by David Dann
Synopsis: Differing approaches to establishing and applying scriptural authority lie at the root of divisions that exist among contemporary disciples regarding the collective work of the local church.
The apostle Paul instructed Timothy, "Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1:13, NKJV). While many agree in principle that the New Testament pattern must be adhered to and respected, what does this mean in terms of what is actually practiced?
For the past several decades, churches of Christ have experienced divisions due to problems pertaining to the pattern. Some believe the New Testament authorizes each local church to use its collective funds and resources to support colleges and other humanly-devised institutions, to form sponsoring church arrangements that pool and centralize the efforts of several congregations, and to relieve the financial needs of those who are not Christians. Others object to the local church being involved in these kinds of endeavors on the basis that there is no scriptural authority for it to do so.
To explore these differences, a public discussion was held at the Freed-Hardeman University Renaissance Center in Dickson, TN on November 15, 2019, between Kyle Pope and Doug Burleson. This discussion followed a written exchange between these two men that was published in both Truth Magazine and the Gospel Advocate in October 2019. During the public discussion, both men displayed a commendable demeanor and courteous disposition toward each other even while engaged in a very serious dialogue involving matters of intense disagreement.
The critical point of disagreement concerns the following question: How do the Scriptures authorize the local church to use its funds and carry out its work? Doug Burleson affirmed that the local church is authorized to fund human institutions, to form sponsoring church arrangements, and provide financial support to those who are not Christians on the basis that these activities fall under the umbrella of expediency. Kyle Pope, on the other hand, denied that the local church is authorized to engage in these activities on the basis that they are additions to the pattern revealed in Scripture. This discussion highlighted some essential differences that we would do well to consider.
Hermeneutics is defined as: "(1) the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures; (2) the branch of theology that deals with the principles of biblical exegesis" (dictionary.com/browse/hermeneutics). Like all other communication, the Scriptures must be interpreted based on that which is clearly stated, correctly exemplified, and implied. As the apostle Paul puts it, "The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you" (Phil. 4:9).
In the public discussion of these issues, both men agreed in principle to employ the same hermeneutical approach in determining what the Scriptures authorize for the local church. Both men affirmed at the outset of the discussion that the New Testament teaches what is authorized by means of commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.
Yet, while both men affirmed the same hermeneutical approach, Doug Burleson's approach underwent a clear hermeneutical shift as the discussion progressed. Unable to find authority for the local church to engage in providing financial relief to non-saints by means of scriptural command, example, or inference, Doug began to fall back on vague and general concepts such as "context," "what Jesus did during His earthly ministry," and the benevolent character of God toward the world. The problem with this approach is that, in every instance of collective church benevolence in the New Testament, what is expressly authorized is for the local church to use its collective funds to relieve needy saints (cf. Acts 6:1-7; Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).
We cannot appeal to vague principles and generic instruction when specifics have already been prescribed. When God specifically commanded Moses to make the ark of the covenant out of acacia wood, he was not free to use a different type of wood simply because, in the broad context of woodworking, other kinds are often used (cf. Exod. 25:10). When the New Testament specifically authorizes singing in worship (cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), we cannot argue that, in the broader context of music, singing is only one kind of music and, therefore, other kinds may be employed in worship. Unauthorized substitutions and additions result from taking a generic approach when God's word has already specified that which is authorized. Unauthorized practices and unnecessary division are sure to follow when brethren treat as generic that which God has already made specific.
Does an appeal to the character of God broaden the scope of the work in which the local church is authorized to engage? In an effort to find justification for the church using its collective funds to relieve the physical needs of those who are not members of the Lord's body, Doug argued that the local church should feel free to use its funds in this manner since (1) God is benevolent toward those who are not Christians, and (2) Jesus was benevolent toward those of the world during His earthly ministry.
Nevertheless, such broad and sweeping arguments can be misleading in that an argument that proves too much actually proves nothing. While we should always imitate the examples set by the Father and the Son (cf. Eph. 5:1; 1 Pet. 2:21), we must also respect the specific instructions given by God that pertain to specific circumstances. As Kyle pointed out, on the basis that God was benevolent to the Canaanites in sending them rain and fruitful seasons, one could argue that the Israelites were also authorized to exercise benevolence toward those nations. Nevertheless, this approach ignores God's specific instruction, which directly commanded the Israelites, "You shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them" (Deut. 7:2). One may argue that, since Jesus was benevolent toward all kinds of people during His earthly ministry, He would surely approve of the church using its collective funds to provide for any widow who is a member of the church. Yet, the specific word of the Lord through the apostle Paul limits the use of those funds to the relief of only certain destitute widows in the church whose lives conform to a very specific set of criteria (1 Tim. 5:3-11).
On the other hand, the argument that the church can do whatever seems consistent with God's character could be misused by those who would like for the church to put sinners to death since that is what God did to Ananias and Sapphira (cf. Acts 5:1-11). While those who argue that "the church is able to do whatever God or Jesus would do" seek to limit the application of their argument to only certain activities, in reality, the argument is so broad and sweeping that it cannot be so limited.
We cannot appeal to God's character for authorization while ignoring God's instruction. The only way to know what God has authorized is to apply the instruction that He has given. In the first place, the benevolent character of God and the acts of Jesus during His ministry are not the pattern for the work of the local church. The New Testament does not merely say, "Look at the benevolent character of God and the earthly works of Jesus, and then decide what you think the church should do on that basis." Instead, the apostle Paul writes, "Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern" (Phil. 3:17). Again, the same inspired apostle writes, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). If the word of the Lord does not authorize our practice, then we need to change our practice so that it conforms to His will. We cannot fall back on broad, sweeping generalizations to determine what is authorized for the local church when specific instruction has already been prescribed.
Does the New Testament make a distinction between the collective actions of the church as a body and the individual action of its members? Much of the disagreement that manifested itself in the public discussion between Kyle Pope and Doug Burleson centered on the issue of what God has authorized for individual Christians as opposed to what He has authorized the church as a collective body to do. If an individual member of the church takes his own funds and donates them to a college, or uses them to provide financial relief to a neighbor who is not a Christian, is that the equivalent of the church engaging in the same activities?
During the public discussion, Doug asked how an individual Christian donating to Florida College is any different from a local church doing so. Kyle pointed out that when Ananias gave of the proceeds of the sale of his land to be used collectively by the church, the apostle Peter stated, "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" (Acts 5:4). The funds were under the control of Ananias as an individual member of the church until he gave them to be used collectively by the church, at which point they were no longer his to use as he wished. When a disciple gives his money to the collection taken by the local church on Sunday, he is not then free to go and retrieve a portion of that money from the bank where it was deposited on Monday. The New Testament makes a clear distinction between the property, actions, and responsibilities of individual Christians and the collective property, actions, and responsibilities of the local church.
We cannot burden the church with responsibilities assigned to individual members. For example, the Bible says, "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph. 5:28). Kyle pointed out that the church can teach a man how to be a good husband to his wife, but the church cannot be a husband to that man's wife.
The distinction between the responsibilities of the individual member and the responsibilities of the church as a collective body is also clearly seen in Paul's instructions concerning the care of widows. Paul writes, "If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows" (1 Tim. 5:16).
There are certain obligations placed upon an individual Christian (which he must use his own funds to fulfill) that are different from what has been assigned to the local church as a collective responsibility. As Kyle correctly stated toward the end of the discussion, the distinctions made in Scripture concerning collective and individual action will have to be correctly understood and applied in order for him and Doug to be united. The bottom line is that no man has the right to burden the local church by bearing a responsibility that Scripture has instead assigned to the individual member.
Even after the discussion that took place in Dickson, Tennessee, problems pertaining to the pattern revealed in Scripture persist. Further discussion accompanied by open Bibles and open hearts is what is needed to unite brethren upon the truth of God. Only by holding fast the pattern of sound words can we have the assurance that we are pleasing to God.
Author Bio: David has been working with the Hebron Lane church of Christ in Shepherdsville, KY since 2016. He and his wife, Cynthia, have been blessed with six children. The church website is hebronlane.com. He can be reached at ddann1@hotmail.com.
