[Biblemat] "Human Institutions, an Unimportant Issue?"

[Don Martin]

            "Human Institutions, An Unimportant Issue?"
                                 By Don Martin


In the forties, fifties, and even into the sixties, churches of Christ
were battling the issue known as "institutionalism."  This issue
pertained, at first, to churches sending monies (from their treasuries) to
various human institutions such as orphanages and homes for widows
and even later, building and maintaining such institutions.  Many verses
were ignored and slaughtered in the process, verses such as
James 1: 27, which clearly show visiting the orphans is an individual
responsibility, not the work of the church, and I Timothy 5 that teaches
the primary responsibility of providing for parents and grandparents
belongs to the children and grandchildren, not the local church
(see addendum 1).  The list of supported institutions soon
grew to include colleges and missionary societies.  If churches
could support and build orphanages, why not colleges, they reasoned.

Some who stood opposed to such institutionalism took the position
that if members wanted to privately support and even build these
institutions, this was their choice and there would be no opposition
offered (addendum 2).  Hence, the view that a human institution such
as a missionary society may preach the gospel, just as long as monies
from churches were not used was fostered and became the
neo-institutionalism among us today.

In my life, there have been two periods, based on my observation
as an amateur historian, in which those who believe in the institution
preaching the gospel system has plainly emerged, in the seventies and
in this century. Some among us say, "Why all the fuss, this is an
non-issue."  I contend that the private support of institutions such as
the Guardian of Truth Foundation to preach the gospel through its
organizational structure and under its board of directors, president and
with its treasury, is a violation of basic Bible authority (see addendum 3).
I say this because as far as organization and entity structure is
concerned, we only read about the local church under its elders and by
its treasury collectively preaching the gospel (cp. Acts 13: 2f.).  Consider
what I believe to be a parallel in logic and Bible authority:

God has stipulated that vocal music be used in praising Him (Eph. 5:
19).  When God has specified, man has no choice if man is to please God
(cp. Heb.7: 14).  God has stipulated that as far as entity function is
concerned, the local church is to preach the gospel (cp. I Tim. 3: 15).
When God has stated what and how the gospel is to be presented, man
has no choice.  To thus build human foundations in and through which
to collectively preach the gospel is a basic violation of Bible authority.
If we can thus effect this violation, why not commit and practice other
violations, disregarding what the scriptures teach in other areas as well?
Some foundation promoters have even told me, "Don, we believe our
foundation can do a better job of preaching the gospel than local churches
are doing!"  These entities, moreover, functioning as aberrant local
churches, have been a perpetual source of politics, cliques, and divisions
among us, saying nothing of the fact that there is no authority for their
existence (performing as local churches).

In one debate that I had on the privately supported missionary society
issue, I asked the following question of my disputant and he honestly
answered it:

"Would it be scripturally allowable for brethren to form a missionary
society, having its president, board of directors and treasury through
which to preach the gospel, support preachers, and send out preachers,
with the proviso that this "Reach the Lost Foundation" (R. T. L. F.) did
not solicit or accept monies from churches (just individuals)?"

'Yes, if it were possible for a missionary society (MS) to function
without interfering with the work of local churches.'"

God has not been silent regarding the collective preaching of the
gospel, He specified the local church with its elders and treasury.
Where, then, is the authority for brethren going outside the local church
structure and creating their own entities to preach the gospel?  I submit
that there is no authority for such.  This private support of human
organizations to preach the gospel and edify the saved is not only
initially a violation of Bible authority, but it has the potential for
seriously belittling and even deprecating the local church and its
work.  Yet, we continue to be told that this matter is of no concern.
Some are even saying that to discuss such is "stupid," "senseless,"
"pointless," "worthless," "faithless,"  and "fruitless."  Consider a
recent statement that appeared in a magazine published by
brethren:

"Not every discussion is profitable - some are stupid and
senseless; pointless and worthless; faithless and fruitless.

Such skirmishes among brethren include...  the right of a secular
institution to furnish an occasion for folks to be taught in the Bible, and
countless others. Matters of individual determination must not be bound or
pressed to the disruption, disturbance, or division of brethren! (John
Isaac Edwards, Back to Basics, January 2007).

Concerned reader, we have observed the progression of liberalism for
decades.  We are now seeing the women's movement among these
"churches of Christ" in which efforts are being exerted to install women as
preachers and elders in churches.  When asked about the authority for
such practices, some of the present generation reply:  "We have no
authority, but neither did our predecessors in the matter of church
supported colleges, hospitals, etc."

How long will it be before we are told regarding some issue that even
the promoters of human organizations to play church believe is wrong,
"We have no authority, but neither did our predecessors in the matter of
privately supported missionary societies to collectively preach the gospel."
I have lived long enough to know even from observation that once one
unscriptural practice is tolerated and defended and those who oppose
it are viewed as trouble-makers who must be silenced, it is just a matter
of time before additional issues are introduced and more vigorously
justified.  The simple fact of the matter is:  We are told how the gospel
is to be collectively preached (I Tim. 3: 15).  To ignore God's
specification and insert our own (human entities to preach the gospel
under the oversight of the organization) is rejecting God's will.  If we
can do this in one area, I, again ask, why not in other areas?
(Col. 3: 17.)

Addendum 1:  There could be areas in which a local church, assuming
the circumstance of children and grandchildren is not present, may
assist a widow by helping to pay a hospital bill, for instance.  However,
churches building human institutions such as homes for the aged and
widows is not tantamount to a church buying a service from a human
institution.

Addendum 2:  There could be an area of judgment that could and
perhaps should allow for individuals privately contributing to and even
building various institutions that are only supported by individuals.
Perhaps Christians see the need for a college that would offer a moral
alternative (usually even this has grown into a local church type
environment, some even of the mentality that the Lord's Supper could be
offered).  However, if they want to establish a college to preach the
gospel and to serve as a church of Christ seminary, such has crossed the
line and become such that is without authority, even if they restrict it to
individuals.

Addendum 3:  This issue is not about individual Christians preaching,
such as was the case in Acts 8: 1f. or even two Christians teaching another
(Acts 18).  Also, this issue is not whether or not a church may purchase
time from a radio station so it, the church, can preach the gospel.  The
solution to the privately supported missionary society problem is not to
have a church with its elders assume the oversight of the human institution
(Herald of Truth arrangement, it is understood that both individuals and
churches send to the Herald of Truth).  The answer to the problem is for
brethren to be satisfied with God's simple arrangement:  The local church
with its oversight and treasury being the means for Christians to
collectively preach the gospel with and in such organizational structure
(I Tim. 3: 15). These entities also foster their own brand of fellowship
and doctrinal compromise among their members.  When asked about
certain board members who are known for teaching certain false
doctrines the standard defense is, "We are not a local church."

Cordially,
Don Martin  dmartinbtbq at comcast.net

Check out our Web sites:  http://www.bibletruths.net
Ask and receive a Bible answer  http://www.biblequestions.org
Simply click on the URL to visit these sites.  You may print out the
material for teaching purposes, see the copyright provision on the home page
of Bible Truths.