|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 7, NUMBER 4, JANUARY 28, 2007 NON-INSTITUTIONAL LIBERAL CHURCHES ****The following is an article that was written for publication in Truth Magazine. It appears in the February 2007 issue of that periodical. I was not a member of the Body of Christ back in the days when the institutional issue caused such heart-rending division within the Lord’s church. But not being there hasn’t prevented me from immersing myself in a study of the matter to determine, first of all, what was right and what was wrong; and secondly, to seek to understand what led to the division. I believe that without question the brethren who emerged as non-institutional were correct in the choice that they made. The church is all sufficient to do the work that God has given it. Human institutions only serve to deny the all sufficiency of God’s church and the perfection of His pattern. Concerning what led to the division, it is apparent that it came about as the result of the development of two different attitudes toward the Scriptures among the brethren. One, the “conservative” attitude, said that we must have Bible authority, either specific or generic, for everything that we do. The other, the “liberal” attitude, sought a certain amount of freedom from the need for Bible authority in everything we do, arguing “we do many things for which we have no Bible authority.” I believe that the only sound attitude to have regarding authority is the “conservative” attitude, demanding book, chapter, and verse for the things we believe and practice. This is in harmony with the requirement that we “make all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5) and with the biblical assertion that we have been given “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Over the years many have identified churches as being “liberal” or “conservative” on the basis of whether or not they were institutional in their practice. While institutionalism is still wrong and still an issue, calling a church conservative because it does not support human institutions to do the work of the church is like calling a dog a cow because they both have four legs. There is a whole lot more to it than that. In city after city, town after town, there are congregations that are conservative as far as the institutional question is concerned, but characterized by a liberal mindset in practically every other way. There are congregations that will not exercise the final step in discipline, withdrawal, for any reason and under any circumstances. They will not support human institutions out of the treasury, but they will not follow the New Testament teaching concerning discipline either. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” This is as much a “command” as is the command to be baptized for the remission of sins, yet congregations refuse to do it. You will get a great big hug when you walk in the door, and love will be freely and continually talked about, but when you stray and your salvation is at stake, such congregations will not take the final step, out of love, that God requires. In what way can such a congregation be truly called “conservative,” or even faithful for that matter? There are congregations that will not have elders because the members do not wish to be under the authority of anyone, even though the New Testament pattern is a plurality of elders (men who meet the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1) overseeing each local church. I have personally been aware of people leaving a faithful congregation overseen by good and upright elders, because they chaffed under that authority and were able to convince enough people to join them in their rejection of God’s divinely given pattern for the organization of His church. Off they go to start a “new work.” The existence of that new non-institutional church will be announced and people will rejoice at the growth of the body. Yet all it will be is a non-institutional liberal church. They will not give money to human institutions, but how can such a congregation be called “conservative?” There are congregations now, non-institutional, who are seeking to give a more deeply spiritual flavor to their worship. Frustrated by what they perceive as “ Church of Christ traditions” they seek to bring in innovations meant to make the worship more meaningful. Consequently the acts of worship are called into question. Some deny that giving is an act of worship and say that the weekly contribution given into a common treasury is one such “Church of Christ tradition,” in spite of what even the most recent scholarship has to say about 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. “Need-driven” contribution is the byword now, characterized by a failure to recognize that God has given His church a continual threefold work in which to engage and that the need is therefore continual and constant. By the way, I capitalize Church of Christ only to emphasize the entirely denominational concept those who would make such statements have about the Lord’s church. In some of these churches the Lord’s Supper is preceded by “testifying” by both men and women concerning what the Lord has meant to them and done for them over the past week. All of the preaching must be positive, no reproving or rebuking allowed. There is a casual, come-as-you-are attitude displayed. Will they give money to support a human institution? No, but please explain how such churches can be labeled “conservative.” In reality there are many churches that can be called non-institutional, but in many other ways have strayed from the “doctrine of Christ” and have little resemblance to the church we find in the New Testament. The truth is there are many non-institutional, liberal churches, some of which are characterized by all of the things mentioned in this article. As a noted brother from years gone by used to say, “Brethren, we are drifting.” Greg Litmer
|