by Doug Burleson
Synopsis: The third article expands the discussion to consider institutions, as Doug examines whether different conclusions regarding church support of institutions justify division.
To a certain extent every Christian is an "institutionalist." Scripture affirms that God ordained three institutions: the home (Gen. 2:18-24), the government (Rom. 13:1-7), and the church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:37-47). In his first article, Kyle correctly noted this distinction when he appealed to the examples of Christian widows being supported by their families and in some situations the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16). This example also highlights the fact that these institutions not only co-exist, but also overlap in their work at times. When appealing to 1 Timothy 5, one must note that there are responsibilities given to families if certain criteria apply and other responsibilities given to congregations (as a form of spiritual kinship) if different conditions exist. Congregations could provide daily care if the widow was over 60, had been the wife of one husband, had no family to provide for her, and had been faithful to the Lord in her service. Unless these conditions were met it would have been the responsibility of families to care for her, not the local body. Those in the home have the primary responsibility to care for members of the family (1 Tim. 5:8), but the government (1 Pet. 2:14) and church (Acts 6:1-7) can also act benevolently.
In my first article I introduced the historical and theological contexts in which benevolence is discussed in Scripture. While no post-Enlightenment distinctions are maintained between groups and individuals, there is a trajectory that shows God's benevolent concern not only for His people, but for all people. Kyle correctly noted that appeals to "emotion" in this discussion have not always been avoided, yet it's difficult to avoid when one is told that he or she as a member of the body cannot minister to others in the same manner that the Head of the body ministered to others.
It should be noted that every New Testament epistle was written to congregations, with the exception of four and even those had implications for the body of Christ. The church of God's intent reflected God's benevolent outreach towards their own members and those outside the flock as well. In 2 Corinthians 9:12-13 Paul indicated that the Christians in Jerusalem used the funds that other Christians shared with them not only to supply "the needs of the saints," but also would lead to others praising God for their liberal giving and the ways that the contribution was shared with the Christians and "to all." These Christians reflected the indescribable gift of God in the way they shared with others (v. 15)! Chad Ramsey has correctly pointed out that these prepositional phrases (eis pantas, epi pantas) are used elsewhere in the New Testament to include "all" who heard a particular report or participated in a certain activity (Acts 5:11; 1 Thess. 3:12; 5:15).1
The oft-cited examples of Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 should also be considered when discussing the scope of Christian benevolence. As introduced in my first article, the claim that only individual Christian responsibility is in Paul's mind in Galatians 6:10 or in James' mind in James 1:27 cannot be supported by the full or immediate context of either epistle. The language, structure, and context do not lead one to make this distinction between individuals and congregations clear. While congregations might choose to "do benevolence" differently in their autonomous function, no congregation can neglect the widows, orphans, or suffering in their communities on the basis of these passages. Personally if members of a particular congregation choose to do this individually rather than from the "church treasury" that is their decision to make, but to call sharing in the benevolent work of aiding both Christians and non-Christians from the "treasury" unauthorized cannot be substantiated from the text of Scripture. The trajectory of God's care, Christ's example, and the above-mentioned passages all point to the problem of opposing congregational aid to non-Christians.
Historically there are reasons to be concerned about the nature and direction of educational institutions associated with the churches of Christ. Putting the question of financial support aside, one can observe that many educational institutions associated with the churches of Christ are not teaching what they once did. A careful study of the Restoration Movement will easily show a sad trajectory that many have taken in the name of "Christian education." But many readers would point to either Florida College or Freed-Hardeman University as examples of where we believe the truth is taught (depending on their perspectives on the discussion at hand) and where young people can benefit from being academically prepared. Thus, the primary question is not whether these institutions should exist, but should they financially be supported out of the church treasury. Despite Wallace's claim years ago, Christian educational institutions have not been hired out to do the work of the church, but rather to give opportunity to individual Christians to study and advance in knowledge in a setting where God's Word will be respected and studies can happen in a God-honoring setting.2
I respect the autonomy of the local congregation under the oversight of an eldership (Acts 11:30; Titus 1:7). This was and is God's plan for the organization of the local congregation. There is no authority in Scripture for anyone outside a local congregation to presume authority over that congregation. The American Christian Missionary Society played a divisive role in the history of the American Restoration Movement. Particularly during the Civil War, they held meetings of representatives who in turn sought to control somewhat the autonomous congregations they represented. No so-called "Christian university" controls the church or any congregation for that matter. Congregations can choose to support a school or not, but the "institution" has no say in what the local congregation does under the oversight of a local eldership. I have attended schools associated with the churches of Christ since I was a child and know firsthand that these "institutions" do not control the church and congregations do not control the "institutions."
If my non-institutional brethren want to support Florida College they can easily do so. A representative from the College will speak at the congregation, perhaps then inviting members who are interested in supporting the work of that institution to a home or restaurant where more details will be shared. The members can then choose whether or not they want individually to support the school. What if those same members decided to pool their resources and send one check? How many individual Christians would constitute congregational support? Would it require payment being rendered by means of a check with the name of a congregation on it? Would it require that a decision be made by the local eldership (the same eldership that likely invited the speaker in the first place) to support that work? That congregation can pay the preacher and other members to attend the Florida College Lectures, yet cannot support the College out of its treasury. Much of the discussion on this question has been tied to where the funds were collected, how they were gathered, or how the money was exchanged. While some effort has been made through the years to carefully distinguish between what constitutes individual support versus congregational support, these lines (as presented by advocates of both sides of the issue) have been fluid at best. In short the passages that speak to the usage of church funds by local congregations do not disqualify support being given to sound organizations that the church leaders believe to be doing God-honoring work (Acts 11:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 9:11, 14; 2 Cor. 8:4, 8; 11:7-8; Phil. 4:15, 18; 1 Tim. 5:17-18). Does a congregation have to support an educational or benevolent institution out of the treasury? Of course not, but this is not forbidden in Scripture and should not be forbidden by the Lord's people either. While there are other things that could be said along these lines I would again ask if these questions are significant enough to divide the Lord's body?
1 Chad Ramsey, "The Scope of God's Benevolence." Pages 131-46 in Pursuing the Pattern: A Careful Examination of New Testament Practices (Ed. Jim Deason. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017).
2 Pages 241-58 in Wallace-Ketcherside Debate (Longview, WA: Telegram Printing Company, 1953).
Author Bio: Doug serves as an Associate Professor in Bible at Freed-Hardeman University where he also is the Assistant Dean of the College of Biblical Studies. He labors with the Estes Church of Christ in Henderson, TN. The church website is esteschurch.org. He can be reached at dburleson@fhu.edu.
