by Ron Halbrook
Synopsis: In offering historical reflections on the Burleson-Pope exchanges, Ron asks, "What shall we do?"
It is famously good and pleasant "for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps. 133:1), but what shall we do when there are fissures and fractures among us? Like divorce, division is neither good nor pleasant. In fact, it is sinful, violating the express will of Jesus Christ (John 17:17-21; 1 Cor. 1:10). When divorce or division occurs, the conduct of either one or both parties causes it. Resolution and reconciliation require removing the cause.
It is tragic that changes among churches of Christ since the 1950s have resulted in division. People who once worked and worshiped together as brethren in Christ, and who shared similar backgrounds, gradually followed different pathways regarding the complex of issues identified by such terms as non-cooperation/anti/conservative versus cooperation/institutional/liberal. The breach has widened over the years as changes and innovations have multiplied.
I grew up in a congregation that was gradually slipping into institutionalism, and at first, we all considered it as progress. I was born in 1946 and remember well the events of the late 1950s-60s among God's people. We read such institutional papers as the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation and faithfully listened to the Herald of Truth (a radio program financed by the sponsoring church arrangement—many churches donating money to a large church in Abilene, TX which in turn donated funds to the Herald of Truth). I was baptized at a "church camp" and made my first talk there. I have bound volumes of the Gospel Advocate dating to 1913 and copies of the Firm Foundation dating to the 1940s. I still take the Gospel Advocate and am conversant with a wide range of other publications all across the spectrum (Wineskins to Christian Chronicle to The Spiritual Sword to Contending for the Faith, etc.).
G.C. Brewer baptized my father during a gospel meeting that was conducted by N.B. Hardeman, one of the founders of Freed-Hardman University. I knew such men as B.C. Goodpasture (attended his funeral) and Guy N. Woods (used to visit him in his Gospel Advocate editorial office, have autographed copies of his books). Many readers no longer recognize these names of well-known leaders and defenders of the institutional movement.
Many years ago I made a patient, tedious, longterm study of this complex of issues by reading everything I could find on both sides, by attending debates, and by listening to competent men preach from opposing viewpoints. It is necessary for one to look beyond emotional appeals, anger, zealots, intemperate outbursts, rash words, personality clashes, and other factors that may have been evidenced on either side at times. Substantial differences that ultimately produced the division must be examined in the light of Scripture.
My conclusion was that there is no Bible authority for the following practices commonly accepted among institutional churches:
No one has to explain to me the emotional barriers which must be overcome to study these issues objectively. I have been through the fires of family and friendship ties and pressures, the trials and tears, the alienation and stigma. I decided none of those things compares to what Jesus endured in providing the way of salvation, and none of those things matters in the light of eternity. I simply want to know and do what is right in the sight of God, as revealed in His word. If I am wrong now, I still want to learn the difference and stand for the truth, as revealed in God's word.
Therefore, I am thankful that brethren Doug Burleson and Kyle Pope have given all of us another opportunity to study the institutional issues. I commend Doug and Kyle for manifesting a good spirit and effectively representing their respective positions in their written exchanges published jointly in the October issues of the Gospel Advocate and Truth Magazine and also in their oral exchange at Dickson, TN, on November 15, 2019. Doug defended the institutional programs and practices as authorized expedients while Kyle denied that Christ authorized such things in the New Testament.
The history of Israel included the development of fissures and fractures. On numerous occasions, discontented individuals caused rumblings which disturbed the unity of God's people, but which were resolved (Num. 6; Josh. 22:10-34; Judg. 19-21). A significant fracture occurred when Jeroboam took liberties with the Law of Moses under the claim that certain changes would make the organization and worship more efficient and effective (1 Kings 12:25-33). He regarded these changes as authorized expediencies and not steps of apostasy. In reality, none of the practices that he introduced was authorized by God's word. The result was the formation of Israel as a separate state from Judah. As time passed, more and more "expediencies" were added, and the breach widened.
What was the solution to this division? The answer was to return with heartfelt sincerity to God's original pattern of truth and remove the causes of division. Careful analysis of each change that Jeroboam introduced would show the Law of Moses authorized none of them—all were departures from it. God's people in every age should heed Jeremiah's plea: "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein" (Jer. 6:16).
The New Testament is replete with warnings about the dangers of departing from the original teaching of Christ revealed through His apostles (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Jude 3). Fissures appeared as a result of differing judgments and scruples of conscience, which did not actually violate the teaching of Christ. Division was averted so long as brethren did not press these matters as binding on the whole church (Rom. 14). The potential for open division was met with pointed controversy when men attempted to bind circumcision as essential to salvation, or denied the resurrection, or claimed that sin did not impede fellowship with God (Acts 15:1-35; 1 Cor. 15; 1 John). Regardless of the rationale, such concepts and practices were not authorized by Christ.
Ultimately, there were cases where division could not be avoided in the first century. Paul wrote, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval" (1 Cor. 11:19, NIV). John said, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19, NIV). Oil and water do not mix.
Incremental steps viewed as authorized expediencies after the first century resulted in changes in doctrine, organization, and worship. One elder in an eldership was elevated to the status of "presiding bishop." This office was elevated to the status of "the bishop" exclusive of the other men serving with him as elders. The bishop in big-city churches exercised authority over several churches in a region and later became "archbishop." This trend toward centralization culminated in Boniface III proclaiming himself as the bishop of the universal church in AD 606.
Having a pope was too much "progress" for some brethren, but the trajectory moved on with more changes to come. Professed Christians embracing and rejecting these changes separated.
Was there no solution? The only real solution was to examine each change in the light of Scripture and to discard doctrines and practices not authorized in order to return to the original faith and practice as revealed in the New Testament. God preserved the Bible as the standard of truth to which all men must be called again and again (2 Pet. 1:12-15; 3:1-2).
The corruptions of Catholicism finally produced a reaction called the Protestant Reformation, during which men abandoned the control of Catholic institutions and doctrines, only to formulate their own doctrines and institutions. Subsequent disappointment with denominationalism provoked men to search for the original faith and practice of the New Testament era. This restoration movement spread rapidly during the mid-1700s through the 1800s.
As happened after the first century, so it happened in the second and third generations of saints in the restoration movement, especially during 1875-1925. Incremental changes in the name of expediency led to changes in the organization, worship, and work of churches. Human institutions were formed to centralize the work of the churches in evangelism, edification, and benevolence. Churches engaged in all sorts of social welfare programs and recreational activities. Instrumental music, choirs, solos, and entertainment invaded the worship. As oil and water do not mix, division was inevitable. Most of the digressive churches took the name Christian Church.
Was there no solution at hand? Yes, the answer was to examine each of these practices in the light of Scripture, discard what Christ did not authorize, and return to the New Testament pattern of faith and practice. Many of the churches became so "progressive," they embraced a plethora of denominational practices. They accepted denominational baptism, used religious titles, observed "holy days," exchanged pulpits with denominational preachers, and cooperated with denominational groups in social welfare and recreational activities. Some embraced modernism, denying the miracles of the Bible, its verbal inspiration, and the pattern nature of truth. J.H. Garrison edited a collection of more conservative sermons under the title, The Old Faith Restated (published in 1891), but to no avail. In 1927, this more conservative element formed the North American Christian Convention (which was replaced by the Spire Conference in 2019), but the liberal progressives paid no attention to these "reactionaries."
The old guard who still considered the Bible to be the inspired standard of truth at times reached out to the "anti's" or "non-progressives" in the hope of forging a united front against the "progressives." Yet, there could be no healing of the division without giving up the initial innovations which caused the division. In 1939 at a "unity meeting" in Indianapolis, IN, H. Leo Boles reminded the participants that division was caused by centralizing the work of churches through missionary societies and by adding musical instruments to the worship. He insisted that "each one lay aside all opinions, ways, inventions, devices, practices, organizations, creeds, confessions, names, manner of work, except those plainly presented and clearly required in the New Testament." These unity meetings ultimately failed, and the progressives continued to "wax worse and worse" as the old guard faded away (2 Tim. 3:13).
A couple of generations after the division of the 1950s-60s, men who had been educated in institutional churches, camps, and colleges began to advocate all sorts of denominational practices. The old guard is rightly alarmed about where the progressives are headed. Is there no way to heal the division over institutionalism and make common cause in opposing this headlong stampede into denominationalism, modernism, and post-modernism? Yes, we need to earnestly, honestly, sincerely re-examine every practice which separates us, abandon those that are without Bible authority, and unite in returning to the New Testament pattern of faith and practice.
Thank you, Doug and Kyle, for urging brethren to search the Scriptures, like the noble Bereans in Acts 17:11, in order to test all things. I fervently pray discussions occurring among divided brethren in recent years will result in a renewed determination to restore the original teaching of Christ as the final and absolute authority in all things that we preach and practice. This is the road to unity which we preach to our denominational friends and that we must apply among ourselves. Let us never lose confidence that God's word is the solution to all fissures and fractures among His people.
Author Bio: Ron and David Dann serve together as evangelists for the Hebron Lane church of Christ in Shepherdsville, KY. Ron began his work with the church in 1997. In addition to the local work, Ron makes four trips to the Philippines each year and does meeting work here in the U.S. The church website is hebronlane.com. He can be reached at halbrook@twc.com.
