By Mike Willis
Human institutions. have been a focus of conflict between the groups of brethren represented here today. The conflict first began in the latter part of the nineteenth century when churches began supporting the American Christian Missionary Society from their treasury. Those who rejected church support of missionary societies later had conflict among themselves, beginning with G.C. Brewer’s call in 1938 for church support of colleges. As brethren opposed the church support of colleges, they argued from consistency that church support of orphan homes and colleges stands or falls together. Some brethren believed they stood together; others believed they fell together. I belong to the latter group and am delighted to be here to give an answer concerning the faith which I hold. Hopefully, my answer will be in the spirit of meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15). I hope to avoid self-righteousness, and demonstrate humility. I hope you will be kind enough not to maliciously judge my motive. I am humbled by the knowledge that I stand before God and will be judged for what I say here.
I stand opposed to churches building and maintaining human institutions because they constitute a denial of the allsufficiency of the church. What is the all-sufficiency of the church?
The All-Sufficiency of the Church
The church which Jesus built is a perfect institution, capable of accomplishing the purposes for which God built it. When men began to doubt the all-sufficiency of the church to do the work which God intended the church to do, they began to build human institutions to expedite the church’s doing that work. None of these human institutions designed to “aid” the church in doing its work would ever have been built had men not first lost confidence in the local church to accomplish the mission which God gave it to accomplish. We need to be reminded of the all-sufficiency of the local church.
1. The church was conceived in the mind of a perfect God. Paul stated that the church is a part of “the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3: 10-11). It was “purposed” or “planned” by a divine architect.
2. The church has a perfect blueprint. Like Moses of old, we are admonished to “build all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5).(1)
3. The church has a perfect builder (Matt. 16.18). Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” The church is the product of a divine architect, a perfect blueprint and a perfect builder. The church is as perfect as a perfect God could make it. The local church which is fashioned after the pattern of the New Testament is exactly what God designed to accomplish his work.
4. Perfect preparations were made for the church to be established. Prior to the establishment of the church, the God of heaven prepared for the coming of the kingdom. When Jesus came, he announced, “The time is fulfilled, and the, kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk. 1:14).
5. Perfect provisions were made to bring the church into existence. Miraculous powers were manifested on Pentecost that it might be established (Acts 2).
6. A perfect head exercises authority over the church. Jesus is the head of his body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). The head of the church is not some imperfect man; the head of the church is the perfect Lord.
7. A perfect law has been given to govern the church. The law of the kingdom is the word of God (Jas. 1:25; cf. Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is the “perfect law of liberty,” the faith “once delivered to the saints,” which is sufficient to “throughly furnish us unto every good work.”
8. The church has been given a perfect minion. The mission which God gave the church is perfect, incapable of being improved by man. The mission of the church is evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8), edification (Acts 20:32), and benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 11:27-30). These are the works which God foreordained that we should walk in (Eph. 2:10).
9. The church has perfect ability to accomplish its divine mission. The perfect Architect, who perfectly planned the church, created the church with the ability to accomplish the works he gave it to perform. The church of Christ, being perfect, is therefore able to accomplish its God’s given mission of evangelism, edification, and benevolence. Like a well-engineered machine which does the task which it was designed to perform, the church which was purposed in the mind of God and built by Christ is sufficient to accomplish the task which God designed it to accomplish.
The Missionary Society: A Manifestation of Unbelief In the All-Sufficiency of the Church
When men began to clamor for the missionary society to be organized, their writings reflected their loss of confidence in the Lord’s church to accomplish the work of evangelism. Typical of that is Alexander Campbell’s own statements.
1. We can do comparatively nothing in distributing the Bible abroad without co-operation.
2. We can do comparatively but little in the great missionary field of the world either at home or abroad without cooperation.
3. We can do little or nothing to improve and elevate the Christian ministry without co-operation. . . .
4. We cannot concentrate the action of the tens of thousands of Israel, in any great Christian effort, but by cooperation . . . . (2)
Those brethren had lost confidence in the local church to evangelize the world. They wanted a “more efficient organization of our churches” because their present situation was “comparatively inefficient.”(3)
Brethren became so wedded to their new organizations for co-operative evangelism that they affirmed “it is the duty of all the congregations in any city or district to co-operate” in these missionary organizations.(4)
Cecil Willis was correct when he wrote,
Brethren never began seeking to build another organization for evangelistic work until they lost faith in the sufficiency of that organization the Lord provided. It matters not how loud one may shout that he believes that the church is sufficient, so long as he erects another organization to do the work assigned to the church . . . the brethren never built a missionary society until they lost faith in the all sufficiency of the church to preach the gospel.(5)
The missionary society was another organization designed to accomplish the work God assigned to the church. Compare the two organizations:
1. The church of Christ originated in the mind of God (Eph. 3:21); the missionary society originated in the mind of man.
2. The church of Christ is a blood-bought institution (Acts 20:28); the missionary society is a separate organization from the church.
3. The church raises its money through first day of the week contributions (1 Cor. 16:1-2); the missionary society is supported by church donations.
4. The church is organized under elders (1 Tim. 3); the missionary society is under a board of directors.
5. The church does its own work; the missionary society does the work in place of the church.
6. The creed of the church is the New Testament (Jas. 1:25); the missionary society makes it own creed.
7. The church is competent to accomplish its mission (Eph. 1:23; 3:10-11); the missionary society was designed to give greater efficiency in accomplishing the mission of the church.
8. The church oversees its own work; the missionary society oversees the church’s work.
9. The local church is the only functioning unit; the missionary society is considered an official functioning organ of the church.
10. The church does the work God ordained for it to do; the missionary society proposes to do a work greater than any local church alone can do.
11. The church has no universal church structure; the missionary society is an organization through which all local churches can function.
12. There is unity in the one body (Eph. 4:1-7); the missionary society divided the church.
The missionary society was an apostasy born of lack of confidence or faith in God’s church. The Christian Church rejected the all-sufficiency of the church in favor of the missionary society; the Lord’s people rejected human institutions in favor of the church.
Church Supported Colleges
The Lord’s people were relatively at peace regarding human institutions until 1938. During the Abilene Christian College lectures in 1938, G.C. Brewer made an appeal for churches to support Abilene Christian College. In his book W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, Cecil Willis wrote,
In the course of these remarks Brewer pointed out that if all the churches in Texas would contribute to the support and endowment of the school, such requests as then were being made would be unnecessary. In fact, many who were present understood Brewer to say that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget had the wrong preacher.(6)
This touched off the present furor regarding church donations to institutions which has since divided the churches. Immediately, W.W. Otey responded to Brewer in the Firm Foundation.(7)
The issue of church support of colleges involved two issues: (1) Is the work of teaching math, science, English, speech, etc. the work of the church? (2) Believing that teaching the Bible is a work of the church, is the church sufficient to accomplish the task which God gave it to do? The church support of colleges and missionary societies is parallel. If one opposed the church support of missionary societies as unscriptural, he is logically compelled to oppose church support of colleges. There is no biblical difference between church support of colleges and church support of missionary societies. Notice that what was true of the missionary society is equally true of the church supported college.
1. Both originated in the mind of man.
2. Both are separate organizations from the church.
3. Both receive church donations.
4. Both are under a board of directors.
5. Both do a work in the place of the church.
6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.
7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.
8. Both oversee the churches’ work.
9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.
10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.
11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.
12. Both divided the church.
Brethren backed away from the church support of colleges for a time because of the objections raised. The issue of church support of human institutions then shifted from church support of colleges to church support of orphan homes.
Church Support of Orphan Homes
The support of orphan homes was an issue with which brethren became more emotionally identified than church support of colleges. Consequently, the debates over our differences regarding human institutions have almost exclusively centered on church support of orphan homes. Even in brother Lanier’s paper submitted for response, only one human institution receiving church support is defended the orphan home. If the benevolent institution question was solved, we would have dozens of other human institutions supported from the treasury to divide us. Why has our brother ignored these institutions?
The issue involved in this conflict involved two questions: (1) Is the church limited in benevolence to saints only? (2) If the church has an obligation to provide care for orphans, can the church send donations to a human institution to provide that care for them? My understanding of the Bible is that the church is limited in its work of benevolence (cf. 2 Thess. 3:10 which forbids helping saints who win not work and I Tim. 5:16 which charges individual Christians to care for their own that the church be not charged). However, I personally know of no local congregation which divided over whether or not to take care of a non-Christian in need. The problem of church supported orphan homes was result of shifting and personal responsibility which might be illustrated like this:
James 1:27, Galatians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16, passages which give commandment to individual Christians, were transferred to the church; personal responsibility was shifted to church responsibility. This transferred responsibility was then transferred again from the church to a human institution.
Brethren differed, but did not divide, over taking money from the congregational treasury to help a non-Christian. However, the sending of donations to a human institution to provide care for orphans divided churches. Many congregations have been split over sending a $25 a month donation to an orphan home as a means of declaring with which side of this issue they were identified. Like the support of missionary societies before, the supporting of benevolent societies was defended as an expediency, but churches which refused to support them were ostracized by those who made sending a donation to an orphan home a litmus test of faithfulness to God.
Some of those who opposed church supported missionary societies to accomplish their work also opposed church supported benevolent societies to accomplish their work. The two were logically parallel, without a biblical difference. Compare the church support of missionary societies with the church support of benevolent societies.
1. Both originated in the mind of man.
2. Both are separate organizations from the church.
3. Both receive church donations.
4. Both are under a board of directors.
5. Both do a work in the place of the church.
6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.
7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.
8. Both oversee the churches’ work.
9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.
10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.
11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.
12. Both divided the church.
Not only did we “anti’s” see these as parallel, so also did the writers for the Firm Foundation who opposed the writers for the Gospel Advocate on this very point. The brethren associated with the Firm Foundation argued that orphan homes had to be placed under elders for them to be scriptural; those writing in the Gospel Advocate stated that putting them under elders was unscriptural. Nevertheless, both groups could join hands to oppose the “anti’s.” Those who agreed with us about church contributions to benevolent societies could not work with us; rather, they have worked with those who practiced what they condemned as sin, remaining remarkably quiet about church supported societies, while the number of these church supported societies continued to increase.
The writers for the Firm Foundation believed that church support of benevolent societies was sinful but should not break the fellowship. They laid the groundwork for the thinking of the grace-unity brethren who oppose instrumental music in worship as sinful but still fellowship those who practice this sin..
Endnotes
1. I am aware that a number of brethren have given up the idea that the New Testament contains patterns. I reject that view, although that is not the assigned subject. I find the position logically inconsistent which goes to the Bible to rind a pattern of no-patternism.
2. Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VI, p. 523.
3. Millennial Harbinger, Series III, Vol. 6 (1849), pp. 90,92.
4. Millennial Harbinger, Series 111, Vol. 3 (1845), pp. 66-67; Series I, Vol. 1 (1831), p. 237.
5. Cecil Willis, Truth Magazine, Vol. V, p. 271.
6. Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, p. 287.
7. W.W. Otey, “Bible Colleges,” Firm Foundation, Vol. LV, Nos. 31,32 (August 2, 1938). p. 1; (August 9, 1938), p. 1.
Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 194, 212-214
April 6, 1989