Presented in 2 lessons on
Sunday, July 11, 2010 am
What is Institutionalism?
Last week a lesson was presenting dealing the subject of how
churches cooperated. Based
on conversations following that lesson, I felt that it would be a good
idea to explain what is at the foundation of our differences with our
institutional brethren. In
this lesson we want to examine what we mean by institutionalism and
explain the primary differences.
But most importantly we will notice WHY these issues are “a big
deal”.
I want to begin by emphasizing that I realize many of the issues
we will discuss are good works and they have a place in the life of a
Christian and/or church. I
also want to emphasize that I do not question the sincerity of churches
involved in the activities we are going to discuss.
But in ALL we do we MUST respect God’s boundaries (Col. 3:17, 1
Cor. 4:6).
a.
My definition (and its use in this lesson) – a doctrine that supports
the right of congregations of the Lord’s church to use its resources,
including funds from its treasury, to build and maintain institutions OR
the centralization of such funds from different congregations to do what
is perceived to be the work of the church.
b.
Institutionalism involves a series of doctrinal issues that have been a
cause of division (twice) between churches of Christ for a more than 100
years now. The reasons for
these divisions cannot be trivialized or relegated to matters of opinion
and personality conflicts (i.e. let’s just agree to disagree), because
they involve key doctrinal issues that affect the very definition of
what the church and her work is AND differences in attitude toward the
word of God.
c.
Some of the tenets of institutionalism that are of concern include:
i.
The belief that the church can build and finance institutions out of the
Lord’s treasury to do the works of evangelism, benevolence and
edification.
ii.
The belief that churches can pool their resources (i.e.
institutionalize) into a sponsoring church or organization to do the
work of a local congregation.
iii.
The belief that the work of the church involves general benevolence to
the community – in the form of benevolent programs to relieve suffering.
Some works that fit in this category would include
orphan and elderly homes, hospitals, soup kitchens, food and
clothing pantries and relief agencies (both temporary and permanent)
etc.
iv.
The belief that the church can organize, support and sponsor social and
community activities such as schools (from pre-school through college),
family life centers (gymnasiums & counseling services), day care
centers, sponsoring ball teams and camps, etc.
The rationalization is that such
benevolence and social programs lead to opportunities to evangelize.
This is a form of the social gospel.
d.
Is there authority for such practices in scripture?
We CANNOT set aside authority to do what we THINK we can do or
WANT to do. There are MANY
reasons why this is so.
a.
The autonomy of the local congregation
i.
The word autonomous means “self-governing” or “not subject to control
from outside, independent” Random House Dictionary,
www.dictionary.com
ii.
A
fundamental characteristic of the church in the New Testament was how
each congregation was TOTALLY autonomous from others.
Every congregation answered directly to the Lord for their own
conduct (many of the letter were written to churches addressing their
individual needs).
As we noted last week, never do we read of congregations collectively
pooling their resources to sponsor some work.
A congregation had complete discretion over their own funds.
iii.
The authority of elders was limited to the local church – Ac. 20:28, 1
Pet. 5:2
iv.
While institutional churches profess to respect autonomy – when they
send their funds to a human organization or sponsoring church to do some
work, they have surrendered their autonomy in that work OR they have
usurped authority over the resources of another congregation.
b.
How do we use the Lord’s money
i.
Anyone who respects authority understands that what is given to the Lord
belongs to Him and it ought to be used according to His instructions and
desires.
Acts 5:3-4, Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit.
What they gave up belonged to the Lord.
ii.
The question is HOW can it be used?
We KNOW there are limitations.
1 Timothy 5:16
iii.
As we study scriptures, whatever we determine to be a scriptural work of
the church (and that includes HOW it is done) then we have authority to
use resources of the church to accomplish that work.
Cf. 1 Cor. 16:1-2.
Note the collection was for a specified purpose – not to do whatever
they wanted with it. As you
study that collection (i.e. last week – Can churches cooperate?) you
find limitations that MUST be respected (such at autonomy, benevolence
was temporary, for Christians only, with no sponsoring church or human
organization created to do the work, etc.)
c.
What is the work of the church?
i.
The work of the church consists of evangelism – preaching the
gospel to the lost and the saved (1 Tim. 3:15, Phil. 4:15-16, etc.);
benevolence toward needy saints (cf Acts 11:27-30, 2 Cor. 8:1-4, 1
Tim. 5:16, etc.), edification – spiritually building up the body
(Eph. 4:11-16, 1 Cor. 14:12, 26, etc.); and worshipping God as we
assemble together (John 4:24, 1 Cor. 11:20-34, Eph. 5:19, etc.)
ii.
In times past we have spent considerable time, examining exactly what
could and could not be done in these various areas.
If we respect the authority of God’s word we will consider the
limitations He has placed upon these works.
iii.
Today, institutional churches acknowledge these as the works the church
can do. However, many such
congregations have redefined each work of the church – both what it is
and how it is to be done.
Evangelism is often carried
out by sponsoring churches and campaigns –In addition to this, many
churches will sponsor an area of the world to evangelize and seek the
support of other congregations to send them money to do the work. Such
works violate congregational autonomy and rules of cooperation in
scripture.
Benevolence is extended not
just to saints, but generally to all who are need y within a
community – this is done by creating permanent organizations or long
term projects – both of which are foreign to the New Testament pattern.
The “justification” for such, among other things includes such is used
as a tool to evangelize.
Such is also justified by verses which speak of “doing good”.
The reasoning is that because it is a “good work”, it must be
pleasing to God.
BUT, the question I ask is, WHO determines what is and is not a good
work? Furthermore, it is not a question of whether we should be
concerned with these things, but HOW is it to be done?
There is not a single example in scripture of a church engaged in
general benevolence. It just
does NOT exist! In fact, 1
Timothy 5:16 RESTRICTS benevolence within the local congregation.
Every example of benevolence was for needy SAINTS – 2 Cor. 8:4,
Rom. 1:26, Acs.11:29
In the name of edification, churches have engaged in all sorts of
recreational and social activities, often building, with the Lord’s
money, facilities for such uses.
This is often done in the name of fellowship, so much so that the
term fellowship has come to be associated with these types of
activities. Also the term
edification, which means “to build up” is broadly interpreted to include
anything we do together – whether spiritual or physical.
When an uninformed person reads the term fellowship in scripture, they
often associate it with these types of works.
But the term in scripture, means “sharing” and
is used primarily of a
spiritual relationship one has either with God or with his
brethren. See Rom. 15:26, 2
Corinthians 8:4, 1 John 1:6-7.
d.
The difference between the church and the
individual
i.
Institutionalism misunderstands the distinction between the church and
the individual. One of the main
arguments used to justify general benevolence is to say that what the
individual Christian can do, the church can do.
Based upon this they will appeal to passages like James 1:27 and
Galatians 6:10 which address our need to take care of the needy (and not
just Christians).
ii.
But the Bible makes a CLEAR distinction between the church and the
individual. There are things
to be done as the church, such as certain acts of worship (i.e. the
Lord’s Supper – Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33), and there are
responsibilities that individuals have which are distinguished from the
church (consider 1 Timothy
5:8, 16 & Matt. 18:15-17).
iii.
Also, when examining the context of both James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10
you will see clear reference to individual Christians rather than the
assembled church body.
a.
The above point demonstrates some of the main doctrinal differences
between institutional congregations and non-institutional congregations.
I am sure there are other differences, but these are key errors
that we cannot ignore when it comes to fellowship with one another and
with God.
As stated earlier, these issues are at the core of what the church
actually is AND how we approach the word of God.
A note of observation: Not
every institutional congregation espouses all of these errors. Honesty
in our studies demands that we consider each congregation individually
before we begin making accusations.
But as a rule, most of these issues will be found together in a
congregation to one degree or another.
So what is the big deal?
b.
It is about authority – at the foundation of our differences is how we
establish authority for all that we do (Rev. 22:18, 19; cf. Deut.
4:1-2). IF we are going to
truly respect the word of God and its boundaries, we must consider these
things. 2 Timothy 2:15
tells us we must “rightly divide the word of truth.”
1 Pet. 4:11 challenges us to speak only as “the oracles of God”
When discussing these issues with one of the institutional persuasion
you will usually find a more LIBERAL approach to the Bible.
One of the biggest justifications for institutionalism is the silence of
God’s word. It is sometimes
argued what is not specifically prohibited is authorized.
The scriptures WARN us against appealing to silence for justification (1
Cor. 4:6, Heb. 7:12-14, 2 John 9, Acts 15:24).
ANYTIME one appeals to silence for authority it is an admission
that authority is lacking or at least questionable.
If they address these issues with a liberal mindset, what is next?
We CANNOT twist the scriptures and expect God to be please with
us (2 Peter 3:15-16).
c.
It is about responsibility – in many of the actions
we have discussed, individual (and autonomous congregational)
responsibilities are delegated to some organization or sponsoring
church.
In the end, we will stand before God and answer for our own conduct – 2
Cor. 5:10. We cannot rely
upon someone else to save us by proxy.
The same is true of the work of the church.
You cannot relegate your responsibilities as the Lord’s church to
anyone or anything else.
d.
It is about ignorance – we might ask, “If what you say is the truth (i.e.
the non-institutional position) why are these things so readily accepted
by so many?” One of the
reasons is ignorance.
Many institutional congregations
do not spend much time addressing these issues (and some of our
non-institutional brethren are equally guilty of this). They treat these
issues as if everyone agrees that they are acceptable (and with most of
the religious world, they are not only acceptable, but expected). People
simply do not study the issues and ASSUME they are acceptable.
Are assumptions an
acceptable way to establish authority?
Consider 1 Kings 13:11-34 where
an unnamed prophet condemns Jeroboam for his sins in worship against
God. He was instructed to
not eat with anyone in that place.
But an old (and lonely) prophet wanted his company and lied to
him saying that the Lord had instructed him to bring the younger prophet
back (vs. 18). The younger
prophet ASSUMED he told the truth.
He didn’t and the young prophet died.
Israel ASSUMED they could conquer Ai with a small force after Jericho,
but God was not with them.
They had failed to inquire of Him (Joshua 7).
Consider Paul - Acts 23:1 who in good conscience persecuted Christians
(Ac. 22:34). 1 Timothy 1:13
– he did it IGNORANTLY!
Prov. 14:12 says, “There is a way
that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (16:25)
Others (not all) are dishonest about our differences and use
prejudicial labels like “anti’s” or “orphan haters”.
In preparing for this lesson, I came across a number of hateful
distortions about our convictions.
A few years back, Contending for the Faith (a periodical
published by brethren of the institutional persuasion) marked Brian
Yeager who renounced and repented of having been in this false system by
saying, “Hence, Yeager and the Butler congregation now hold views which
imply: 1. A Christian who takes one thin dime out of the church treasury
to buy milk to feed a starving infant will go to hell when he dies
unless he repents of such a sin… 4.
It is a sin for a Christian mother to breast feed here infant
child or to give it a bottle of milk in the church building…”
(Contending for the Faith, September, 2001)
Friends these are prejudicial statements that promote ignorance
rather than honest examination.
USUALLY, when such rhetoric is used there is not good reasoning
behind the position being defended (i.e. it has holes in it, etc.).
Another website, in an article entitled, “Those
Man-made laws from Anti-“institutionalism” Churches”, equated
our asking, ‘Where is the
authority?’ for some of the actions we are discussing to not having
specific authority to drive a car to the church building or websites and
power points.
Acts 17:30-31 warns us
that ignorance is not acceptable.
Romans 10:1-3 speaks of the ignorance of the Jews.
One final thought here: Isaiah 55:8-9 notes that the ways of God and not
the ways of man. RESPECT
GOD’S WAYS!
e.
It is about attitude – who are we trying to please?
The above innovations that we have been discussing are about
appealing to men and their cravings rather than God.
Many of the innovations appeal to the carnal man instead of his
soul. They appeal to man’s wisdom
for justification.
In reality it is selling out the
gospel to be like the nations around us. (cf. 1 Sam. 8:19-20) - remember
how Israel asked for a king to be like the nations around them.
Even when warned of the dangers, they didn’t care.
Samuel was right.
Have you noticed how far too many today see the church as nothing more
than a social organization? When looking for a church, they ask, “What
do you have to offer us?”
And they are not talking about scripture!
We continually have people knocking on our door requesting
handouts. They are NOT
interested in the gospel but in some social need being satisfied.
In all we do, we need an attitude check.
It BETTER be about pleasing God rather than ourselves – Col.
3:17.
Don’t forget how upset Jesus was when they turned the temple into a
house of merchandise – Matt. 21:12-13, John 2:13-17.
f.
It is about God’s pattern?
I am convinced that God in His infinite wisdom knew what He was
doing when the church was planned, bought with the blood or Christ and
begun on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
As it developed, the pattern God set in motion worked and to this
day it will still work. God
doesn’t need our help to improve upon His pattern any more than he
needed Abraham’s help in fulfilling His promise to him (cf. Gen. 15:1-3,
16:1-4). Instead He needs
our RESPECT for His word and ways!
g.
It is about what is next.
An honest institutional preacher or brother will admit there are
no examples of the way they carry out their work in the Bible (which is
why they appeal to silence and implications).
What I have noticed about innovations is that with very few
exceptions, it only takes a few years for the next generation to “push
the envelope” a little further.
WHERE WILL IT STOP?
This is seen in the differences between institutional churches now and
when we divided some 60 years ago.
It is seen in where “Christian churches” are now compare to when
we divided in the late 1800’s over the missionary society and
instrumental music.
Friends, we cannot afford to just ignore differences that
undermine the very foundation of our faith and the Lord’s church.
What I have presented in this lesson is just an introduction.
There is so much more to consider in each of the points we have
identified. Let me encourage
you to study these thoughts further considering God’s word and work.
Perhaps at some future time, we can address these issues more
fully from the pulpit. In
the meantime, think about these things prayerfully and strive to please
God and yourself. Think
about it.