LectureshipIssue.com

Worship: "the Church" or "the Foundation"?

by Gene Frost

Every major apostasy in the history of the people of God has involved the functional arrangement of the saints, whether in evangelization, edification, or worship. The underlying question that has to be addressed in every generation is: in what arrangements may individual Christians come together to jointly propagate the faith, encourage and strengthen one another, and to worship God? Has God ordained a particular collectivity, or are we at liberty to design and implement collectivities of our own choosing?

There is no questioning the fact that God ordained a particular arrangement in which His people are to function collectively, viz. the church, the local assembly. It is so structured and commissioned that it is sufficient to do all that God has ordained for His people to do collectively. The question then is: does God's will provide for humanly-devised arrangements? Are the saints left with an option to function in the church and/or in the human organization?

There is no questioning the fact that God ordained a particular arrangement in which His people are to function collectively, viz. the church, the local assembly. It is so structured and commissioned that it is sufficient to do all that God has ordained for His people to do collectively. The question then is: does God’s will provide for humanly-devised arrangements? Are the saints left with an option to function in the church and/or in the human organization?

The devil has ever appealed to man's pride, with the temptation to build something that surpasses God's wisdom. God's churches are autonomous, hence limited in their work to the energy, talent, and resources of the local congregation. Denominationalism is founded upon the concept that it furnishes arrangements that permit the collective effort of its members in efforts that supercede a local church's ability. They have their national conventions with thousands congregated in worship, well-designed multi-colored publications of highest quality with a wider circulation than any local body could afford, network radio broadcasts that cover the nation … we say "national," yes, and beyond, "international." It creates a competition among clerics to reach the highest echelons of power and influence. It is a heady experience. This is called centralization.

In The Early Centuries

It was not long after its establishment that the "whole church spirit of the age tended toward centralization; it everywhere felt a demand for compact, solid unity; and this inward bent, amidst the surrounding dangers of persecution and heresy, carried the church irresistibly towards the episcopate."1 Ignatius, for example, urged that from the presbyters in the churches certain ones should occupy a higher position, to head each local church. They were identified as bishops (episcopates) as distinct from and superior to the other presbyters.2 The bishops wielded tremendous control of the churches, with the bishops of the larger churches in an area assuming even greater power, then to be called arch-bishops. As far as the influence of each metropolitan church extended, that became the diocese of the bishop. And so, with the vying of power, the churches in Rome and Constantinople became the great centers of power in the West and the East. With the schism in 1045, there were formed the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and the Western Catholic churches. Thus the church universal (catholic) centralized in Rome (hence Roman Catholic) and in Constantinople.

In the Mid-1800s

Centralization afflicted the churches of Christ in the 1800s with the establishment of missionary societies (some also in the role of a benevolent society). The concept of the promoters was that the divine order, the church, pertained only to a limited location and is restricted as to oversight, work, and acquisition of funds, whereas the human society, not being regulated by the Lord has no restrictions, and may operate throughout the brotherhood of believers. Alexander Campbell wrote:

“A church of Jesus Christ is an organized body, or company of disciples of Christ, meeting statedly in some one place to worship God through Jesus Christ, and to edify and comfort one another, and ... the church of Christ in the aggregate, is the same as the kingdom of Jesus Christ — or the whole Christian community on earth composed of all them in every place that are baptized into Christ.

“The officers or servants of the churches are therefore of two classes; — Those who belong to a particular community; and those that belong to the whole kingdom of Jesus Christ. Each community has its own bishops and deacons, its own presbytery and diaconate ...

“But besides these, there were also officers that belong to the whole Christian community. — Such were the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and public messengers of the Apostolic age, and such still are the missionaries and messengers belonging to the communities of any one state, nation or province …”

With this concept prevailing, many of the churches formed cooperative efforts, first within districts. But soon there were "state meetings" and finally "brotherhood meetings" in the form of societies.

"Cooperative work among the Disciples developed gradually from the bottom upward. Slowly the yearly meetings of contiguous local churches assumed responsibilities for the joint support of an evangelist and soon there was a county or district board of missions. These district conventions speedily developed into state meetings which formed state societies and elected officers responsible for administration."

Missionary societies of this period were not only church-supported, but also individually-supported.5 As one such society reported: "This co-operation is designed to be permanent, not yearly: - an individual, not a congregational association. It seems that almost all the efforts to co-operate by churches, have failed." Officers in these societies functioned beyond local congregation, in the "brotherhood."

In the 1950s

In the past century, in the memory of many of us still living, there was a resurgence of centralization. The mistakes of the early apostasies were repeated in principle; only the names were changed. Besides the "sponsoring church" arrangement of churches and the church-supported "orphan home" societies, there was an effort to activate the brotherhood in an individually-supported society.

A publishing company was established, which solicited and received funds from individuals, through which the gospel could be propagated through the printed page. The Gospel Press was organized and incorporated in 1955, to be "supported by individual members of the CHURCH OF CHRIST." They announced:

"The Gospel Press is a non-profit corporation. It is a publishing house, incorporated under Texas law for religious, educational literary purposes. Its chief design is to publicize the church and broadcast the truth. It will function precisely as such publications, Firm Foundation, Gospel Advocate, et al., with two exceptions: it will employ national magazines to carry the message, rather than attempt to print and distribute a periodical of its own, and it is non-profit."

"Contributions are needed now to continue this work of national advertising. This work is supported entirely by individuals."

This was a society that operated in the "brotherhood"; its officers were not overseers in a local congregation, but overseers of a brotherhood work.

The Present

In the October 1976 issue of Gospel Anchor, I wrote a brief article, "Foundations or The Church?" in which I called attention to things some brethren were prepared to accept at that time. They saw in Foundations a way to have a national radio/television program; to have a national journal, printed study courses, and tracts for free distribution; to send and support preachers throughout the world. "Every facet has been suggested, either in fact or in principle, by 'conservative' preachers. And this alarms us. Not only does it portend a serious threat, considering the tremendous concentration of power, but the very concept is an expression of dissatisfaction with the Lord's arrangement, the Lord's church."

The following year, I published a series of articles in "a study of religious collectivities." Nine months later, Mike Willis, without having offered a single argument from Scripture, either in defense of individually-supported missionary societies or in refutation of the Scriptural arguments we levied against them, referred to the articles as presenting one among many "peculiar doctrines" he related. This precipitated an exchange of articles and letters, now published in a book, "Individually Supported Missionary Societies" ("including an exchange with the editor of Truth magazine"). In the course of the exchange, brother Willis admittedly failed to make a Scriptural argument in refutation of what we have written, but promised to do so:

"In keeping with Brother Frost's request, I have prepared a reply to his position on collectivities. In keeping with his admonition regarding wisdom and experience, I have withheld publishing it for several months, to give some brethren time to read it and criticize it. As soon as this is completed, I plan to publish the material in booklet form, providing that circumstances are favorable to its publication."

The "prepared reply" was never published, and the Scriptural arguments that I presented against religious collectivities have never been addressed … ridiculed, yes; dismissed with a wave of the hand, ignored, but never answered. (1 Pet. 3:15)

The Complete Picture

In the course of our exchange, I noted the consequences of the premise that allows man to design and promote his own religious collectivities, even as some have argued. Under the sub-title, "The Ecclesia of the Lord," (which accounts for the frequent use of ecclesia) I wrote:

"In recent years some brethren have assumed that the individual is entirely free to form, and associate himself with others in any church (ecclesia) of his liking. Not only in the secular realm is this true, but also in the religious where God has ordained His religious church (ecclesia). The church (ecclesia) of the Lord is a means of cooperative effort in worship and service to God, but it is not exclusive. These brethren have presumed to create human religious churches (ecclesiai) - parachurches (human churches, ecclesiai, functioning along side the Lord's church, ecclesia) - for the propagating of the gospel. Since the individual has responsibility to teach the gospel, they reason that individuals may form teaching churches (ecclesiai) in addition, or along side, the church (ecclesia) of the Lord.

"The individual also has individual responsibility to worship, and therefore his teaching churches (ecclesiai) may also conduct worship activities. Yes, they argue that the human religious church (ecclesia) - whether called foundation, society, association, et al. - may conduct religious services, engaging in singing, preaching, prayer, and even taking up a contribution (and is not limited to the first day of the week, as is the Lord's church, ecclesia). For example, the "foundation" church (ecclesia) may conduct a gospel meeting, engaging in preaching, singing, prayer, and even take up a contribution at every service, any day of the week! In fact, the human religious church (ecclesia) may do all that the Lord's church (ecclesia) may do, and without the restrictions placed on the Lord's, except to serve the Lord's Supper (and a reasonable explanation for not doing this also has not been forthcoming). Jesus died on the cross to establish a church (ecclesia) whose only exclusive function is to serve the Lord's Supper! Jesus approves of human churches (ecclesiai), composed of Christians, which function in every capacity as His, the difference being that He is the Founder and Head of His, the overseers of His must meet divine qualifications, His is restricted in ways of financing its efforts, and His must be autonomous, while the human is not so restricted.

"Yes, we have brethren who so reason. This is why this writer has been insistent in his plea for Scripture that authorizes the human religious church (ecclesia). There is none! This is why the proponents of religious foundations, human churches (ecclesiai), have been so quiet in response to the appeal for authority and have instead resorted to carnal tactics in an effort to call attention away from their utter failure."

While some were ready to adopt the whole package, others would only grant the collectivity to function as a teaching society, to disseminate religious literature.

The Complete Picture

Prejudice held back the full progression of the society mentality. Now, however, with a new generation, unfamiliar with the problems of the recent past, what was envisioned is a reality. The Guardian of Truth Foundation has announced the "First Annual Truth Magazine Lectureship," with singing, preaching, and we presume prayer. What of the Lord's Supper should they meet on a Sunday? Worship is no longer the exclusive prerogative of the church for the collective worship of the saints!

Upon receiving the announcement of a Lectureship sponsored by the Guardian of Truth Foundation, I wrote to Mike Willis the following letter:

January 30, 2004 

Dear Mike:

 I have received the announcement of the "Truth Magazine Lectures" scheduled in Bowling Green, KY for July 12 through 15, this year. In conceiving and planning this activity, the GOT Foundation is not functioning in the role of a publishing company, to produce and sell a product, but assumes a role which supplants the local church. By conducting services on Wednesday night, the brethren in Bowling Green have an option, to worship with the local church or with the Foundation. The Foundation, in propagating the gospel, depreciates the church. In the February 15, 1979 issue of Truth magazine, you wrote: "In keeping with Brother Frost's request, I have prepared a reply to his position on collectivities. In keeping with his admonition regarding wisdom and experience, I have withheld publishing it for several months, to give some brethren time to read it and criticize it. As soon as this is completed, I plan to publish the material in booklet form, providing that circumstances are favorable to its publication." The reply was never published, and you and I know why. I think it is time for you to publish your defense of the Foundation's role as a religious collectivity, especially now as it purposes to function in the same capacity as the local church in conducting religious services in propagation of the gospel. Mike, I am sincere. If I am wrong, show me in Scripture wherein I err. Others associated with you have read your material, but I have not. You can at least send me a manuscript copy of the reply you prepared twenty-five years ago. 

Sincerely, 

Gene Frost

Tuesday morning, February 3rd, brother Willis telephoned me. We had a cordial conversation. The bottom line is: he is not going to publish the "promised reply," nor discuss this issue.

Silence (refusal to discuss the issue) worked before … will it work again? The Foundation was challenged. The challenge was ignored. That did not mean that the issue was settled or was no longer a problem for the people of God. Now that the Foundation directs worship services, the problem is before us again. Do we ignore it? Do brethren really not care? Are we, brethren, prepared to accept individually supported collectivities in doing the work God assigned to His collectivity, the local church? If so, then we owe an apology to our liberal brethren of the 1950s. Every work they proposed could have been done simply by individual Christians bypassing the church to support a Foundation to do the work.

There should be a groundswell of outrage that men would presume on the Lord's order. Are we so emotionally wedded to human institutions that reason has no audience?  

New Book by Gene Frost

 1 - Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, page 142.

 2 - John C.L. Gieseler, A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History (trans. from German by Samuel Davidson), vol. I, pages 106-108.

 3 - Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, May 1849, page 269.

 4 - Grant K. Lewis, The American Missionary Society and The Disciples of Christ, page 5.

 5 - J.T. Johnson, Christian Journal, cited by John Rogers, op. cit., page 229.

 6 - H. Goodloe, Jos. Smith, J.L. Rice, Christian Journal, vol. III, No. 40, p. 626.

 7 - Homer Putnam Reeves, Firm Foundation, Nov. 1, 1955.

 8 - Ibid.

 9 - Mike Willis, Truth magazine, February 15, 1979.

 10 - Gospel Anchor, January 1980.