by Jim Deason
Synopsis: The theme section of the January issue of Truth Magazine offers several reviews and personal reflections on the 2017 Exploring Current Issues Conference (ECIC). This is a private Bible study hosted by Jim Deason that has been conducted in Cullman, AL since 2011. This year's study focused upon the similarities and differences between institutional and non-institutional churches of Christ. Such discussions can be very beneficial, and brother's Deason and Tidwell are to be commended for the spirit that prevailed during this three-day conference.
For readers of Truth Magazine, and especially for the readers of this theme section on "Reviewing the 2017 ECIC," some background and explanation is in order. The Exploring Current Issues Conference (ECIC) is simply a Bible study which began in 2011. It is conducted each year on the first Monday and Tuesday of October in Cullman, AL. An invitation-only study, the participants consist usually of 30-40 preachers from across the country. The attendance is limited solely to preserve the ability to promote meaningful discussion between all present. This is not a work of any local church. The little funding necessary to conduct the study is provided by individuals who are passionate about the detailed study of Scripture and issues that are currently relevant.
As the name of the conference implies, the goal of the study is to Explore Current Issues in an in-depth manner. In past studies, this has been done through a series of six lectures on specific aspects of an issue with each lecture followed by a round-table discussion (Q-n-A) conducted by the lecturer. Prior studies have included: Realized Eschatology (2011), Institutionalism (2012), Tradition vs. Traditionalism, A Study of the House Church Movement (2013), The Holy Spirit (2014), Social Drinking (2015), and Calvinism (2016). The outlines of each of the speeches in these studies, except for the study on Institutionalism (2012), are preserved online and available for free download at www.eciconference.com.
The prepared manuscripts for the first study on Institutionalism are preserved in book form, The Simple Pattern: A Straight-Forward Explanation of Institutionalism and Related Issues, and is available at www.ceibooks.com, your favorite bookstore, or on Amazon. A Kindle version is also available. The manuscripts for the 2017 ECIC, the conference under review in this theme section, are also preserved in book form entitled, Pursuing the Pattern: A Careful Examination of New Testament Practices. This book is available from the sources mentioned above. (Editor's note: For purchase information, click here and here.)
I want the reader to understand that when I use the term "institutional" in what is to follow, I am by no means using this term in any pejorative sense. I am merely trying to identify, in a way understandable to all, a group of brethren who hold to a particular view or set of views which have caused disruption and division in local churches sense the 1950s. While I would love to be able to avoid labels of any sort, I do not know how to do it. I ask that no one take offense by my use of this term in the same way that I take no offense when called "non-institutional."
Someone may curiously ask, "How can the institutionalism question, a question that has been around for well over 50 years, still be considered a current issue?" I believe the high interest shown regarding this discussion is sufficient to answer that question.
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, a group of non-institutional preachers was invited by Greg Tidwell, editor of the Gospel Advocate, to his office in Nashville, TN. Greg's purpose in that meeting was to have an open discussion about the present state of affairs among churches of Christ and to explore the things that institutional and non-institutional brethren might have in common. I was pleased to be among those invited. It was an informal meeting with candid discussion, yet good spirits prevailed among all.
For me personally, one of the more interesting things to come out of this meeting was a better knowledge of the current state of affairs among institutional churches. We were informed that the mainline body of institutional churches (roughly those who may be influenced by the Gospel Advocate, Freed-Hardeman University, etc.) had lost a third of their churches and (because of demographics) half of their membership to those considered progressive. The term progressive is used here to refer to those who accept the new hermeneutic, advocate the use of instrumental music in worship, and call for an expanded role for women in public worship. I knew that institutional churches were having trouble with these issues, but I had no idea that it was as extensive as reported. In fact, there are other institutional preachers that are saying that the situation is far worse. Further still, that defection continues with each passing day.
Many if not most non-institutional churches, particularly in larger communities, have been affected by this rift within institutional ranks. Some older Christians among them, remembering the preaching of their fore-fathers, have sought refuge in non-institutional churches.
Brother Tidwell told us that, contrary to the days of B. C. Goodpasture, the pages of the Gospel Advocate are no longer closed to non-institutional writers. In fact, he has already printed some articles from the pen of non-institutional authors. He would like to see some level of fellowship restored between us.
In the course of that meeting, the suggestion was made to meet again for the purpose of discussing the specific issues that have prevented fellowship between the two groups of brethren. Borne out of that meeting was the idea that I would use the 2017 ECIC for just such a discussion.
When I proposed to use my study for this discussion, brother Tidwell was quickly on board. I asked the following men to speak from a non-institutional perspective: Steve Wolfgang, Doy Moyer, Kyle Pope, Buddy Payne, Donnie Rader, Allen Dvorak, and David Diestelkamp. The final slate of speakers from the institutional perspective, assembled by Greg Tidwell, included Greg himself, Doug Burleson, Glenn Ramsey, Randy Duke, Chad Ramsey, Donnie DeBord, and Matthew Morine. There were two speakers on each issue followed by a discussion period which I moderated. It should be noted that no speaker in this study represented anyone other than himself. No one claimed to represent any local church or group of local churches. No one represented any human organization. The views expressed represented the view of the speaker himself, and no other.
I have been asked, more than once, what I wanted to accomplish by this discussion. My best answer is simply to say that I wanted to open lines of communication. I labored under no delusions of grandeur, thinking that this discussion would heal a breech that has been ongoing for more than 50 years. However, when a relationship is ruptured, the first thing to go is communication and no relationship can be mended without it.
I say this in the introduction to Pursuing the Pattern:
"Optimistically, I share the aspirations of both James W. Adams and Reuel Lemmons. In introducing a similar meeting conducted in 1968, they wrote idealistically, 'It was rather hoped that this meeting would lead to others of like nature as well as public meetings throughout the world and that thereby, step by step, Christian by Christian, and congregation by congregation, a fractured brotherhood might be mended and that once again there might be a single body of happy, militant people united on the solid foundation of Divine truth and vitally knit together by a mutual love and a common faith and practice' (The Arlington Meeting, Guardian of Truth Foundation, 6)."
Adams and Lemmons would both be happy, I am sure, to know that several other communication efforts have taken place, some public (e.g. The Nashville Meeting, 1988) and many private. But their dream of "a single body of happy, militant people united" has not happened, and realistically it will not happen "until there is a common understanding among us of what the Bible teaches on these subjects" (Ibid, 13).
So, over the course of three days, we talked. We talked about: (1) Who and Where We Are; (2) Bible Authority; (3) Church Government and Cooperation; (4) Church Support of Human Institutions; (5) The Scope of Church Benevolence; (6) The Church and Social Activities; and, (7) The Question of Fellowship.
Others are probably more objective than I am as they evaluate this discussion. Still, here are a few thoughts I have to offer:
1. I wouldn't want anyone to think of the ECIC as anything more than what it was — a Bible study devoted to discussing issues of difference between two groups of men. My hope and prayer was and is that one day these issues can be fully resolved and that all brethren can come to one mind regarding the truth on these matters. Though the question of fellowship was discussed (how could it be avoided?), this was not a unity meeting! I appreciate brother Tidwell and everyone involved in this discussion for their thoughtfulness and kind way in which we could candidly discuss these issues.
2. I believe Greg Tidwell to be a conscientious man who loves the Lord and sincerely desires unity. He has taken a significant step by opening up the pages of the Gospel Advocate to non-institutional writers. Although he has mentioned it, neither he nor Randy Duke (present owner of the Advocate) are ready to print a discussion within the Advocate on the issues that divide us. Little progress can be made unless and until that takes place—but that is just step one. For this breech to be healed, the dialogue must continue in public forums so that all can read/listen/evaluate.
3. All the institutional men who attended this conference absolutely reject instrumental music in worship and women in the pulpit. They have commendably called for a separation of fellowship from those who practice such. These men sought to persuade us that they are committed to establishing Bible authority through command, example, and necessary inference—and hold to the idea that silence is prohibitive—and that this should be the basis of a restored fellowship with us. In my judgment, this sounds better than it really is because there is a matter of inconsistency in their application. The scriptures are silent on both instrumental music and church-supported benevolent homes (which these men hold to be authorized). If we all truly hold that the silence of Scriptures is prohibitive, then both of these practices must be rejected. If not, why not?
4. Generally speaking, institutionally minded people believe the matters of difference between us to be matters of judgment, not matters of right versus wrong. This is the reason that, in their minds, they can extend the right hand of fellowship to their non-institutional brethren. From their standpoint, the only wrong we commit in these matters is binding where God has not bound. Our institutional brethren are often shocked and offended that we believe these issues are matters of faith and involve sin that requires repentance. Our institutional brethren do not seem to understand that we view them in exactly the same way they view the progressives.
5. There seemed to be very little willingness on the part of the institutional men present to be willing to give up practices that they admit to be matters of judgment for the sake of unity. A case in point is the matter of church kitchens and fellowship halls. When it was pointed out that most non-institutional churches have individually-based social gatherings which eliminated the "need" for church funded fellowship halls, it seemed to have little impact. So, to most of these men unity was important, but not important enough to give up their kitchens.
6. I found it informative that attitudes toward institutions have, or at least, may be changing among these brethren. For a variety of reasons, many churches labeled as institutional either no longer fund institutions such as benevolent homes or colleges or fund them at a very low level. Many simply do not like the institutions. Still, though funding from church budgets for these institutions may be drying up, the principle itself is defended—it is the attitude toward the institutions themselves that seems to be changing. That attitude itself may help open doors of opportunity to more discussion, especially from community to community.
The number of men who originally fought the battle over institutionalism is growing smaller day by day. A new generation has arisen in both institutional and non-institutional churches. In institutional churches this new generation is totally ignorant of these issues and, for the most part, do not even realize there is a division. Institutional preachers have told me that they do not preach on these issues in their congregations. I view this as an opportunity.
In non-institutional churches there may not be this same widespread ignorance on these subjects but it is becoming increasingly the case that a new generation among us is not being taught. This not only could be a problem, it already is a problem in some churches! It is not enough for Bible teachers to simply declare that institutionalism and its related issues are wrong. We need to be offering clear teaching on the nature of the local church, its work, worship, and organization. In the process, we have not completed our teaching until we show why church-sponsored support of human institutions is wrong. We need to explain why instrumental music is sin. We need to teach why it is wrong to corrupt the work and worship of the local church and expose how some men do. Without this clear and certain teaching, I fear that it won't be long before we will be fighting these same battles over again.
Author Bio: Jim Deason has been preaching for the South Cullman church in Cullman, AL for 11 years and has been serving as one of the elders for much of that time. He and his wife, Paige, have three children. The church website is is southcullmanchurch.com. He can be reached at jhdeason@gmail.com.
