruit or harvest of such work. This strengthens the overall work of the local church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). He is not doing someone else’s work so that they can sit down and do nothing in the service of God, any more than Paul or Timothy did. If 30 people work in a factory and harvest oranges when not in the factory, they may support one of their number so that he can harvest oranges on a full time basis. This does not mean the others quit harvesting when not in the factory or that the one man claims to do all their picking for them. They have simply made a wise provision for a larger harvest. God made it possible for us to increase our labors and harvest in the same way!

Not every church without a located preacher opposes the arrangement. Some may have a located preacher but allow him to receive outside support for a time. There may be many reasons for such variations because expediency teaches us that it is not always best to exercise a legitimate right at certain times (1 Cor. 9:12). Planting new churches in a region or rescuing churches from a rising tide of apostasy often requires preachers to travel more. But sometimes churches which could increase their labors with a located man are guilty of apathy and neglect. Some folks will not sacrifice to give enough money to adequately support a man.

The basic arguments of opponents of a located preacher have already been noted. False theories have been built around terms like evangelist, preach-teach, gospel-doctrine, mutual edification, and evangelistic oversight. Opponents harp on abuses such as greed, failure to develop local talent, or the one-man pastor (which they themselves advocate before elders are appointed!). They object to a preacher locating, then to his being paid by the church where he is located, and then to a stipulated wage.

It is often claimed that past preachers who emphasized the restoration plea for Book, Chapter, and Verse uniformly opposed located work but that it came only with the extreme liberalism and apostasy associated with instrumental music and missionary societies. Actually, brethren have differed on the located preacher through the years and generally avoided division over it. Apostates favored the idea of a preacher literally being a one-man pastor about 1875-1900 (W.M. Smith, Servants Without Hire, pp. 40-64, gives the history of this transition), and some brethren over reacted by equating the one-man pastor with all “settled,” “stationed,” or “located” preachers. Ironically, a number of those who over reacted themselves advocated the “evangelistic oversight” theory mentioned earlier. From 1900 through the 1950s brethren who opposed such apostasies as instrumental music suffered division at times over the located preacher controversy.

The roots of controversy and over reaction over this issue reach back to the beginning of the restoration efforts in America (and even earlier in Scotland). Alexander Campbell 1788-1866) throughout his life struck needed blows against the presumptions of the priests and other clergymen in Catholicism and denominationalism, but especially during the Christian Baptist years of 1823-30 he went to such an extreme in opposing “the hireling system” as to hinder the just “remuneration of preachers,” as his friend Lard observed (Lard’s Quarterly, Oct. 1866, pp. 377-82). The results were that many preachers suffered want, many churches were stingy, and many charlatans posed as traveling preachers – all of which Campbell tried to solve by helping to organize the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 (Smith, pp. 30-36). He could not see that this step introduced a spirit of liberalism and apostasy which would lead succeeding generations to embrace the pretensions of the one-man pastor system which he detested so much! And, over reaction to such apostasies led to strife and sects centered on the no-located-preacher concept – a division he would have detested!

Philip S. Fall (1798-1890) preached for the church in Nashville, Tennessee during 1826-31 and 1858-77, as did Jesse B. Ferguson (1819-70) during 1846-56. J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) labored full time with the church at Dover, LaFayette Co., Missouri (1853-62), and in Lexington, Kentucky with Main St. (1862-67) and Broadway (1870-82). “When I first returned to Kentucky, in the spring of 1862, there were only seven congregations in the State, I think, that were supporting preachers to labor exclusively in their midst; now I can count twenty-three that are doing so habitually,” McGarvey noted later (Apostolic Times, 19 Nov. 1874, pp. 4-5). As a result of this improvement, churches were growing stronger, he added. Moses E. Lard (1818-80) has been quoted as opposing a located preacher, but he plainly said, “We have not the least objection to a preacher laboring for the same congregation, if need so require, for one year or ten, as the case may be, but we want him to do so simply as preacher and not as pastor” (L.Q. Apr. 1865, pp. 258-59).

M.C. Kurfees (1856-1931) wrote a monumental refutation of apostasy, Instrumental Music In Worship, but he also warned against making a law which says “a preacher may remain at a place three weeks, three months, or three years, and then move to another place” (Gospel Advocate, 6 Feb. 1913, p. 129). For over 45 years, 1886-193 1, he worked with the same church in Louisville, Kentucky. When F. W. Smith (1858-1930) discussed different views on the located preacher in 1917, he agreed that a preacher may “make tents” for a living, but asked, “Should churches permit him to do this while the time spent in making bread could be devoted to saving souls?” (Murfreesboro Addresses, pp. 135-47) As to the “settled ministry or salaried preacher” F.B. Srygley (1859-1940) warned against the idea of preacher as a mere profession or as a “modern pastor,” but added that no one could justly say “a man might not stay two whole years in one city and keep busy all that time trying to save people and teach them to worship God ‘as it is written'” (G.A., 5 June 1930, pp. 539-40).

Dangers, Tendencies, and Results of Opposition

What are the results of dogmatic opposition to the located preacher? (1) It may cause us to reach fewer souls with the gospel. (2) Unworthy and unprincipled men can pose as preachers by constantly moving before brethren learn their true nature. (3) There is the danger of preachers taking unscriptural authority over churches under the theory of “evangelistic oversight.” (4) The “appointment system” of having a different preacher each week of the month often gives the church an unbalanced and superficial diet of teaching. (5) It hinders growth in giving upon the first day of the week for the support of gospel preaching. Rather than learning to sacrifice for the Lord’s work, Christians feel justified in their covetousness since men “will avail themselves of any excuse to retain their money” rather than part with it even in the Lord’s work (L. Q., Oct. 1866, pp. 377-82).

(6) The spirit of binding where God did not bind may grow stronger if cultivated. There has been a tendency for the no-located-preacher idea to be clustered with other extreme views and tangents, such as the doctrines of one-cup, no Bible class, no women teaching classes of women or children, and no Bible study literature.

(7) The agenda of no located preacher and a few related items are often stressed while many great truths of the gospel are ignored. Where such traditions reigns, brethren and churches are judged “sound” on the basis of the limited agenda in spite of personal ungodliness or liberalism and apostasy in the church (Matt. 23:23; Mk. 7:9).

(8) The swinging pendulum syndrome can be seen in the no-located-preacher movement. History teaches us that a factional spirit causes friction, alienation, disruption, and division among brethren. As the circle of fellowship is drawn smaller and smaller, some brethren become so isolated and disillusioned that an opposite reaction sets in. Now the pendulum swings in the opposite direction and people draw the circle of fellowship wider and wider. It is hard to stop the pendulum at the medium of truth.

In opposing the liberalism of 1875-1900, Daniel Sommer (1850-1940) also opposed located preachers, thus causing friction among brethren in the early 1900s. But then he stood with several friends in publishing “The Rough Draft: Can’t We Agree on Something?” – a plea for located preachers, “mutual edification,” and similar matters to be settled as expediencies by each church (21 June 1932, American Christian Review). Sommer’s peace effort came too late for son D. Austin and protege W. Carl Ketcherside, who with Leroy Garrett continued holding debates and dividing churches over the issue well into the 1950s. (The best debate is the Humble-Garrett Debate of 1954.) But after that, Ketcherside and Garrett led a new unity movement now embracing Catholicism, denominationalism, and modernism. In debating the located preacher issue at Beech Creek near Meador, West Virginia (22-26 July 1985), my opponent argued that “gospel preaching, as done by Timothy,” passed away with miraculous gifts and cannot be done either by locating or traveling today. Such extreme views isolate brethren from all who use evangelists in any way, which can prepare the pendulum to swing over to a radical ecumenical position.

Three things are needed. Let every Christian diligently spread the gospel of Christ (Acts 8:3-4). Some men must be fully devoted to preaching the word and churches willing to support them, that we may increase the harvest of souls (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Cor. 9:14). Brethren and churches should never be divided over the use of authorized expedients in evangelism, but should show mutual love and respect while each church tries its best to sound out the word of the Lord. (1 Thess. 1:8).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 16-18
January 2, 1986

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